Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 10/11/1988 GEORGIA RAMIREZ DEPUTY CITY CLERK NOTE: THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL OPEN SESSION AT 6 :45 P.M. IN THE FOURTH FLOOR CLUB ROOM FOR ARCHITECT' S PRESENTATION REGARDING THE POLICE FACILITY. A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ATASCADERO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA FOURTH FLOOR, ROTUNDA ROOM OCTOBER 11, 1988 7 :30 P.M. RULES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: * Members of the audience may speak on any item on the agenda. * A person may speak for five (5) minutes . * No one may speak for a second time until everyone wishing to speak has had an opportunity to do so. * No one may speak more than twice on any item. • * Council Members may question any speaker; the speaker may respond, but, after the allotted time has expired, may not initiate further discussion. * The floor will then be closed to public participation and open for Council discussion Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call City Council Comment ** PROCLAMATION - ACKNOWLEDGING OCTOBER 15, 1988 AS "WHITE CANE SAFETY DAY" COMMITTEE REPORTS: (The following represents Ad Hocor Standing Committees . Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) 1 . City/School Committee 7 Police Facility 2 . North Coastal Transit Committee 3 . S.L.O. Area Coordinating 8 . Atas . Lake Acquisition Council Committee 4 . Traffic Committee 9 . Business Improvement 5 . Solid/Hazardous Waste Mgmt. Assoc . Committee 10 . Pavilion Committee 6 . Economic Opportunity Commission 11 . Tree Committee COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you the citizen. The Public Comment Period is provided to receive comments from the public on matters other than scheduled agenda items . To increase the effectiveness of Community Forum, the following rules will be enforced: * A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for Community Forum, unless Council authorizes an extension. * All remarks shall be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof. * No person shall be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or staff. * Any person desiring to submit written statements may do so by forwarding to Council, prior to the Council Meeting, nine ( 9 ) copies to the City Clerk by 5 :00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the Council Meeting. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under Item A, Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine, and will be enacted by one motion in the form • listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items . A member of the Council or public may, by request, have any item removed from the Consent Calendar, which shall then be reviewed and acted upon separately after the adoption of the Consent Calendar. 1. SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2. SEPTEMBER 29, 1988 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE POLICE DEPARTMENT PATROL CAR ( $12,763 .30) 4 . RESOLUTION NO. 101-88 - ADOPTING THE ATASCADERO LOCAL EMERGENCY PLAN IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE STATE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICE (O.E.S. ) REQUIREMENTS 5. RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 - ACCEPTING NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FROM THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT TO THE CITY OF ATASCADERO 2 • B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS: 1 . APPEAL BY NEIL NEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN 8- MONTH TIME EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5-87 (Santa Lucia School, 9148 Palomar) (Recommend Denial) A. Public Hearing B. Council Action C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS : 1. PALOMA CREEK PARK EQUESTRIAN ARENA - PROPOSED USAGE & SCHEDULING POLICY (Cont' d from 9/13 and 9/27/88) 2. WALKWAY AT PALOMA CREEK PARK (Report requested at 9/27/88 meeting) 3. POTENTIAL ALTERNATE USES - CAPISTRANO PROPERTY D. NEW BUSINESS: • 1. CONVERSION OF $.50 DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION TAX TO A FEE AND EXPANDING THE BOUNDARY FOR THE LEWIS AVE. BRIDGE FEE 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR UMTA SECTION 18 GRANT APPLICATIONS: A. Bus Replacement- 16 passenger with lift B. Radio/Computer Equipment C. *Bus Shelters ( * State discretionary funds) 3 . NOISE PROBLEM AT ATASCADERO LAKE 4 . REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT INTERSECTION OF SANTA ROSA & EL CAMINO REAL 5. POST OFFICE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT 6 . BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION PROPERTY ACQUISITION 7 . CITY CREDIT CARD - City Manager (Verbal) E. ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (ACSD) • 1. QUITCLAIM DEEDS TRANSFERRING PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ACSD TO THE CITY OF ATASCADERO 3 0 0 F. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION: • 1 . City Council 2 . City Attorney 3 . City Clerk 4 . City Treasurer 5 . City Manager: A. Request Council set next joint meeting with Planning Commission COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTERS. 4 • PROCLAMATION "WHITE CANE SAFETY DAY" October 15, 1988 WHEREAS, the white cane, which every blind citizen of our City has the right to carry, demonstrates and symbolizes his/her ability to achieve a full and independent life, and his/her capacity to work productively in competitive employment; and WHEREAS, the white cane, by allowing every blind person to move freely and safely from place to place, makes it possible for him/her fully to participate in and contribute to our society; and WHEREAS, every citizen should be aware that the law requires that motorists exercise appropriate caution when approaching a blind person carrying a white cane or using a dog guide; and WHEREAS, California law also calls upon employers, both public and private, to be aware of and utilize the employment skills of our blind citizens by recognizing their worth as • individuals and their productive capacities; and WHEREAS, the State of California, through its public agencies , and with the cooperative assistance of the National Federation of the Blind of California, can look forward to a continued expansion of employment opportunities for and greater acceptance of blind persons in the competitive labor market. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the City of Atascadero recognizes October 15 , 1988, as "White Cane Safety Day" and calls upon our schools to offer full opportunities for training to blind persons , employers and the public to utilize the available skills of competent blind persons and to open new opportunities for the blind in our rapidly changing society, and all citizens to recognize the white cane as an instrument of safety and self- help for blind pedestrians on our streets and highways . DATED : October 13 , 1988 O ITA BORGESON', Ma or City of Atascadero CA is /J , MET%//Lr fkEND�� T Me DA • ATASCRO CITY COUNCIL -MINUS S SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7 :35 p.m. by Mayor Borgeson, followed by announcement that Council met prior to meeting in closed session concerning litigation, People v. Becky Williams . ROLL CALL All Present: Councilmembers Dexter, Lilley, Mackey, Shiers and Mayor Borgeson Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Mgr. ; Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Dir. ; Paul Sensibaugh, Pub. Works Dir. ; Lt. Bill Watton, Police Dept. ; Dave Jorgensen, Admin. Svcs . Dir. ; Roland Snow, Fire Dept. ; Bob Best, Parks & Rec. Dir. ; Jeff Jorgensen, City Atty. ; Boyd Sharitz, City Clerk; Cindy Wilkins, Dep. City Clerk • COUNCIL COMMENT Mayor Borgeson announced the Council' s appointments of Jim Rodger and John Vial, on Sept. 19, 1988, to the Board of Appeals. City Clerk Boyd Sharitz administered oath of office to Mr. Rodger (Mr. Vial unable to be present) . Mayor Borgeson issued the following: Recognition plaque to Mike Bewsey, departing Board of Appeals Member (Chairman, 2/82-7/88) Proclamation: "Mental Illness Awareness Week" , October 2-8, 1988, accepted by Barbara Bernard Proclamation: "Fire Prevention Week" , October 9-15, 1988, accepted by Capt. Roland Snow, AFD Councilman Dexter presented a proclamation, Acknowledging Soviet Friendship Visit, October 6-11 , 1988, accepted by Sharon Winslow. Ms. Winslow announced that Sat. , 2 : 00 p.m. , a "Peace Pole" will be planted outside the Administration Bldg. ; the public is invited to attend and may meet the Soviet visitors at that time. She made further announcements regarding the "Soviets Meet Middle America" project and planned local activities. Councilman Shiers noted receipt of a citizen request for closer vehicle access to play equipment at Paloma Creek Park in order to allow for better supervision. Councilman Lilley noted receipt of 1 a call expressing that "there is inadequate handicap access to Paloma Park facilities . MayorBorgeson directed that these concerns be brought to the `atten'tion of the Parks & Rec. Direc- tor. COMMITTEE REPORTS City/School Committee - Mr. Windsor, City Mgr. , announced the committee is scheduled to meet Wed. , 10/12, at 1 :30 p.m. , AVSD offices . SLO Area Coordinating Council - Mayor Borgeson announced she would like to schedule a meeting with Ron DeCarli, Mr. Windsor and herself to discuss Atascadero' s transportation concerns . Traffic Committee - Councilwoman Mackey reported this committee meets tomorrow; she noted, for concerned citizens, that Mr. Sensibaugh is looking into the shrubbery growing into the street at 7735 ECR. Solid Waste Mgmt. Committee - Councilwoman Mackey reported on committee discussion of an extra fee for handling household hazardous waste; also, the committee viewed a video of a recycling plant in Marin County. • Police Facility Committee - At City Mgr. ' s request, Council consented to meet for a 6 :45 p.m. study session, prior to next regular meeting, in order to receive a presentation on the police facility from the architect. Pavilion Committee - Councilman Shiers reported he, Councilwoman Mackey, Mr. Windsor, Mr. Sensibaugh and Chief Hicks visited the Pavilion. Mr. Windsor asked that Council allow 2-3 weeks addi- tional time for an engineer to develop a report on the building and possible alternatives . BIA Committee - Mr. Windsor announced he and Mr. Engen are scheduled to meet with Kirk Pearson at 8 :30 a.m. tomorrow. Tree Committee - Ursula Luna announced the committee will hold a public information meeting to provide tree management informa- tion and an opportunity for public input this Wed. , Oct. 5th, 7-9 p.m. in the Rotunda Rm. , and she urged public attendance. COMMUNITY FORUM Gary Clay, resident, expressed concern regarding the Pavilion Bldg. and encouraged Council to refurbish the .structure for use as a community hall . • 2 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. September 13, 1988 City Council Minutes 2. September 22, 1988 Special City Council/Tree Committee Minutes 3. City Finance Department Report - August 1988 4. City Treasurer's Report - August 1988 5. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 46-87, 11755 Santa Ana Rd. (Blue/Kamm/Dohan/Cuesta Eng. ) 6. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 9-88, 4800 San Jacinto (Palmer/Cuesta Eng. ) 7. Acceptance of Final Parcel Map 44-87, 1909 Traffic Way (Johnston/Cuesta Eng. ) 8. Acceptance of Final parcel Map 12-85, 7100 Serena (Harrell/Dan Stewart Eng. ) There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to approve Items 1-8, seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed unanimously by roll-call. B. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES/REPORTS 1. Tree Removal Request - Vista Rd. Extension (Ibsen/Dan Stewart Eng. ) A. Public Hearing B. Council Action Mr. Engen gave staff report. Councilwoman Mackey commended the Tree Committee for saving a number of trees on this proposal . Public Comment Ursula Luna, Tree Committee, commented that the redesign of this road was a great success and very encouraging, thanking the Mayor for her continued efforts . She also thanked staff for hiking through the site, as well as the developer, engineer and other individuals involved for their cooperation on this project. Dan Stewart, project engineer, briefly apologized to staff for his many calls to get this project through the approval process. 3 �1 Motion: By Councilw6man Mackey to approve the tree protection plan recommended by the arborist, including nineteen``. (19) compensatory planting trees, seconded by Councilman Shiers; passed unanimously by roll-call. 2. Tree Removal Request - 8625 San Gregorio Rd. (Messer/Cuesta Eng. ) A. Public Hearing B. Council Action Mr. Engen gave staff report. Public Comment Robert Carnes, Cuesta Eng. , offered to respond to questions; there were none. Motion: By Councilman Dexter for approval of tree removal permit for 8625 San Gregorio Rd. (Precise Plan 29- 88) , with mitigation measures as recommended by the arborist, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call . 3 . General Plan Conformance Reports: A. City of Atas. proposed extension of Barranco Rd. to Hwy. 41 (addl. access to 3-F Meadows area - cont'd from 8/23/88) B. County proposed acquisition of So. Pacific Railroad right-of-way (Cortez Ave. , east of Curbaril) for eques trian staging area Regarding Item (A) , staff reports were given by Mr. Engen and Mr. Sensibaugh. Public Comment Sam Stevenson, 9220 Lucinda, suggested that Carmelita be com- pleted by moving the large rocks in the creekbed to the curve (which washes out on Carmelita) , fill it in and pave the street. He feels this would also avoid use of an Arizona crossing. Mr. Sensibaugh responded the suggestion is a good one in combination with, perhaps, a future extension of Barranco; however, Caltrans is interested only with encroachments to Hwy. 41 . Lee Freedman, Barranco Rd. resident and CDF' s local Operations Officer, commented on the difficult fire/emergency vehicle access to the area beyond the creek, urging improved access. 4 Ted Monmonier, Barra nco kd. , noting the historic use of the existing crossing by school buses, the water company, City vehicles and others (despite installation of a small berm by Caltrans about 8 yrs . ago) , expressed that it is not a desired crossing and that extension of the logical Colony road seems to make sense. Mr. Sensibaugh encouraged any resident who sees a petition cir- culating for a maintenance district in subject area to get it to his attention. Motion: By Mayor Borgeson that Council accept the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission that this is in conformance with the General Plan, directing staff to negotiate with Caltrans for acquisition of any excess property if there is any, seconded by Councilman Lilley; passed unanimously by roll- call . Regarding Item (B) , Mr. Engen gave staff report. There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilman Lilley that Council adopt the recommendations and findings of the Planning Commission that the proposed acquisition is consistent with the General Plan, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll- call . Motion: By Mayor Borgeson to direct staff to begin zone change proceedings for subject property to (P) Public, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call . COUNCIL RECESSED FOR BREAK FROM 8 :45 - 8 : 55 P.M. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 . 1988/89 road resurfacing project (award resurfacing Bid )#88- 10 to Union Asphalt) (cont'd from 8/9/88) Mr. Sensibaugh gave staff report. Following public comments, discussion focused on the issue of non-City maintained roads . Public Comment Gordon Canfield, Mananita Rd. resident, inquired why Mananita is not City maintained. Responding that (being in the category of the Colony roads) it is not in the City' s maintained road system, Mr. Sensibaugh encouraged Mananita residents to form a main- tenance district; he noted that the sales tax in the future is 5 going to be directed toward road improvements, which may provide the opportunity for needed improvements . Motion: By Councilman Dexter to award the annual resur- facing bid to Union Asphalt in the amount of $324 , 924 .00, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call . D. NEW BUSINESS 1. 20,000 sq. ft. Lot Requirement (authorization to initiate making Ord. 175 permanent- Ord. 175 clarifies the required minimum lot size in LSF-X and RSF-X districts as 20,000 sq. ft. net area with sewer) Mr. Engen, gave staff report. There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilwoman Mackey to initiate a zoning text amendment to make Ord. 175 a permanent part of the City' s zoning regulations, seconded by Councilman Lilley; passed unanimously by roll-call . 2. Atascadero Tree Committee (Initiation of recruitment for permanent appointments) Mr. Engen, gave staff report. Mayor Borgeson read a prepared statement praising the past year' s successful efforts of the current T.C. members in developing and monitoring the Tree Ord. , recommending to Council that the committee now be dissolved and its function be assigned to staff . Councilmembers each expressed their feelings on the subject. Public Comment Richard Alvarez, Pres . of Arbor Tree Surgery, congratulated the T.C. for their work; he noted the hazards related to trees, recommending that an ad hoc committee be retained for tree review and urging that tree professionals be a part of that committee. Robert Nimmo, resident, noted that he has been a vocal critic of the T.C. and encouraged Council to disband it, however, acknow- ledging the valuable public service provided by the committee' s efforts . He expressed opposition to its members entering private property to identify native trees . Following discussion and consensus by Council, Mayor Borgeson directed staff to bring back the necessary ordinance( s) to dis- solve the Tree Committee and directed the City Manager to draft a letter of thanks its members . 6 0 i 3 . Police Dept. Proposed site - Capistrano Ave. (dissolution of lease w/County to construct a police facility on Capistrano Ave. - County property) Mr. Windsor gave verbal staff report, requesting Council direc- tion with respect to possible alternative use for subject property. Mr. Jorgensen, City Atty. , urged that Council make a specific, identified use request of the County, in line with the language contained in the Land Lease Agmt. , dated 9/12/86 . Mr. Windsor was directed to contact the County, requesting 30 days within which to recontact them with a specified use request, and, in the interim, explore with staff other potential uses for the site. The following (3) items were acted upon by one motion. There was no public comment: 4 . Personnel Wage & Salary Classification Study (Authy. to solicit RFP' s to determine costs for a personnel wage & salary classification study 7 . Fire Dept. Vehicle (Authy. to solicit bids for 4-wh. drive vehicle 8. Copy Machine (Authy. to solicit bids for lease purchase option Motion: By Mayor Borgeson to authorize RFP' s for the personnel wage & classification study ( Item 4 ) and for authorization to solicit bids for 4-wheel dr. vehicle (Item 7 ) and copy machine (Item 8) , seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unani- mously. 5. Park & Recreation Dept. vehicle (Authy. to solicit bids for 4-wh. drive vehicle) Mr. Best gave staff report. Mr. Windsor noted that, being below $5 ,000, this purchase does not require the sealed bid process . There was no public comment. Motion: By Councilman Dexter to authorize the purchase of one used truck for Parks & Recreation from Palla Equipment Co. for a total purchase price of $4 ,459 . 00, seconded by Councilwoman Mackey; passed unanimously by roll-call . 7 0 0 6. 1988 Trails Grant Application - Res. 97-88 - (Authy. to file application through State Dept. of Recreation for develop- ment of Atascadero Creek trail system) Mr. Best gave staff report. He expessed his hope, in submitting this grant application, to provide the impetus to get the creekway plan on line during his final few weeks of employment with the City. Public Comment Sarah Gronstrand, resident whose property borders the creek, requested basic clarifications of the Creekway Plan, asking if property owners will be asked to donate land in the future; she urged that the City investigate the purchase of desired land. Tom Bench, owner of a parcel of creekway property in question, also urged that the City further investigate the issue of land acquisition. Mike Tobey, resident, commented on the problem of off-road motor- cycle use in the creek, also noting use of the area by some residents as "the Chicago Landfill" ; he suggested some money be expended to deny 4-wh. vehicle access to the riverbed to inhibit both problems . He encouraged expansion of the creekway plan as far west as possible for the use of equestrians and hikers . Motion: By Councilman Dexter to approve Res . 97-88, approving the application for grant funds for the Trails Grant Program under the CA Wildlife, Coastal Park Land Conservation Act of 1988, seconded by Councilman Lilley; passed unanimously by roll-call . E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION City Manager - Mr. Windsor noted Council ' s acknowledgement of a special 6 :45 p.m. open session, prior to the next regular meeting, for review of the police facility renovation with the architect . MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10 : 10 P .M. TO THURSDAY, 7/29/88, AT 7 : 00 P .M. IN THE FOURTH FLOOR ROTUNDA RM. FOR A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. MINUTES RECORDED BY: PREPARED BY: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk CINDY WILKINS, Dep. City Clerk 8 MEETIN DAT /� /l,f,AGM A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 1988 The joint meeting of the City Council/Planning Commission was called to order at 7 :00 p.m, by Mayor Borgeson, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Dexter, Shiers, Lilley, Mackey and Mayor Borgeson Commissioners Tobey, Luna, Highland, Brasher, Lopez- Balbontin, Waage and Chairman Lochridge Staff Present: Ray Windsor, City Mgr. ; Henry Engen, Commun. Devel. Director; Steve Decamp, Sr. Planner •, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Mayor Borgeson noted that the purpose of this meeting was to review the status of the General Plan and to have policy dir- ection and discussion for the guidance of staff and preparation of the updated Gen. Plan. 1. Work-to-date report - Engen Henry Engen provided background of work to-date in updating the City' s 1980 Gen. Plan. , which actually began in the mid-19701s . In 1985 base mapping for the program was completed. Phase I was done in 1986-87 and reviewed community goals and inventoried existing land use in the City, together with related physical data bearing on updating the plan, including topography, natural constraints, existing lot sizes, existing land use, existing zoning, etc . Phase II of the Gen. Plan was undertaken in fiscal year 187/88 and included the preparation of a draft Parks and Recreation Element, completion of the Economic Research Assoc . (E .R.A. ) Economic Base Analysis and the holding of community forums in each quadrant of the City to elicit comments from the public. With a new Council and five new members appointed to the Planning • Commission, it' s timely to arrive at consensus for direction to staff on updating the Gen. Plan. There is one important engi- neering study that' s under way which will make recommendations on a sewer master plan, together with the optimum location for the 1 ! t" Urban Services Line, now that th'e sanitary district is being dissolved. 2. Policy direction discussion a. General - population holding capacity - urban reserve line' s extent Mr. Engen reported that the Gen. Plan currently indicates holding capacity of approx. 34 ,000 people. Gen. Plan Update determined that, under present zoning, capacity is approx. 32 ,800, after density changes in multi-family zones were completed. The ques- tion was posed whether Council would support this approximate "population goal" in the new Gen. Plan, recognizing that the follow up on various land-use goals for residential, commercial, parks & recreation, etc. , will affect that number and will be a matter of re-evaluation. Councilman Shiers indicated support for low end of the range. Councilman Lilley advised of the need to have a comprehensive approach which recognizes the legal re- quirements for balanced housing goals and the City' s need to not bankrupt the City and meeting our service needs . Extent of the City' s Urban Reserve Line (URL) was discussed, • which stops at the Salinas River and the Templeton sphere of in- fluence line. Councilwoman Mackey indicated support for holding the URL at the Salinas River. Mayor Borgeson then opened the meeting for public comment. Terril Graham stated that overdevelopment would be the threat to being able to adequately provide for services and that the State housing mandates conflict with local objectives . T.A. Collins urged adherance to the goals and guidelines of the existing Gen. Plan. He stated that we should be resolute in opposing amendments which are ill-advised and conflict with rural principles, which he simply expressed as "a country-like atmos- phere" . our current lot size minimums are adequate. Robert Nimmo questioned preoccupation with the build-out figures, noting the plan should go with today' s values and that we can' t really determine holding capacity, given the actions of future City Councils, recognition that the Eagle Ranch will someday be a part of the City, etc . John McNeil spoke to Carmel ' s long-determined efforts to control their growth, noting that so should the City of Atascadero. He felt that the cost of service to large lots was much less than high-density development. He agreed that the business sector provided for the success of Carmel . • 2 Dorothy McNeil spoke in opposition to 10,000 sq. ft. lots, feeling that larger lots with no sewers and less traffic were preferable. Maggie Rice, Chamber of Commerce, referenced 1986 support of the 10, 000 sq. ft. lot minimum lots and indicated that the Chamber' s position has not changed to provide for a middle density choice. George Luna questioned whether there would be support for a housing authority per the 1983 General Plan. George Highland questioned the concept of affordable housing, when $440 per month for a small apartment is more than half of the minimum wage earner' s salary. He cited land cost as the major cost Splitting of a one acre lot into two one-half acres does not reduce the price of a lot in half. Mayor Borgeson agreed and expressed the opinion that planned unit developments would not either. Councilman Lilley said that the 1979 vote for incorporation affirmed the desire to preserve large lots and low density, but it needs to be done in a legal, effective and economically viable way, since residences don' t pay their own way. b. Residential land use - single-family areas: Mayor Borgeson noted that the 1986 City Council turned down 10,000 sq. ft. lots . Councilwoman Mackey indicated they would be OK in multi-family zones . Sarah Gronstrand complained that the meeting had been poorly advertised. She observed that the economic base study indicated that we were over-built for commercial; she thought that argu- ments in favor of residential projects promising affordable housing were a case of "the big lie" . She was concerned that the number of police calls on the south side of Atascadero suggest that it would become a slum. Chairman Lochridge responded that events combined to provide for short notice and that all of the participants had just received the discussion guide for tonight' s meeting, which is a working meeting and will be one of several that will cover the subject. with regard to the population holding capacity question, he supported smaller population at this time . He noted that, at the recent growth management con- ference in San Luis Obispo, out-of-County participants indicated that they wish they had our problem of having a rural environment to protect. He leaned toward the smaller population capacity in the high twenties or early thirty-thousands for today. Mayor Borgeson expressed the desire to slow down the extent to which the General Plan is being changed. 3 f� George Highland recounted that the 'holding capacity of the City had been 42, 000 and was changed to 34 , 000, which was somewhat an artificial figure, because other uses will pre-empt some housing. The issue should be people-per-acre; 16 dwellings per acre could result in 30 people, while four 10,000 sq. ft. lots in an acre might be 16 people. There followed discussion of affordable housing in other cities, the mix of modest with the more expensive homes in Atascadero and the declining role of the Federal Govt. in assuring affordable housing. Condominium conversions were noted as a possible threat to affordable housing, once Federal requirements have been met on past affordable housing construction. Mr. Engen recited the history of the 10, 000 sq. ft. lot question, which the City' s current Housing Element indicates should be con- sidered. It was brought through the hearing process, recommen- dations made for selected geographical areas for 10, 000 sq. ft. lots and was denied by the City Council . Subsequently, the prior Planning Commission, in its goals review, directed staff to re- consider the desireability of 10, 000 sq. ft. lots . This matter is on the Council ' s joint meeting agenda to see if it' s really a desire to pursue that study again; if not, staff could save the time of "beating a dead horse" . Consensus of the Council was to not pursue 10,000 sq. ft. lots, except possibly as an alternative to multi-family zoning. Ray Windsor indicated that, with respect to affordable housing, his experience in. Escondido was that, even with city land and improvements provided free, affordable housing still requires subsidies to work. The alternative was exclusionary zoning, which passed the cost of providing for a certain percentage of affordable homes on to the buyers of other dwelling units in the development. Councilman Shiers concurred, noting that it' s a nation-wide problem of economics that a locality can' t control . Mr. Ferrar, Villa Margarita, referenced the agenda indication of "mobile home encouragement" for multi-family areas and supported the concept. Discussion followed relative to Govt. Code sections encouraging affordable housing and not penalizing them by fees or ordinances in addition to a potential for modular housing. Dorothy McNeil indicated that a problem occurs over sales of mobile home parks, which results in higher rents being charged which forces people out. Mr. Engen advised that the mobile home parks are generally around 8 units per acre, and they are allowable in multi-family zones . In County days, there were specific key "T" trailer zoning areas. 4 George Highland reminded that the Zoning Ordinance had been modified to allow for mobile home placement on single-family lots . Robert Prophet, Palma Ave. , stated that he was a realtor wit- nessing an overwhelming number of people moving here from Southern California. Normal prices are in six figures, and there is a real need for affordable housing. George Luna referenced the E .R.A. report' s recommendation that surplus commercial zoning be considered for multi-family zoning, and Councilwoman Mackey indicated that the Council had opposed that recommendation. Commissioner Luna thought that perhaps 10,000 sq. ft. lots would be a good alternative. Discussion then centered on the Urban Service Line/Urban Reserve Line limits . Consensus was not to extend the URL and to be con- servative on looking at any USL changes . There was general concurrence in the concept that, if there are septic problem areas outside the USL which need sewer service for health rea- sons, exceptions for service might be made provided that the neighborhood character is not changed by changing the zoning to smaller urban lot sizes . Flag lot standards were discussed, Councilman Dexter indicating a preference and encouragement for streets to serve such areas . Mr. Engen advised that it would be appropriate that, where the City knows it wants a local street, to designate it on the Circu- lation Element, whereupon it can be required if any lot splits are requested in such an area. There was consensus that the concern over flag lots is not only aesthetic but primarily a matter of proper police and fire access . Pros and cons of granny housing were discussed, and the history of this having once been rejected by the City Council . Possibi- lities included requiring an annual permit to maintain the right to have a granny house vs . acknowledging that they' re almost impossible to administer. Possibly, they could be allowed with- out conditions other than standard requirements, including minimum lot size. Consensus was that the subject should be evaluated as part of the Gen. Plan Update. MAYOR BORGESON DECLARED A BREAK AT 9 : 20 P.M. MEETING RECONVENED AT 9 :40 P .M. Mayor Borgeson noted that completion of the agenda will require a subsequent study session and that much of tonight's agenda will have to be carried over. Ray Windsor suggested that the Council and Commission may want to have the BIA, Chamber of Commerce and other interested groups invited for discussion on commercial land use. He spoke to 5 Mammoth Lakes ' General Plan process , which included 26 public hearings before the Planning Commission, 3 before the City Coun- cil and, despite extensive advertising on TV, with radio and newspapers, total attendance was in the neighborhood of 200 persons . Mayor Borgeson indicated that she wanted to review incentives, signage and reduction of parking requirements in the BIA area. Discussion ensued regarding the importance of the core area development, the need for a plan and priorities, for the financing of improvements in the downtown and the desireability of commencing a pilot parking program in the downtown. Ray Windsor indicated, with respect to the question of redevelopment, this is a policy decision; there have been places where there have been abuses and legislation has been tightened up on this plan implementation tool . He noted that redevelopment offered opportunities for public/private cooperation and should be explored. Community Development Block Grant funding potential was dis- cussed, with it being noted that it' s difficult to qualify without creating jobs . Chairman Lochridge stated there was a need to pursue a comprehen- sive plan for the downtown and to relieve the area of penalties such as the excessive bridge fee. Mr. Prophet advised that the BIA had been pursuing development of a parking lot next to Wil-Mar Disposal on Traffic Way. Mr. Windsor advised that the bridge fee will be spoken to at the next meeting and he recognized that it is a burden on the down- town. Councilman Lilley indicated there is a need for a set of compre- hensive downtown policies and questioned whether bigger signs meant better business . He stated that the downtown won' t compete with shopping centers but will be comprised of different kinds of businesses . Development of such a plan should not preclude tem- porary solutions such as more efficient use of alleyways . Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin noted the commitment needed by the owners including fix-up/clean-up activities. Bob Smith, Fresno Ave. , recited the history of his seeking larger signage for Century 21 at El Paseo Plaza. Mr. Engen advised that the property is covered by a use permit which limits the signage to 60 sq. ft. Increasing signage requires a use permit. 0 Procedures for obtaining signage exceptions were reviewed, with consensus being that the downtown merited distinctive signage 6 standards which could, theoretically, be administered at the staff level . There was consensus on the need to try and establish a unified theme for the downtown area. Commissioner Waage said that signs are not the downtown's biggest problem and that bigger signs aren' t going to help. There was discussion of the need for parking, providing attrac- tions within the downtown, more incentives, eliminating non- conforming uses from the downtown, enticing desireable uses and working on business promotion. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10: 40 P.M. Another meeting will be sched- uled in the near future to complete the agenda review. MINUTES PREPARED BY: HENRY ENGE, , CommuVity Development Director HE/cw • MEEtt AGENDA DAT l ITEM I� ` MEMORANDUM • TO: City Manager Ray Winer and City Council Members FROM: Chief of Police SUBJ: Proposed Agenda Item: Patroi Car Purchase DATE: Sept. 29, 1988 RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, authorize the purchase of one full-sized, marked police service/patrol sedan for a total amount of $12,763.30 including sales tax. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The purchase of this vehicle is in keeping with the previously authorized current budget which calls for acquisition of one marked patrol car. The patrol car is a 1988 Chevrolet special duty police vehicle identical to those we now own. Recommended vendor (Sopp Chevrolet, Huntington Park, CA) is offering this car to allied agencies through a bidding cooperative process similar to that offered by the State of California. Sopp Chevrolet was the successful vendor now supplying the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department with its patrol cars. • Atascadero Ford was asked (8-26-88) to submit a bid for similarly equipped patrol car, and I was told they were having difficulty getting price and equipment quotes from the factory. (No response as of this date.) Miles Motors was asked (9-29-88) whether a special duty police sedan could be furnished as specified - Ted Miles informed me that he has no such vehicles avail- able to his dealership. In addition to those contacts, I spoke with Mr. Bus Eddy, State Buyer for CHP patrol cars in Sacramento. Mr. Eddy advised me that only Dodge Diplomat patrol cars are available through the State this year, and that this model is being discontinued next year - thus, Dodge police cars will no longer be manufactured. It is noteworthy that in the past, our City and other cities as well have purchased Dodge Diplomat patrol cars, and it is our judgement that they are not as reliable as the Chevrolet and Ford police cars we have owned. Further, there is no Chrysler dealership in our city, therefore, making warranty repairs difficult and lengthy. FISCAL IMPACT: As indicated, the amount reflected was previously authorized by Council in its adoption of our current budget for a replacement vehicle. For your consideration. . . RICHARD H. McHALE RHM:sb • �VtEECT4AGENDAAtITEM I ..,, .. . • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Manager Ray Windsor and City Council Members FROM: Chief of Police SUBJ: Proposed Council Agenda Item: A Resolution Adopting the Atascadero Local Emergency Plan DATE: September 30, 1988 RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution No.101-88which approves the Atascadero Local Emergency Plan in conformance with the State Office of Emergency Service (O.E.S.) requirements.. BACKGROUND: For the past several years, police staff members have been involved in the development of a proper, functional local emergency plan. Jon Lovgren, a former A.P.D. Sergeant, wrote our first Emergency Plan a few years ago in the accepted format at that time in coordination with other City departments. Since then, the requirements have changed, and Sgt. John Hutchins has reformatted the Plan into its current configuration (two volumes!) which fufills the O.E.S. • statewide regulations for local emergency plans. The adoption of our plan benefits our City as follows: 1. The City will now have an officially recognized emergency document with State O.E.S. recognition. 2. Our City will now have the ability to conduct city-wide disaster preparedness drills involving all appropriate City personnel and services. 3. The Office of Emergency Services personnel will assist us in our planning and training efforts. 4. O.E.S. will reimburse some salary costs for key staff members involved in our emergency planning and training efforts. We are now in the process of printing our Emergency Plan, and copies will soon be available to Staff and City Council Members. FISCAL IMPACT: No immediate expenditures are foreseen at this time as a result of implementation. As indicated above, our City will in fact realize some salary reimbursement during this fiscal year for actual staff time used. • For your consideration. . . &01--- RICHARD H. McHALE RHM:sb RESOLUTION NO. n�_RR • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO APPROVING AND AGREEING TO ABIDE BY AND PROMULGATE THE ATASCADERO LOCAL EMERGENCY PLAN AS APPROVED BY THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS. the State of California has each political subdivision to develop and adopt an Er:-,ergency Response Plan which meets the requirements of the State Office of Emergency Services . and WHEREAS . the State of California has reauired each political subdivision to establish an Emeraencv Council along with its subordinate organizational structure , and WHEREAS, the City of Atascadero has submitted to the State Office of Emergency Services an Emergency Response Plan, entitled the Atascadero Local Emergency Flan . and WHEREAS. the State Office of Emergency Service- has , on August 29 . 2958 , issued a letter of approval for the Atascadero Local Emergency Plan, and vgHEREAS , the City of Atascadero has met all -,f the other • rea,uire,ments set Forth by the 'State of Cali fr` rnJ -t� �+ _ , re`,�.r i nor the establishment of an Emergency R S�On^e Pian : - NOW. 71'H E R E-7 0 R E the City ('oi_inci 1 of the City of Atascadero does. by resolution. hereby adopt , abide by and promulgate the aforementioned Atascadero Local Emergenc-,,' Plan; and the Clerk of this Council is herebv authorized and directed to Send a certified copy of this reSCli_ition to the Office of E: eraJ'nc,/ Sersv ,-ces Lcr filing vY t.rl --aid f�ft1�G The foregoing reso l ilt l on r;as introduced on _find adopted at a. regular meeting .,If the Citv C�Duncil held on On motion by Councilman and seconded by Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote . AYES : NOES . • ABSENT ADOPTED : ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA BOYD C . SHARITZ, City Clerk BONITA BORGESON, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: JEFFREY JOR'--SENSEN, City Attorney RAY WINDSOR. City Manager • DllEN©A ITEMS ..�_._._ MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Ray Windsor , City Manager FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh , Director of Public Work Valerie Humphrey, Clerical Technician SUBJECT : Dissolution of ACSD DATE: October 3, 1988 Recommendation : Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the negotiated exchange of property tax revenue and annual tax increment with regard to the dissolution of the Atascadero County Sanitation District . Background: • At the City Council meeting of July 26th Council adopted Resolution 75-88 which began the negotiation period for property tax revenues within the current Sanitation District . The negotiating period is now over . The outcome was predictable, the tax rate for this area will now be structured identical to that of the rest of the City . Fiscal Impact : The sole impact upon the funds of the city will be in the distribution of the tax revenue . Previouslv the amount collected, approximately $65 ,000, was deposited in the ACSD fund. Upon dissolution of the ACSD the funds will be included in the tax revenue collected throughout the city and can be deposited in the general fund. RESOLUTION NO. 99-88 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ACCEPTING NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT FROM THE ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT TO THE CITY OF ATASCADERO WHEREAS, in the case of a jurisdictional change other than a city incorporation or district formation which will alter the service area or responsibility of a local agency, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b) requires that the amount of the property tax revenue to be exchanged, if any, and the amount of annual tax increment to be exchanged among the affected local agencies shall be determined by negotiation ; and WHEREAS, when a city is involved, the negotiations are conducted between the city and the Board of Supervisors for the County; and WHEREAS, when a special district is involved, the negotiations are conducted by the Board of Supervisors of the • County on behalf of the district , unless otherwise requested by said district pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 .1 (3) ; and WHEREAS, in the Atascadero reorganizationn, the dissolution of the Atascadero County Sanitation District was to become effective June 30, 1980; however, the Atascadero reorganization was adopted and approved by the voters after the adoption of Article 13(A) of the State Constitution and before the enactment of said Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b) ; and WHEREAS, Resolution No . 3-80, a Joint Resolution of the City of Atascadero and County of San Luis Obispo concerning non- agreement of exchange tax base resolved that the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Atascadero were not able to agree upon the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 and that since the City and County were not able to agree upon the negotiated exchange of property tax revenue and annual tax increment pursuant to said Tax Code Section 99 the Atascadero County Sanitation District would continue in existence until the City and County did agree upon a negotiated exchange of property tax revenues ; and WHEREAS, the negotiations have taken place concerning the • transfer of property tax revenues and annual tax increment between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Atascadero pursuant to Section 99(b) for the jurisdictional change designated as Dissolution of the Atascadero County Sanitation District ; and 0 0 U/ WHEREAS, the negotiating parties , to-wit : William E. OBriam, County Administration , County of San Luis Obispo and William Hanley, Interim City Manager, City of Atascadero have not✓ concluded said negotiation of the exchange of said property tax revenue and annual tax increment as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS , it is in the public interest that such negotiated exchange of g property tax revenues and annual tax increment be consumated, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Atascadero as follows : 1 . That the recitals set forth above are true, correct and valid, 2 . That the Atascadero County Sanitation District agrees to transfer the following g ne otiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment : a . Property tax revenues in the amount of $64 ,443 shall be transferred from the Atascadero County Sanitation District to the City of Atascadero in fiscal year 1989-90. b. Annual tax increment in the amount to be determined by the County Auditor , based upon the following percentage agreed to by the negotiating parties , 12 .20755 percent , shall be transferred from the Atascadero County Sanitation District to the City of Atascadero in the fiscal year 1989-90 and each fiscal year thereafter, 3 . Upon receipt of a certified copy of this resolution and and required documentation from the County of San Luis Obispo, the County Auditor shall make the appropriate adjustment to property tax revenues and annual tax increment as set forth above. 4 . That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Executive Officer of the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission , who shall then distribute copies thereof in the manner required by law. is 0 0 i Upon motion of Councilman , seconded by Councilman the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote : AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ADOPTED: ATTEST: BOYD C . SHARITZ BONITA BORGESON, Mayor City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer rrIEMr M Z M O^R A N D U M TO: City Council October 11, 1988 VIA: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, Community Development Director �, SUBJECT: Appeal by Neil New of the Planning Commission's approval of an eight month time extension of Condi- tional Use Permit 5-87 (Santa Lucia School: 9148 Palomar) BACKGROUND: On September 6, 1988, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing concerning a request by Santa Lucia School for a one year time extension to allow continued operation of an already established private school . On a 7 :0 vote, the Commission approved a time extension through the 1988/89 school year with an expiration date for the use permit of August 1, 1989 . There • was discussion and public testimony given as reflected in the attached minutes excerpt. Mr. Neil New has appealed the approval for the reasons stated in the attached letter of appeal . ANALYSIS: The school has operated under their written conditions of approv- al as a temporary use pending relocation to a permanent site in Templeton (which the County approved on June 9, 1988) . RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the appeal and extension of the Conditional Use Permit to August 1, 1989 as recommended by the Planning Commission. HE:ps Attachments : September 15, 1988 Appeal Letter: Neil New September 6, 1988 Staff Report September 6, 1988 Minutes Excerpt (Planning Comm. ) cc: Neil New Janet Thompquist Neil New 9141 Palomar Avenue Atascadero, California 93422 • September 15,1988 Community Development Director RECEIVED City of Atascadero P..O. Bos 747 SCP 15 1988 Atascadero, CAlifornia 93423 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subjects Appeal of Revised Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 5-87 (Santa Lucia private school) 1... It appears doubtful the applicant plans to move to. the Templeton site.. 1982-conditional use permit issued to Steve Salyon for day care center. 1986-in June the day care center closed. 1987- in October Jan Thompquist requested a temporary use permit to operate a private shhool until June 1988 until such time as the school would move to their Templeton property. Use permit issued to October 1988? • 1988-June 9th San Luis Obispo County issued a permit to the Santa Lucia School to use the- Templeton property as soon as certain physical:- conditions were meta 1988-Sept. 6th Atascadero Planning Commission extended use permit to August 1,1989. Jan Thompquist thanked the Commission for this extension, stating that that would give her time to prepare her next extension request before the fall school year 1989. 1988- Sept.WjZth no application for permits to bring Templeton property up to required standards have been requested or issued. 2. Use Permit 5-87 extended to Aug.l, 1989 contains no conditions which applicant promised when initially applying for the permit and are therefore unenforceable, i.e. hours of operation (8:30-2:30), ages of students (5-10), days of operation (Mon.-Thur. ) or carpooling. None these promises have been I(ept. (2) 1 3. Use Permit 5-87 extended to August 1,1989 required the shhoo-1 to • comply with all government regulations,e.g. State licensing of a day care center. Applicant admitted (Sept.6th before Planning Commission) to providing extended day care to school children and siblings. Request the extension be denied or a least limited to the end of the current term. Also request that the conditions upon which the permit was issued be made a part of the permit Respectfull , Neil New • M E M G R A N D U M DATE : September 6, 1988 MEETN37 AGENDA DATE 96 -Oe (TEM# TO Planning Commission FROM : Doug Davidson, Associate Planner SUBJECT : Conditional Use Permit 5-87 - Santa Lucia School On October 6, 1987 the Planning Commission denied CUP 05-87, a request for the operation of a private school for a maximum of 32 students. This decision was appealed to the City Council on October 27, 1987 and the appeal upheld. Condition #4 of the approval (see Exhibit J of Staff Report dated October 6, 1987) allowed a one year approval period, unless a time extension was granted pursuant to a written request received prior to the expiration date and Planning Commission approval through a public hearing process. A written request was received on August 15, 1988 for a one year time extension. The staff has attached the prior staff reports covering the approval and the appeal. A review of the approved conditions notes the following: 1. Condition 1 required the compliance to all exhibits and • applicable City Codes. 2. Condition 2 required securing the proper state and local permits and approvals. 3. Condition 3 required that a compliance survey for building code be completed and all corrections made if necessary. 4. Condition 4 limited the use to one year unless a time extension was granted by the Planning Commission. In reviewing the request with outside agencies the staff found no difficulties in the present or continued operation of the school from the site. The Fire Department noted that a yearly fire inspection will be held sometime after school starts. The Building Division notes that all building permits have been finaled. The Police Department notes no problems associated with the operation of the school. The school has operated in conformance with the approved conditions during the last year and staff sees no problems with the continued use of the site as a school. As the time extension request indicates, the school is making progress in securing a permanent school site in Templeton. • RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a one year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 05-87. This one year extension shall expire on October 27, 1989. DD/dd Attachments: Time extension request Prior Staff Report to City Council (Oct. 27, 1987) • SANTA LUCIA SCHOOL O. Box 927 t 8 '98 Atascadero,. CA 93423 �� (805) 434-2217 August 15, 1988 Joel Moses Associate Planner Community Development Department P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 RE: Time extension for Conditional Use Permit 5-87 Dear Mr. Moses, I am writing to request a one year time extension be granted for Conditional Use Permit 5-87 . I understand that a Public Hearing must be held before the Planning Commission to approve this reguest. . On October 27, 1987, the City Council approved CUP 5-87 to allow Santa Lucia School, a private elementary school for 32 students, to operate on a 2 .07 acre site at 9148 Palomar. All Conditions of Approval have been met. We are not requesting changes in this original permit, only that the time be extended. We have received a Conditional Use Permit for our school site in Templeton from the County Planning Commission. We are working to meet the conditions of that permit. We need to operate our school at the Palomar site until our permanent location has been brought up to code and is ready to occupy- Plea I se ccupy.Please contact me if there is further information you require. I can be reached at school (434-2217) or home (239-0814) . Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Janet Thompquist Director . TING O � •��.a 1:EM# — M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council October 27, 1987 VIA: Michael Shelton, City Manager FROM: Henry Engen, P en, CommunityDevelopment Director SUBJECT: Appeal by Janet Thompquist of the Planning Commission' s de- nial of Conditional Use Permit 5-87 to allow a private ele- mentary school for 32 students on a 2.07 acre site at 9148 Palomar. BACKGROUND: At their regular meeting of October 6, 1987 the Planning Commission voted 5:1 to deny the above-referenced Conditional Use Permit. There wasconsiderable discussion regarding traffic and safety issues, and several neighbors spoke in opposition to the project. RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Planning Commission' s denial of Conditional Use Permit 5-87 to establish a private Elementary School by concurring in their Find- ings for Denial. ALTERNATIVE: The October 6, 1987 staff report contains findings for approval and conditions of approvel for the use for one year. HE:ph Enclosures: Letter of Appeal - October 9, 1987 Findings for Denial - October 20 , 1987 Staff Report - October 6, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt - October 6, 1987 Neighborhood Letters cc: Janet Thompquist RECtVt Ou ► - ,�� Santa Lucia School P. ,p. Box 927 Atascadero, CA 93423 October 9, 1987 Atascadero City Council P. 0. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 RE: Conditional Use Permit 5-87 Dear Council Members, I appeal the decision of the Atascadero Planning Commission to deny Conditional Use Permit 5-87 for Santa Lucia School.. I believe the Council should reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve this permit for the following reasons: 1. Traffic safety, the main concern of neighbors opposing this permit, was addressed by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. Their analysis is that even maximum traffic that could be generated from this project would be within the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project. Their • findings are based on fact. 2. There is no eveidence that our offer to carpool, thus reducing traffic further, was given the slightest consideration. 3. People involved in this project are child oriented. The safety and well-being of all children, those attending the school as well as those living in the neighborhood, is our top priority. We will be safety conscious, thcuahtful neighbors. 4. The project site has been historically used as a school . Our maximum enrollment of 32 would be 2/3 of the previous enrollment. We would operate 4 instead of 5 days per week. 5. The permit would expire in one year. The permit would be re-evaluated at that time. 6. The service we offer is desired and would benefit the community as a whole. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Janet Thompquist Director • EXHIBIT I - Findings for Denial Conditional Jse Permit 5-87 Santa Lucia School October 20, 1987 FINDINGS• 1. The proposed use would be a regional facility located within a local neighborhood and is not consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site and policies; and 2. The establishment and subsequent operation and conduct of the the use could, because of the circumstances, be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the general public and persons re- siding in the neighborhood of the use; and 3. The proposed use will be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood; and 4. The proposed use will generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of roads providing access to the project and beyond the normal traffic volumes of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Ele- ment. i __ i CITY OF ATASCADERO ` Item: B.5 STAFF REPORT `, FOR: Planning Commission Meeting Date: Oct- 6, 1987 BY: Joel Moses, Associate Planner File No: CUP 5-87 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit to establish a private Elementary School (kindergarten to sixth grade) for a maximum of 32 students. BACKGROUND: In 1981 the City of Atascadero approved Conditional Use Permit U:810203; 1 for Steve and Jeanne Salayon to allow for the establishment of a Day Care/Pre-school on the site. The approval limited the number of children on the site to 20. An appeal of the approval was made by two of the neighbors to the City Council. The appeal was denied, an additional condition was added to the approval requiring the reduction of the number of animals on the site to levels approved by the Zoning Ordinance. In 1982 the City of Atascadero reviewed and approved Conditional Use Permit U:821020; 1 requested by the Salayons. The Use Permit requested the expansion of the allowed number of children on the site from 20 to 48 children. The expansion was approved. The Salayons have sold the property and the use has been discontinued for more than 6 months. In being closed for more than 6 months, the use has lost its approval status for the Day Care/Pre-School use. The proposed use of the site would thus require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to establish the use. The use would be categorized the same as the previous use as a "school" . A. SITUATION AND FACTS: 1. Applicant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Santa Lucia School 2. Representative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Susan Cook 3. Project Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9148 Palomar Road 4. Legal Description. . . . . . . . . . . .Lot 1,Block 10 Atas. Col. 5. Site Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 07 acres __ i fo 0 Conditional Use Permit 5-87 Oct. 6,1987 Page 2 6. Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RSF-Y (Residential Single Family) 1 ac. minimum lot size with sewer : 1 1/2 ac. minimum lot size without sewer. 7. General Plan Designation. . . . .Moderate Density Single Family, outside of the Urban Service Line 8. Existing Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Single Family Residence 9. Environmental Status. . . . . . . . .Negative Declaration posted September 22, 1987 B. ANALYSIS: The zoning Ordinance allows for the establishment of a school within the RSF (Residential Single Family) Zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and development standards (Sec. 9-3. 153b & Sec. 9-6. 125 Exhibit G) . The approval would be subject to the required findings listed in the Zoning Ordinance for CUP' s (Sec. 9-2. 109). These six findings cover standard areas of concern and potential impacts caused by a proposed use. The findings require that the use or project conform to the General Plan, the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, and the established City Policy and Criteria. In reviewing the project, the use conforms to these requirements. The use meets the required parking standards and location standards set by the ordinance. The proposed use conforms to the General Plan Land Use designation for the site and the Policies concerning the site. Two additional findings are standard findings noting that the use would not be inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood and would not, during the operation of the use, be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. The site has previously been used for a "School" and has operated without dramatic impact on the neighborhood. The site and other "schools" have operated within residential neighborhoods without detrimentally affecting the neighborhoods, or the general public. The proposed school while smaller is a regional facility and sound planning would encourage a location on a collector road and not in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The final required finding address the question of traffic generation from the site or use. The finding requires "that the LJ Conditional Use Permit 5-87 Oct. 6, 1987 ` Page 3 , use or project not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing 4ccess to the project. . . or beyond the normal traffic volume of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from full development in accordance with the Land Use Element" . In reviewing the project' s traffic generation, the staff reviewed the project with the Public Works Department. It was noted that the proposed use would generate approximately 70-80 trips per day. This would be a reduction from the previous Day Care/Preschool use that would have generated traffic in the area of 120-130 trips per day. It was also noted that the use would generate different peak hour demands. The previous use would have peak arrivals and departures that coincided with the peak morning and evening hours, where the proposed use would be off hour (8:30am & 3: 30pm) . The access roads were noted as being able to accommodate the proposed traffic. The applicant has noted in a letter to the neighbors the use of carpooling (Exhibit H) that would reduce any potential traffic impacts. The proposal should be encouraged but the enforcing of any condition would be difficult at best. The applicant has stated that the proposed use would be temporary. Relocation would occur in about one year, (after June 1988) . The staff notes that the use of the site would and should be addressed as a permanent use not as a temporary use. The applicants are seeking to build a new school building outside the City. The problem is that the site is fully developed with a structure that has been previously developed and approved by the City for the use as a school. Comments were received from outside agencies. Comments noted the need for the structure to conform to all Building and Safety Code regulations, and State permit procedures. Also noted was a concern from the Fire Department over the name of the school. The possibility exists of confusing the school' s name (Santa Lucia School) with a location on Santa Lucia Road, rather than its actual site on Palomar. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP:5-87 based on the Findings in Exhibit I and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit J. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Floor Plan Exhibit D - Site Photos Exhibit E - Site Photos . 0 P - Conditional Use Permit 5-87 Oct. 6, 1987 • Page 4 Exhibit F - Supplemental Development Statement Exhibit G - Zoning Ordinance Sections Exhibit H - Applicants Letter Exhibit I - Findings Exhibit J - Conditions of Approval JM/jm • CUP 5-87 • I • 9148 Palomar 1Santa Lucia School • OWN 1 66 ■ VM i:.10 EM Pte.■��� ��'- �••.�' � �s, Y MPA tc���: - /• ;. 14 Mi f sNSA� � V CITY OF ATASCAM 0 EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN 's'•- CUP 5-87 ` asclw � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9148 Palomar DEPARTMENT Santa Lucia School (Cook) r m a T m i � m ba : x•1 b y O 4 o � , t r s m � C p Cn MCD T �D to SO d > N O • 1 N i p V O = Ce n < 2 M A C. a • r p H = 163.20 FEET O EXHIBIT C FLOOR PLAN CI, .,.. ��. . . .�' TY OF ATASCADERO � • n , t979-7 CUP 5-87 ` x COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9148 Palomar DEPARTMENT Santa Lucia School ( ) I 000 ° lil • 3 iS O �INf i o � c I L �b 0 0 m • P � I: i � • a ; i i A • ii �i t CO) ioz n m O r a r1 II i> z N rt 8 r i did ° . • , • • . ; Palomar 4.. nta Lucia School (Cook) Ap r ' —�+c•—.rte ,�„ r `.� z' � ,,.; �° � '� � '�� ••r ''��� �*:ice" c — .ya ..- > s .�1-.•�"'� � ,,. '�•-.� fr_-.Yr �`3 3: ° ;1�i l-.rrl,EJ 1,�+ .�'. � �81jr►`rr^j tea"'4 dna`h y� v - t., ' _"" r�',Ga•...• e, • �r. J rte`? -'?��•t ! n � •�` r a CUP 5-87School9148 Palomar Santa Lucia .. IT VON r �mer T4 +�'�.1•i..1.;� :tt'w�.�5��....,�i:.�^N �.%+.�r4•-,,.t _t.L� � _ Fri� `y l.ia7r � �- IT - "R �o CITY EXHIBIT F DEVELOP14ENT ST. ..nn.. . . ��N OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CUP 5-87 . 9148 Palomar DEPARTMENT Santa Lucia School (Cook) SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT - SANTA LUCIA SCHOOL The Santa Lucia School is a private, non-profit elementary school sponsored by the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of. San Luis Obispo County. The school proposes to lease the site at 9148 Palomar Ave. for the 1987-1988 school year to accomodate a projected enrollment of 32 students, grades K through 6. The school will operate• between the hours of 8:30am and 2:30pm, Monday through Thursday, with childcare available before and after school hours. The school will employ two accredited teachers and two teachers aides, plus an art teacher one day per week. The parents and teachers will carpool daily. The site has been .used historically as a day care center/preschool, licensed for 48 children in December, 1982. Originally a single family residence, the property was converted for use as a preschool in 1981, after receiving its conditional use permit March 16. The school remained operational until April of 1986. The Santa Lucia School is in the process of obtaining its County Land Use Permit for a site in 'Templeton which was purchased earlier this year. Due to delays in receiving approvals and the expected time for building permits and remodeling, the school does not anticipate occupancy until 1988. Therefore, our request is for a Conditional Use Permit at 9148 Palomar Ave. for a 12 month period, beginning in th Fall of 1987. EXHIBIT G Zoning Ord CITY OF ATASCADLRO CUP 5-87 r 1B1"' oil9148 Palomar COMMLIN 'Y DEVELOPMENT Santa Lucia School ( ) DEPARTMENT Schools: An institution or establishment that provides a program of instruction and teaching services. Includes: preschools, nursery schools and day care centers; elementary and secondary schools serving grades K through 12 (or portions thereof) ; junior colleges, colleges and uni- versities; and similar education institutions. Does not include Sun- day schools which are permitted under "Churches and Related Facilities. " 9-6.125. Schools and Preschools. The provisions of this Section apply to preschools and public and private schools providing instruc- tion for preschool through 12th grade children; business and vocation- al schools; and to preschools and other facilities including indivi- dual homes where day-care services are provided to more than six chil- dren. (a) Elementary and High Schools. (1) Location. No closer than 1, 000 feet to CS, CPK, IP and I Zones or 500 feet from a CR Zone. (2) Parking. Off-street parking is to be provided at a ratio of two spaces for each classroom, and one space for 100 square feet of administrative or clerical office space. Except that where Section 9-4 . 114 (Parking) would require more spaces for an on-site auditorium, stadium, gymnasium or other public or sports assembly facility, the larger number of spaces is to be provided. i gQ EXHIBIT H Applicants let. CITY OF ATASCADERO CUP 5-87 B'"'�■ '"'• -� 9148 Palomar * -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Santa Lucia School (Cook) DEPARTMENT Santa Lucia School P .O. Box 927 Atascadero, Ca. 93423 September 26 , 1987 Re: Conditional Use Permit, 9148 Palomar, Atascadero, Ca. Dear Neighbor, We have recently applied to the City of Atascadero to use 9148 Palomar (previously Dove Hill School, 48 students) as a temporary site for a private, non-profit school. We would like to provide you with information regarding this project. 1. Our request is for a maximum of 32 students, ages 5-10 years of age. 2. The Use Permit will be temporary, extending through June, 1988 . 3. The school will be in operation four days per week. In keeping with the residential nature of the area, children will be carpooled to and from the site. The project is scheduled to be heard before the Atascadero Planning Commission on October r . If you have any questions, • please contact us prior to the hearing. Sincerely, Sue Cook - 461-0507 Jan Thompquist - 239-0814 4� EXHIBIT I - FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit 5-87 9148 Palomar Road Santa Lucia School / Cook 1.The proposed project or use is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site and policies ; and 2.The proposed project or use satisfies all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ; and 3.The establishment,and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not,because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use; and 4.That the proposed use will not be inconsistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood or contrary to its orderly development; and 5.That the proposed use will not generate a volume of traffic beyond the safe capacity of all roads providing access to the project, either existing or to be improved in conjunction with the project, or beyond the normal traffic volumes of the surrounding neighborhood that would result from the full development in accordance with the Land Use Element; and 6.That the proposed project is in compliance with any pertinent City policy or criteria adopted by ordinance or resolution of the City Council. The project is in compliance with the City' s Design Review Manual guidelines. JM/jm i EXHIBIT - J - Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 5 `87 9148 Palomar Road Santa Lucia School/Cook 1 .All construction shall be in conformance with Exhibit I Conditions of Approval) and Exhibit B (Site Plan) and other applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Atascadero. 2 . Prior to the establishment of the use the applicant shall obtain all local and state approvals and permits. 3.Prior to the establishment of the use the applicant shall have the site reviewed for conformance to all applicable building and safety codes of the City of Atascadero. This shall include a building compliance survey and the corrections of all items noted in the survey. 4.This Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire one year from the date of final approval, unless a time extension has been granted pursuant to a written request received prior to the expiration date and Planning Commission approval through a Public Hearing process. JM m 410� W Minut - Planning Commission - October 6, 1987 MOTION: M e by Commissioner Hatchell and conded by Commis- sion Bond to approve "Ale Avenue" as a street name to sery Tract 1489 (9240 A scadero Avenue) and to in- terpret t t Condition 7 allow bonding to satisfy the improvement r ireme provided that no building permit be finaled until road improvements are completed. The motion carri 4: with a roll call vote: AYES: Com ' ssioners Hatche Bond, Copelan and Chairman lan S: Commissioners Lopez-Balbontin and 'dwell airman Nolan called a recess at 8:35 p.m. ; meeting recon ed at at 8:42 p.m. 5. Conditional Use Permit 5-87 : Request initiated by Santa Lucia School (Susan Cook) to es- tablish a private elementary school for 32 students on a 2.07 acre site. Subject site is located at 9148 Palomar; legal description being Lot 1, Block 10 in Atascadero Colony. At this point, Steve DeCamp excused himself from the proceedings due to a possible conflict .of interest. Chairman Nolan noted that the Planning Commission ha-s received several letters from adjacent neighbors opposing the project. Mr. Moses presented the staff report recommending approval of the request. He pointed out that the use is a temporary one as the applicants are planning to relocate their facilities in Templeton by 1988 . It was also noted that the Fire Department had indicated a concern with the name of the school (Santa Lucia School) in re- lation to Santa Lucia Road. Mr. Moses then responded to questions from the Commission. Sue Cook, applicant and coordinator of the school, spoke in sup- port of the request and noted that the use of this site was tem- porary in nature. She stated the school has purchased a location in Templeton in which they hop to be able to locate in 1988 and indicated that the adjacent neighbors were contacted concerning this application. She addressed Condition #5 concerning the name of the school and noted that a constant contact with the Fire De- partment could help mitigate their concern with the name of the school. Neil New, 9141 Palomar , commented on the 20 letters with 35 signa- tures from people opposed to the use permit. He spoke about the previous approvals with the preschool and noted his opposition to the request. 5 0 Minutes - Planning Commission - Octber 6, 1987 . Larry Dubrul, owner. ot the subject site, stated he had run a pre- school until excessive-, insurance rates forced him to close the school. He did not think there would be a problem with the name of the school. �'� Linda Smith, 7955 Valle, noted her opposition to the project as she did not feel the traffic increase would benefit the neighbor- hood. Richard Louder, 7955 Castano, spoke in opposition to the project. He felt that the findings were abitrary in nature and that insuf- ficient data was given to adequately address the full impacts this type of project would have on the neighborhood and talked about the possible need for an E.I.R. Mildred Peresig, 9101 Palomar, expressed her opposition to the project citing the roads being too narrow, the high number of speeding cars on the street, etc. Chuck Smith, 7955 Valle, clarified that Palomar is very - steep where the site is located and noted that many people use Valle as a primary access through to Curbaril. He felt cautionary signs should be posted along the road. Jan Tompquist, Director of Santa Lucia School, addressed some of. the concerns expressed by the neighbors and emphasized that safety of the children is their highest priority. She indicated her wil- lingness to post safety signs and noted that a great deal of car- pooling would take place with the students. She asked the Commis- sion that the project be judged not on speculation of what could happen but what the Commission has before them. There was discussion among the Commission concerning adequate no- tification to the neighbors on this hearing, traffic and safety issues in the area, etc. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Bond and seconded by Commissioner Copelan to deny Conditional Use Permit 5-87. The motion carried 5: 1 with a roll call vote: AYES : Commissioners Bond, Copelan, Lopez-Balbontin, Copelan, and Nolan NOES: Commissioner Hatchell C. PUBLIC COMMENT Ther was no comment this time. • D. INDIVIDUAL C N AND/OR DETERMINATION: 1. Pl ning Co ssion 4r• Community Development ' Diror City of Atascadero • In response to the proposed Santa Lucia School. we would like to add _ some of our own thoughts regarding the potential impact in the surrounding area. We feel very strongly about the increased traffic flow that would inevitably result with the operation of the school. As was pointed out in the other letter, the streets that would be effected are not .well-marked and have no sidewalks. As it is right now, we feel discouraged from taking our 2 year old daughter out .for walks since it has been our experience that most drivers tend to drive too fast and are not looking for pedestrians. . This, coupled with the fact that the - roads are narrow and winding to begin with. makes the Castano. Palomar. and Valle streets very dangerous for pedestrian traffic. Still. what one must keep in mind is that this is a residential area and there are many families with children that play in the streets. We're very concerned that it Just a matter of time- before there is an accident that will involve a vehicle and a child. . The additional traffic flow from the proposed school. in our opinion.. in unacceptable for the safety and very nature of the area that we live in. Thank you for your time and consideration. Duane and Ingrid Inglish 7685 Castano St. Atascadero. Ca. 466-8376 Octob41 , 1987 To : Community Development Director City of Atascadero RE : Proposed Santa Lucia School/ Negative Impact on Palomar Avenue Dear Sir : I have lived on Palomar Avenue since February of 1982 . I have witnessed a dramatic change in traffic pattern since the closing of the preschool located at 9148 Palomar Avenue . We no longer have to contend with hurried parents dropping off their children in the mornings and afternoons . It has been a welcome relief for those of us that use Palomar for residential related use . For instance , whether they should or not , neigh- borhood children do play in and adjoining the roadway . This is particularly true of the 8900 block of Palomar . Furthermore , the children MUST use the roadside in the mornings and after- noons to come and go to the city school bus stop on Palomar near E1 Camino Real . I personally u,se the roadside for daily morning walks . As it is , I can easily hear and avoid approach- ing traffic even if I cannot yet see the vehicle . Where the road is narrow with steep banks , even now this can be challeng- ing . In the case of such increased traffic as the proposed 32 student school would certainly create , I feel that the road side would no longer be safe for walking . I know of at least four other people who use the road for a daily walking regimen who would be adversely affected by the new use . I do not feel that we should be forced to give up our safe use of the road to satisfy the interest of Ms . Cook .' Should any one of my neighbors be harmed as a result of their legal pedestrian use of Palomar Ave . by the staff or clientel of the proposed Santa Lucia School , it is my opinion that the City of Atascadero would be to some extent , respons- ible for allowing the hazardous traffic copdition =to -be cre= ated . Please do not create this situation in my neighborhood . Thank you for your time , L' Linda Gf"one Smith 9031 Palomar Ave . FQR,010-,LY LIfl)D I C--RCfJr PL-lP.VDLff� I� Community Development Director City of Atascadero v Re_: Proposed Santa Lucia School (9148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the following reasons : 1.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will tudentswill be a 60',6 increase. Considering that eaah parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per d'ay. 2.. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewallks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tankrand unless it is inspected? often would have a negative environmental impact as did the daycare?/preschool. 4. The previous' approval for the daycare/ppeschool did not adequate address the traffic problem an& affected residents were not not ' Signed :,__— Ll Address Community Development Director . City of Atascadero Re_: Proposed Santa Lucia School. (j148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the following reasons: l.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 60% increase. Considering that eazh parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per d'ay. 2.. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewalks. dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank and unless it is inspected'. aften would have a negative environmentadi impact as- did the daycare/vreschool. 4. The preriouiT approval for the daycare/ppeschool did not adequately • address the traffic problem and affected residents were not notified. Signed: c/ Address :— A45 1 � 1 � • Community Development Director City of Atascadero ` Re.: Proposed Santa Lucia Schoo .. (9148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the following reasons : l.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 60% increase. Considering that eamh parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per db y.. — 2.. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewalks. Rangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank rand unless it is inspectedoften would have a negative environmentadi impact as did the d-aycarL—_/vreschool. 4. The previous- approval for the daycare/ppeachool did' not adequately address the traffic problem and: affected residents were not notified. Si g n e d Address , c. fi Community Development Director City of Atascadero • Re.: Proposed Santa Lucia School (9148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the Following reasons : 1.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students' will be a 60% increase. Considering that each parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per d'a.y.. 2.. Palomar, Castano , and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewalks . Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. j. The site is on septic tank .-and unless it is inspected? often E would have a negative environmental impact as did the daycar�vreschool. 4. The previous approval for the daycare/preschool did not adequately address the +raf_`, c problem and affected residents were not notified'. _ Signed �% Address Community Development Director City of Atascadero Re.: Proposed Santa Lucia School (9148 Palomar Ave. ) • We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the following reasons : l.- The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 50% increase. Considering that eamh parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per d'a.y. 2.. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewaniks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank rand unless it is inspected? often would have a negative environmenta& impact as did the d-aycare-/preschool. 4. The previous- approval for the daycare/ppeechool did not adequately address the traffic problem and- affected residents were not notified-. Signed ' - Address J Community Development Director City of Atascadero Re : Proposed Santa Lucia School 0148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the following reasons : 1.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 60% increase. Considering that eamh parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per d'a.yr 2.. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewalks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank rand unless it is inspected? often would have a negative environmentad7 impact as did the daycare/preschool. 4. The previous- approval for the daycare/preschool did not adequately address the traffic problem and- affected residents were not notified. Signed : J h-K-�n.� Address : ��aS -s/ /✓G� ! T/TJ Community Development Director , City of Atascadero Re: Proposed Santa Lucia School (9. 48 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the Iollowing reasons : 1.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 60% increase. Considering that each parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per d'ay.. 2.. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewalks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank .and unless it is inspecteffl often would have a negative environmentadi impact as did the daycareVpreschool. 4. The previous approval for the daycare/ppeachool did not adequate address the traffic problem and- affected residents were not notified. Signed: Address: • 0 Community Development Director . City of Atascadero v Re : Proposed Santa Lucia School (9148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the following reasons: 1.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here- proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 60% increase. Considering that each parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per d'ayr 2. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewaalks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank �and unless it is inspectech often would have a negative environmental impact as did the d-aycar w- reschool. 4. The precious- approval for the daycare/ppeechool did' not adequately address the traffic problem and affected residents were not notified. Signed• address : �/c / C�/�^-✓1n0�� �2� ��._ j% - • Community Development Director City of Atascadero• Re.: Proposed Santa Lucia School (9148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the Iollowing reasons : 1.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 60'16 increase. Considering that eazh parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per day.. 2.. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewalks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank :and unless it is inspecte& often would have a negative environmenta(i impact as did the daycar&-/meschool. 4. The previous approval for the daycare/ppeachool did not adequate address the traffic problem and affected residents were not notified. Signed: Address: 7i�%/ �_; Cf/l- i 1, -(' �•� ,_{,.1 (�L�-�� "J f: Community Development Director City of Atascadero Re.: Proposed Santa- Lucia School (9 .48 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the Iollowing reasons : 1.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students• will be a 60°1 increase. Considering that eazh parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and- 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per d'ay.. 2.. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewaalks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank :and unless it is inspectedao-ften would have a negative environmentadi impact as did the daycar wnreschool. 4. The previous= approval for the daycare/ppeechool did not adequately address the traffic problem and affec ed residents were not notified. Address : • l Community Development Director City of Atascadero. Re.: Proposed Santa- Lucia School (9.48 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the following reasons: l.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 60% increase. Considering that each parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and- 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per d'ay... 2,. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewa:l.ks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank :and unless it is inspectedIaften would have a negative environmental impact as- did the daycar . eschool. 4. The previous, approval for the daycare/ppeschool did not adequate address the traffic problem and affected residents were not notified. sign Address: _ - i i 0 Community Development Director City of Atascadero. Re.: Proposed Santa Lucia School (9148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the following reasons : l.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 60% increase. Considering that eazh parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and- 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per day, 2. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewaslks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank :.-and unless it is inspectedi often would have a negative environmenta(I impact as- did the daycarW-D7eschool. • 4. The previouEr approval for the daycare/ppeachool did not adequately address the traffic problem and affected residents were not notified. Signed: " Address: Pct-l d ,-trA rye- Community Development Director City of Atascadero v Re.: Proposed Santa Lucia School (9148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the Iollowing reasons: l.- The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 603o increase. Considering that each parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per day, 2. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sideweniks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tankrand unless it is inspected? often would have a negative environmentadi impact as did the daycareVpreschool. 4. The precious' approval for the daycare/ppeschool did not adequate address the traffic problem and affected residents were not notified. Signed Address : 0 Community Development ment Director City of Atascadero: Re: Proposed Santa Lucia School ^(9148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the Iollowing reasons: 1.- The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students will be a 606 increase. Considering that eazh parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per day.. 2. Palomar, Castano, *and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewaalks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank and unless it is inspectedIaften would have a negative environmental impact as did the daycare-/preschool. . 4. The prezious- approval for the daycare/ppeachool did not adequately address the traffic problem an(I affected residents were not notified. Signed f. Address: Community Development Director .- City of Atascadero Re: Proposed Santa Lucia School (9,148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the following reasons : 1.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 60% increase. Considering that each parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per day, 2, Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewaalks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank rand unless it is inspectedioften would have a negative environmental? impact as did the daycare-/preschool. 4. The precious- approval for the daycare/ppeachool did not adequate address the traffic problem and affected residents were not notified. Signed : Address : -7-7 —Z,/; f4s zzt a r Community Development Director . City of Atascadero Re,: Proposed Santa Lucia School (9148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the ffollowing reasons: l.- The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20, 32 students• will be a 60% increase. Considering that each parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per d'ay. 2. Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewalks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank .and unless it is inspected! aften would have a negative environmental impact as did the daycare/vreschool. • 4. The previous, approval for the daycare/preachool did not adequately address the traffic problem and- affected residents were not notified. Signe i IL Address: �'-� Community Development Director City of Atascadero Re.: Proposed Santa Lucia Svhoo D • p c c 1 (9148 Palomar Ave. ) We the undersigned object to the reopening of a school at 9148 Palomar for the following reasons : 1.. The experience of the daycare/preschool here proved that the main impact was increased traffic. Although the daycare/preschool was authorized 48 children, there were in fact no more than 20. 32 students- will be a 50% increase. Considering that eaxh parent could make 2 trips past our home each morning and 2 trips each enening we could experience 128 additional vehicles per day.. 2- Palomar, Castano, and Valle are winding, relatively narrow roads without sidewaalks. Dangerous conditions already exist for small children who play in the streets daily.. 3. The site is on septic tank rand unless it is inspected? often would have a negative environmentadi impact as did the daycarewreschool. 4. The prezious- approval for the daycare/ppeechool did not adequately address the traffic problem and affected residents were not notified. • — Signed Address 2//3 y MINUTES EXCERPT - AINING COMMISSION -,;-SEPTEMBER 6A88 Commissioner Tobey took his seat back on the Commission. Chairperson Lochrid a called a recess at 9 : 10 g p.m. ; meeting reconvened at 9 : 23 p.m. 3 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5-87 : Request submitted by Santa Lucia School (Janet Thomp- quist) to revise the conditions of approval to allow for a one year time extension for the operation of the Santa Lucia School . Subject site is located at 9148 Palomar. Doug Davidson presented the staff report on this request referencing the past history on this project and actions taken by the City Council and Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval -of a one year time extension. Staff then responded to questions from the Commission. Janet Thompquist, director of Santa Lucia School, spoke in support of the request noting the school is a licensed elementary school with an enrollment of 32 children. She spoke on arrival and departure times and noted they provide extended day care only for the school children. The Santa Lucia School has received approval of a County conditional use permit for a site in Templeton but a permanent move will not take place for several months . The school is requesting a time extension of the City CUP through this present school year. Commissioner Brasher expressed concern with the driveway entrance from Palomar where she had to come to a full stop as the driveway is at a right angle and very narrow. She would like to see a more curved entry way to the school. Ms . Thompquist has asked the parents to use the Castano Road . entrance. Ms. Thompquist then responded to questions from the Commission. Neil New, Palomar resident, stated he lives diagonally from the project and spoke on the past history of this site. He referenced several petitions from surrounding neighbors last year when this matter was appealed and wondered if the City Council had received all pertinent information before their decision was made. He challenged some of the school ' s statements relative to the age of the school children and contended that a day care center is being operated rather than a school . He stated that the petitioners were opposed • to the school based on traffic factors . Mr. New expressed his opposition to the project. MINUTES EXCERPT *.ANNING COMMISSION - SEFrEMBER 9 1988 In response to questiofl Lopez-Balbontin, Ms. Thompquist clarified that the ages of the school children last year were 5 to 11 years (kindergarten through fifth grade) and this year the ages are 6 through 12 (with the oldest student being 13) (first through sixth grades) . Commissioner Waage felt this location was not ideal for a school but since the applicant has initiated steps to move to another location, they should be given a chance to proceed with the time extension. MOTION: Made by Commissioner Tobey, seconded by Commis- sioner Luna to approve a time extension for a one year period for Conditional Use Permit 5-87 . Commissioner Highland stated he has been associated with this property since 1982 when he voted against establishing " the original day care center as he did not feel this was an appropriate site based on traffic considerations . He expressed reservation with a year extension which would then take the school into the 1989/90 school year. He stated serious consideration should be given as to whether a day care or private school is a proper use for that particular site. Commissioner Lopez-Balbontin stated that he voted against the use permit last year but he did not feel that denying the extension at this time would be appropriate since the school year has begun, hardship. for the school relocating, etc. Commissioner Waage offered the following amendment to the motion: approve the time extension through the 1988/89 school year only. Commissioner Tobey agreed with the amendment to approve the time extension to August 1, 1989. The motion carried 7: 0. C. P C COMMENT There wa no public comment given. D. INDIVIDUAL COMME I. Planning Commissi Commissioner Waage pres d an interest in seeing the "Public Comment" ction mo d to the beginning of the meeting. Mr. De p stated that a order of the agenda is established by he Planning Commiss n' s Rules and Regula- tions and may be appropriate to sc dule a review at the MEETI AGENDA� _ � DAT IT i --=---.1_... • October 11 , 1988 To : City Council Via : Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Bob Best, Parks and Recreation Director Subject : Paloma Park Equestrian Arena BACKGROUND On , September 13, 1988, the Equestrian Arena status report was giv6n to Council . Staff was directed to work with the equestrian ' s in the community to develop a plan which would be acceptable to individuals/organizations in the City. On Tuesday, September 20 Staff met with Jim Comes, Shirley Chastain, Miles Wemp, Dave Evers, and Mike Tobey to discuss and develop an alternative plan. • A followup meeting was held on September 27 to discuss a draft document which was the result of the previous meeting. The comments were very favorable, with the consensus being that the recommendations contained in this report should provide an excellent solution to the perceived problems . As a result, Staff has made several recommendations to Council regarding the policy for usage/scheduling of the arena . This report was provided to the City Attorney, and his comments were considered and incorporated into the recommendations presented below. Staff had previously been informed by the City Manager that our insurance company may be willing to re- consider their stand on the locked/open arena concept . Staff ' s approachat the meeting was to discuss both options to the group . However, the consensus of the group was that we could develop a system which provided the greater safeguards for alle concern d and still meet individual needs . As such, the locked arena concept is still the Preference, and should be retained. RECOMMENDATIONS Accept Staff report as presented with the following recommendations : 1 . The locked arena concept should be retained. 2 . A Release/Application form should be developed which would be maintained on file and be valid for one year. Proof of a valid application would be provided by the Department issuing a facility use card to all individuals who have signed the release/application form, which would provide their name, address , and certification that they have completed the necessary Paperwork at the Parks and Recreation Department . • 3. The facility should be rented in time periods of two hours for an individual four hours for a group (practice only) , and daily for a competition/show. 4. A yearly fee for individuals, Families, Group (for Practice/training only) , should be established. The fee for competitions/shows should be retained as it currently exists . 5 . A completed application form must be on file for anyone who uses the arena . ---6 . A combination lock shall be used to keep the arena locked. To minimize problems with unauthorized use of the arena, the combination shall be changed on a monthly basis. 7 . The individual/group representative (with annual passes only) shall be responsible for calling the department to determine facility availability. 8 . The Rental Application form shall be revised to reflect the recommended changes . (Recommended rental form attached to staff report . 9 . A portion of the revenue received for facility rental shall be returned for improvements to the arena. The recommended amount is 50% of the rental fee . 10 . All arena scheduling will still be the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department . • —11 . Staff recommends the elimination of the key lock, as it will reduce administrative time in processing deposit refunds, etc . 12 . The annual permit shall be subject to revocation by the City upon the breach of any of the conditions of the agreement . 13. No jumping shall be allowed at any time . 14. During the construction phase of the arena development, the Paloma Creek Park Equestrian Committee shall be exempt from Payment of fees to the City for use of the arena. All net revenues raised by the committee are returned for the arena development. 15 . The above recommendations will become effective January 1 , 1989 . FISCAL IMPACT A reduction in revenue to the General Fund would be the result of having a portion of the fee go back to the arena . However, this is minimal , and the funds would go directly to the development of the arena . • f� PALOMA CREEK PARK EQUESTRIAN ARENA Rental Agreement (hereinafter referred to as (Name of Group/Individual ) "Lessee) hereby applies to the Atascadero Parks and Recreation Department (hereinafter referred to as "Lessor" for usage of the Paloma Creek Park Equestrian Arena for the following date(s) , time (s) , and purposes : DATE(S) : TIME PURPOSE Lessee agrees to comply with the following terms and conditions : 1 . The arena is available for rental only to organized groups, families, or responsible individuals at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director. Any group utilizing the arena for commercial ventures shall pay the commercial rate . 2 . Prior to any use, Lessee ( if organized group) shall Provide Lessor with a Certificate of Insurance naming Lessor as an additional insured for the duration of the event . The minimum requirements of said policy shall be $500, 000 bodily injury • liability and $75 , 000 property damage liability. Y 3. Lessee ' s entry blank shall include a clause releasing f Lessor from any and all claims for damages which may arise during the use of the arena by Lessee . 4. Lessee accepts the arena in an "as-is" condition; any Preparation needed shall be provided by Lessee . 5 . The arena and surrounding area shall be left in a clean condition and all trash shall be removed from the premises at the immediate conclusion of the event . In the event Department staff are needed to clean up the area, Lessee shall be charged for staff time , and this amount shall then be deducted from the deposit . 6 . Lessee shall repair or replace any and all damage to the arena beyond normal wear and tear. Failure to repair or replace any damage may result in the loss of privilege to use the arena in the future at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director. 7. No alcohol shall be sold at the Equestrian Arena without approval of the Parks and Recreation Director, permit from Alcoholic Beverage Control , and payment of all fees . 8 . No jumping shall be allowed at any time . 9 . Fee Schedule A. Group Usage for organized shows/competitions (group type defined below) USE OF ARENA SECURITY GROUP* (PER DAY) ** DEPOSIT A NIC NIC B $50 $200 C $50 $200 D $50 $200 E $100 $200 F $150 $200 G . $200 $200 GROUP TYPES: A- City sponsored activities . B- Meetings and programs of local organizations constituted for the promotion of youth recreation, education or welfare activities . C- Service clubs and other organizations constituted primarily for the promotion of civic improvements . D- Local organizations constituted for the promotion of adult or booster groups of youth recreation, education, or public recreation. E- Local , non-commercial group meetings and events . F- Private parties . G- Commercial **See Fees and Charges Policy Manual for more information on group types . B. Individual Use Use of Arena - $3 per use/$15 annually *Two hour maximum rental per use . C. Family ( Immediate Family only) • Use of arena - $5 per use/$25 annually - *Four hour maximum rental Per use D. Group Practice/Training: GROUP ARENA FEE PER USE ANNUAL FEE (4 HOURS) A N/C NIC B $15 $50 C $15 $50 D $15 $50 E $15 $50 F $15 $50 G $25 $100 10. All using individuals/groups/organizations are responsible for insuring that anyone using the arena has approval to use the arena . This must be accomplished by completing the arena application form and issuance by the department a facility use card indicating this process has been complete . Failure by any individual or group to enforce this could result in loss of Privilege to use the arena . 11 . Release of Liability: In consideration for approval to use the Paloma Creek Park Equestrian Arena, Lessee (s) hereby agrees to assume all risk incident to such participation or activity, and hereby further agrees to hold the City of Atascadero and its officers and employees harmless from all suits, claims or demands of any kind and character arising out of or in connection with the use of the Equestrian Arena and surrounding facilities . Lessee (s) further releases the City of Atascadero and its officers and employees from all suits , claims or demands of every kind and character which Lessee or Lessee ' s successors or assigns shall or may have arising out of or by • reason of or in connection with this activity. Lessee (s) and any Participant member of Lessee (s) if Lessee is an organization, hereby certifies that Lessee (and each participant member where r applicable is in good physical condition and physically fit to participate in this activity. As Lessee (s) , I understand it is my responsibility to determine that anyone allowed to use arena by me, as lessee, has a signed Release of Liability on file with the Parks and Recreation Department . Proof of this shall be a Facility Use Card issued by the department, which shall be valid from January X1 - December 31 only. Lessee assumes risk regarding injuries for anyone lessee allows to use arena without having a signed Release of Liability on file . Date : 19 LESSEE(S) : LESSOR: Atascadero Parks and Recreation Department By By Address : Title : Phone : MEETI G AGENDA DAT ITEM il October 11 , 1988 To: City Council Via: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Bob Best, Parks and Recreation Director—&— Subject : Walkway at Paloma Creek Park BACKGROUND As per my discussion with the City Manager, I have completed some background research on the potential cost of a handicapped access walkway/roadway at Paloma Creek Park. Listed below are findings/recommendations for your future consideration. RECOMMENDATIONS • 1 . Due to the layout of Paloma Park, I recommend there should be no vehicle access for handicapped at Paloma from the main service road entrance and the south portion of the park near the creek. The service road next to the creek is not a good alternative because this area will be heavily used during baseball season, and once the park is completely developed, use in this portion of the park will be heavy. In addition, it has not been long since Council was unhappy with the department for allowing vehicles to have access to the center of the Park, thus creating a "safety hazard" . 2 . Staff recommends that the current service road in the center of the park be surfaced with asphalt, thus allowing wheelchairs, etc . a smooth surface in which to enter the park. In addition, handicapped parking areas should be developed with easy access to this service road. 3 . The City should, as soon as Possible , budget an adequate amount of funds though Parks Capital Projects Budget to pave the service road and turnaround area . Estimated cost : $7000 . FISCAL IMPACT As indicated, it will cost approximately $7000 to pave the service road, and costs could be higher depending on the extent of the paving in the turnaround area . OEETINB AGENDA r DAT -° 4 ITEM/ - • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council Members FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager SUBJECT: Potential Alternate Uses: Capistrano Property DATE: October 11, 1988 BACKGROUND Please refer to my letter of 9/29/88 to Curtis Sorg, County Property Manager, regarding subject property (copy attached) . The General Plan designates this area -- including the hospital- - for High Density, Multi-Family Residential and has been zoned RMF-16 . The location was found to be consistent with the concept of a police station owing to anticipated direct access to Highway 41 and location central to the community. • The site has been evaluated for alternative uses, and the closest City public use that seems reasonable for consideration, other than open space, would be as a satellite parking lot to a future stadium park. Perhaps such a lot could be jointly developed with the County, who have, in the past, indicated a need for addi- tional parking in relation to the hospital . Volbrecht Surveys have indicated that the "parcel" is actually a piece of several lots, and that would explain why the County wanted it legitimatized by filing a parcel map. We would suggest that Council direct staff to pursue either a parcel map or public lot recordation in order to comply with the condition. In addition, and in light of the existing zoning for the Capistrano property and the hospital/clinic, staff would recommend that Council direct us to initiate a General Plan amendment and change to the Zoning Ordinance redesignating the areas in question as P (Public) . RECOMMENDATIONS A. To direct staff to record a parcel map or public lot recordation for said property, and B. To direct staff to initiate a General Plan amendment and change to the Zoning Ordinance redesignating the hospital/clinic and the Capistrano property as P (Public) . • RW:Cw Attachments ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 0 • ��-(/__ POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 POLICE DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805( 466-8000 POST OFFICE BOX 747 Nvalamm �������® ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93423 CITY COUNCIL PHONE: (805( 466-8600CITY CLERKCITY TREASURER NCORPORATED JULY 2 1979CITU MANAGERADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENTFIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805( 466-2141 September 29, 1988 Curtis Sorg, Property Manager County of San Luis Obispo Department of General Services County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Curtis, As indicated in my letter of September 19 , 1988, the City Council was requested to provide direction to staff relating to the possible disposition of land previously leased from the County , for a new police facility. Council has asked that the County grant an additional 30 days • before any final action is taken to terminate said lease, in order that we may fully explore additional potential uses, which could, in some manner, be mutually beneficial (joint use of parking, etc. ) to both entities . This would mean that I will get back to you before the end of October and, hopefully, sooner. Thanking you, again, for your forebearance. Si erely, Y INDSOR City Manager cc: City Council • i �T MAIC `cbJ 3 EAsr In z r f It ,� ti 4ti O 4 O to OWL 3S S303083W • v � 41, p a r na AWN m 2 o_dx2o'' N T z a -,i CA) * 4L c 01 ir x x a 1��1J 1 L r + n ; H a a �- 'wiro�l N3 C3 a `�J a qVF S EXHIBIT "B" 1 of 2 coti�;• 2 IgB� vftoPr'�F. /Ol �Ol NT w'NO 10\3 A �� n �II a tic xy �w N 3W • m m u+• ^y' � ;.r----�i� ; a �'�'s"�,`'- 41�1'�s ry a rWIN 1 �' ."• � d Y \"-. of ii w_ •3py b. rn y r � D m \mil y rn x � do £L-CWt! t s z n 0 i O 0 c ' ° C yCb nI •" to y. - r l � y I in, O y v 4r N 46 ADL S 7',q 7/O/Ni - LC A S9- �rT� 0 s3 4'Ss'so�/��• � o /4 07'.95£ ZZZ7' �Z a3'63AI n- 3L•Ld' S/9'Z4 29 G ¢L4�' 38.x• ;s Ss.Z1' h S 3 Z'ZG'O/:✓ 4�' S� Z� 4 � P � Sp0 S/'33'Jf— - rro " pgo b c c . Z7.7Z• Q�h G� 2 of 2 MEEMT AGENOA�OAT4M s`- • MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Ray Winsor, City Manager From: Paul M. Senoibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Conversion of 50c Development Mitigation Tax to a Fee and, Expanding the Boundary for the Lewis Avenue Bridge Fee Date: October 3, 1988 Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council set a Public Hearing for October 25, 1988 to consider the attached resolution and at the conclusion of that hearing, Staff recommends that Council pass Resolution 100-88 adopting a new development fee structure which includes the Lewis Avenue Bridge • within the list of other bridges, although on an accelerated schedule . This resolution will supercede Resolution 10-86, the original development fee resolution, and will eliminate the need for the current 50 cent tax ordinance . In separate actions if the above is passed, it will be necessary to repeal Ordinance 111 which established the 50 Cent Mitigation Tax (although such ordinance is not effective after November 15, 1988) , and Ordinance 118 and Resolution 11-86 which set forth the Lewis Avenue Bridge Development Fee . Exhibits A and B which include the nexus for the development fees would be adopted as part_ of Resolution 100-88. Background: Proposition 62 (Jarvis Initiative , November ' 86) stated that any tax not approved by a 2/3 ' s majority of the local electorate within two years of the effective date of the Initiative must cease on and after November 15, 1988 . At the same time AB 1600, which establishes criteria for the adoption of development fees goes into effect January 1 , 1989 . The accounting procedures for this bill were effective January 1 , 1988 . Additionally, emphasis placed on the strengthening of the downtown area in the past two years has lead to the acknowledgement that the impact area for the Lewis Avenue Bridge should not be limited to the BIA, but to the entire corporation like all other fees except the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage • Development Fee . Discussion: • Conversion of the 50 cents Mitigation Tax to a development fee, in light of AB 1600, cannot be routine . A nexus, or connection between a Private development and the public improvement paid for by the -development fee, must be shown for each type of fee by use category. Fortunately the City followed almost every requirement of the then ,future bill when it formulated its development fees in 1986 . The report to council at that time is still a valid base for the fees, but a simple proportioning of the tax to the fees is not a responsible action since several factors have changed in the past two years. The needs that must be addressed which have been and will continue to be impacted by development have been reevaluated. The new fee structure will include a Plan for a COtnmun!tY Center and a solution to the San Jacinto drainage problem. These and other improvements can be Prioritized by the Council in the annual capital improvement program by placing less critical items to the buildout year. Additionally, a seperate list of desirable projects due to becoming a larger city is shown as unfunded needs, which list includes necessary land acquisition. Future fees may have to address these needs or debt financing supported by the enacted fees may have to be used to combat the expected growth. The square footages for residential and commercial used in the • 1986 report were based on 1984 and 1985 figures that did not hold true in the last two years . Those figures have been revised to more accurately predict revenues . Additionally, the needs list now shows a capital improvement program for 12 years to the new buildout date of AD 2000 . The former program was a five year phase of an 18 year buildout from 1985 to 2003. The service area for the fees is still the City incorporated area (excluding the Amapoa-Tecorida Drainage watershed) . Commercial and other buildup within the Urban Services Line not only impact that area but usurp the ability for the safety and other departments to respond to outlying areas . Existing facilities, such as bridges , that were previously adequate are being weakened by construction hauling, moving vans and delivery trucks . Development fees under AB 1600 can be used for any capital improvement project or Program, public services or equipment if all of the guidelines are followed, most importantly showing a relationship between the impact , the fee charged and the improvement made . No consideration has been given to using development fees to Provide additional employees . Exhibit A which supports the revised fees supercedes certain sections of Exhibit B which is the report approved by the Council in 1986 . Both exhibits will be approved as a material part the the above resolution and will be available for review by the public at least 14 days prior to the action on the said resolution. Ordinance 119, which established the original development fees, may need some minor restructuring prior the the January 1 deadline, but is deemed sufficient ,_ for the purpose of ammending the development fees as shown. The Lewis Avenue Bridge has been included as "just another bridge" but the bridge fee has been structured to support construction of that facility within five (5) years. At the end of five years the Council at that time will have to reassess the bridge needs and may possibly reduce the bridge fee at that time . In any case, if the above resolution is passed, there will no longer be a specific boundary for specific bridges since the nexus for that senario in Atascadero, a town without real subdivisions, is weaker than that which is proposed. Fiscal Impact : The attached Summary of Fees incorporates the 50 cent tax, the new square footages, the new buildout year CIP program and the absorption of the Lewis Avenue Bridge . There will bea savings in the BIA of approximately $1 . 16 per square foot on new construction. Other non—residential development fees will be increased about $0.59 Per square foot . Multiple family will increase about $0.04 per square foot, which although higher than single family still recognizes the need for affordable housing. Single family will increase approximately $0 .35 per square foot but will still be almost $0. 29 per square foot lower than the allowable burden ( inflated to 1988) which was proposed in the 1986 nexus . No bonding or other security is recommended in lieu of paying development fees . Appropriate credits and exceptions are acknowledged in the ordinance and resolution. Since only a couple of projects have been assessed the Lewis Avenue Bridge fee, staff suggests that reimbursements be available to maintain equitability. Attachments : - Summary of Fees Resolution 100_88 League of California Cities AB 1600 Implementation Guide Exhibits A and B ~. /^ SUMMARY OF EES * * NON-RESIDENTIAL * MULTIPLE FAMILY * SINGLE FAMILY * SUB-TOTAL * *FEE\LANDUSE * AMT. * UNIT * AMT. * UNIT * AMT. * UNIT * AMT. * UNIT * * DRAINAGE * $53,BB9 : $0.634 # $40,417 : $0. 172 # $26,944 : $0. 127 *$121,250 : $0.229 * * TRAFFIC * $37,344 : $0.439 # $2,324 : $0.010 # $166 : $0,001 * $39,834 : $0.075 * * BRIDGES * $19,720 : $0.232 # $39,911 : $0. 170 # $235868 : $0. 112 * $83,499 : $0. 157 * * ROADS * $6,377 : $0.075 # $12,905 : $0.055 # $7,718 : $0.036 * $27,000 : $0.051 * * * : # : # * PARKS * $6,685 ; $0.079 #$139,035 : $0.593 # $719531 : $0.337 *$217,251 : $0.408 * * POLICE * $19,929 : $0.234 # $13, 159 : $0.056 # $6,770 : $0.032 *' $39,858 : $0.075 * * FIRE * $40,813 : $0.480 # $26,948 : $0. 115 # $13,864 : $0.065 * $81,625 : $0. 153 * m * : # : # *B&G & EQUIP. * $43,278 : $0.244 # $43,278 : $0.244 # $43,278 : $0.244 *$129,833 : $0.244 * � * : # : # : * : * *COM.DEV/ENG * $6,306 : $0.036 # $6,306 : $0.036 # $6,306 : $0.036 * $18,917 : $0 * � * : # : # * * : # : # : * : $1.427 * $ TOTALS *$234,340 : $2.453 *$324,282 : $1,451 #$200,444 : $0.990 *$759,067 : $1.427 * � * : (+0.290) # : (-0. 185) # : (+0. 199) * : (+0.304) * *LAND ACQUIS. * $30,344 : $0.357 4$631, 122 : $2.690 4$324,701 : $1.529 *$996, 167 : $1.854 * � * : # : # : * : * *L.A.B.-5 YR.* $25,896 : $0.305 # $52,411 : $0.223 # $31,343 : $0. 148 *$109,650 : $0.206 * Q.A.B.-12 YR* $10,790 : $0. 127 $21,838 : $0.093 ¥ $13,060 : $0.061 4 $45,688 : $0.086 * m * : # ` With 5-yr. LAB Fee Spread Out and w/50c Tax Conversion Old BIA Businesses $3.920 Old BIA Busineses $2.758 savings $1. 162 /sq. ft, Old Non-Residential $2. 163 New Non-Residential $2.758 increase $0.595 /sq.ft. Old Multiple Family $1.636 New Multiple Family $1.674 increase — $0.038 /sq'ft, Old Single Family $0.791 New Single Family $1. 138 increase $0.347 /sq.ft. (Single Family still $0.286 less than allowable. ) RESOLUTION NO. 100-88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Atascadero has adopted Ordinance 119 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Development Fee ; and WHEREAS, Exhibits A and B are a study of the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities in the incorporated area , along with an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements required by new development was conducted, and said study set forth the relationship between new development , the needed facilities,, and the estimated costs of those improvements . The study, entitled "Exhibit A, Development Fee Impact Study, and Exhibit B, Development Fee Task Force Report to Council" was prepared by Paul M. Sensibaugh , Director of Public Works/City Engineer , and is dated October , 1988, and January 1986, respectively ; and WHEREAS, this study was available for public inspection • and review fourteen (14) days prior to this public hearing; and WHEREAS , the City Council finds as follows : A. The purpose of this fee is to finance facilities shown in Exhibit A to reduce the impacts of runoff , traffic and other impacts shown in the exhibits , caused by new development , within the incorporated area . B. The development fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance only the public. facilities described or identified in Exhibit "A" , attached hereto ; C. After considering the above study and analysis and the testimony received at this public hearing, the Council approves said study, and incorporates such herein , and further finds that the new development in the incorporated area will generate additional runoff , traffic , and other impacts shown in the exhibits within the impacted area and will contribute to the degradation of public facilities and services in that incorporated area , D. There is a need in this described impact area for the improvements shown in Exhibit A which have not been • constructed or have been constructed, but new development has not contributed its fair share toward these facility costs and said facilities have been called for in or are consistant with the City' s General Plan; E._ The facts hod evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable' telationship between the need for the described public facilities land the impacts of the types of development described in paragraph 3 below, for which the corresponding fee is charged, and, also there is a reasonable relationship between the fee' s use and the type of development for which the fee is charged, as these reasonable relationships or nexus are in more detail described in the study referred to above; F. The cost estimates set forth in Exhibit "A" are reasonable cost estimates for constructing these facilities , and the fees expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total of these costs . NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Atascadero that : 1 . A development fee shall be charged upon issuance of any building permit and shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit or a certificate of occupancy in the case that a building permit is not applicable. The City Community Development Department shall determine if the development lies within this benefit area, the type of development and the corresponding _ fee to be charged in 'accordance with this resolution . 2 . Fee SUMMARY OF FEES t NON-RESIDENTIAL O —RESIDENTIA_ * MULTIPLE FAMILY * SINGLE FAMILY SUB-TOTAL yc- _7= T 'NIT C .J, .iC AMI . r':v *UNIT C rMR4U JT s•f'jM *UNIT JIr11 �T L,+Jn ��i%'km+��..Yi fi.�.�.R.z n.'€..Tt•. .y l .: ST.Yi S DRAINAGE fi $53,S89 $0.634 # $40,417 $0. 172 $26,944 $0. 127 *$121,250 $0.228 k RAFF1C 8 -37,.344 • $0.439 0 $2,324 • $0,010 # _166 • $0.00 z $39,834 $0.075 ]( BRIDGES $45, 16 , $0.53 it $92,322 a $0.393 # $55,211 • $0.260 X093 149 a $46a 6 i AD T# $46.r',°9•/_r,T# $46.69/A Y. _ .•Ai�.. ,. — $7,718 � .36 $27,000 $�/,{1L�1 1uy� +� .$ate.v_ T* , 6.—i.-,ADW •$6.53 /ADT* a A PARKS� F!'-1 E'•.S _q. 'J . $0.079 *$139,035 $0a•_ t $71,531 $0.337 0217,251 $ 0.408 POLICE x $19,929 $0.234 # $13, 159 $0.056 # $6,770 • $0.032 't:. 39,858 a $0.075 k fi FIRE $40,813 . $0.480 # $26,948 a $0. 115 = S13,e64 $0.065 4 $81,62553 0 . 0 d n _. EQUIP. * $43,278 . $0.244 r: $43,278 2. .. . $0.244 # $43,279 iJ . $0.244 9$129,833 a $0.244 ,y A . # • .. kl..OM.DEV/Gi'G 8 $6,306 . $0.036 $6,306 0.1,36 4 $6,306 $. .036 $18,917 # # h.X,�lz'is�pAz ,:�',!��Yi{:r:hn�:'4XX'i';.F;:,.,�aS�t:4:9lpi'�T.'{�)f?;7�C,�,'m fi�• � . �{mJ� )f• �m� �1•' fi �( ?� i i]i FHLB *$260 ^'6 $2.7 e $=76 `9' . $� .67:, $2 -•a $1. 138 :�T .� -�� # ,6 . - ;-�-'1. /,J7 z e<<,8,717 $l.b=_, :�:Y'7,,:�.z��F.',.'y�X�X:�',:'v•b�:1i`'M��•':�Tr]���;:?''`'#�X��:�:?'�'d���. jC�''�;:��.�'''.{k�%C' _ �. •� y :� • 3. Use of Fee . The fee shall be solely used to pay (1) for the described public facilities to be constructed by the City ; (2) for reimbursing the City for the development' s fair share of those capital improvements already constructed by the City ; or (3) to reimburse other developers who have constructed public facilities described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, where those facilities were beyond that needed to mitigate the impacts of the other developers' project or projects . 4 . Fee Review. On or about June, 1990 or each following year, the Public Works Department shall review the estimated cost of the described capital improvements , the continued need for those improvements and the reasonable relationship between such need and the impacts of the various types of development pending or anticipated and for which this fee is charged. The Public Works Department shall report its findings to the City Coiuncil at a noticed public hearing and recommend any adjustment to this fee or other action as may be needed. 5 . Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside , void or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days . PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1988 . AYES: NOES: ABSENT : ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk BONITA BORGESON, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer ETI t7ATE � ENDA MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Ray Windsor, City Manager FROM: Paul Sensibaugh, Director of Public Work Valerie Humphrey, Clerical Technician SUBJECT: Section 18 Grants DATE: October 3, 1988 Recommendation : Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to apply for UMTA Section 18 Grants for the following items : 1 Bus Replacement - 16 passenger with lift Radio/Computer Equipment • *Bus Shelters - 1 bus parking shelter and 2 passenger shelters *State Discretionary Funds Background: The City of Atascadero has been awarded a $42 ,500 maximum 80-20 allocation grant for the 16 passenger bus and a $4 ,500 maximum 80-20 grant for the computer equipment for which only official application is lacking. We have also received Area Council recommendation for the bus shelters to be funded through the State Discretionary Funds . Approval of this item is not assured at this time . The award for this item would be an 80-20 allocation grant in the maximum amount of $60, 000 . Discussion : It is proposed to replace an existing 1981 high mileage bus with the new vehicle . The old bus would then be sold and the funds earmarked to future Section 18 matching funds . • 1 The computer equipment requested is for the purchase of a computer and software to enable more accurate fleet maintenance and collection of tiansit system data . The Discretionary Funding requested would fund the construction of a bus shelter to be located at the Public Works Corporation Yard on Traffic Way. In addition, two passenger shelters are proposed, one to be located in the city-owned parking lot and the other in the area of the Williams Bros . Shopping Center . Fiscal Impact : I All allocations are on an 80-20 basis and are apportioned as follows : Project Sec . 18 Local Total Replacement Bus 34 , 000 8 ,500 42 ,500 j Computer Equip . 3, 600 900 4 ,500 Bus/Passenger Shelters 48, 000 12 , 000 60, 000 The current budget has funds in the Depreciation Account for the matching funds for the grants . . • ✓f RESOLUTION NO. 98-88 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN AGENT FOR MATTERS PERTAINING TO UMTA SECTION 18 CAPITAL ASSISTANCE CONTRACTS That the City of Atascadero resolves as follows : THAT the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of the City of Atascadero, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California , all documents required in obtaining UMTA Section 18 Capital Assistance Contracts . UPON MOTION of Councilman seconded by Councilman and carried, the Council hereby authorizes the above named to sign UMTA Section 18 Capital Assistance Contracts . AYES : NOES: ABSENT : ABSTAIN: ADOPTED: ATTEST: CITY OF ATASCADERO BOYD C . SHARITZ ,City Clerk BONITA BORGESON, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT : JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH 61 City Attorney Dir , of Public Works i MEGE NDA ITEM%A � -3 September 26 . 1988 To: Ray Windsor. City Manager From: Bob Best, Parks and Recreation Director-- Subject : Noise Problem at Atascadero Lake The department has been receiving complaints regarding excessive noise from remote control power boats on Atascadero Lake . Apparently, model boat enthusiasts run their boats for lengthy time periods, and this has resulted in numerous complaints due to the loud noise . There are two areas of the Municipal Code which addresses noise . These include Section 10-1 . 08 Motorboats and Section 9- 4. 163 Exterior Noise Standards . According to 10-1 . 08, model boats must be 1 horsepower or less and have approved mufflers . Apparently, part of the problem is that some of the model boat • enthusiasts are removing the mufflers, thus creating very loud noises and disturbing the residents along the lake . Section 9- 4. 163 establishes the maximum allowable decibel levels and specifies how noise is to be measured. According to the Planning Staff (Steve DeCamp and John Ecklund) , if they measured the noise level and it was found to be excessive, they would then make it our responsibility to eliminate the noise problem, as opposed to notifying the citizen causing the noise . The Police Department indicates they do not have the proper authority to enforce a noise ordinance, and this creates the question of how can the situation be resolved. RECOMMENDATION In order to resolve this problem, I believe the ordinance needs to be modified which puts tighter controls on model boats . Because the "approved mufflers" is ambiguous , and complaints are numerous, the City should amend the ordinance to stipulate that no model boats which are gas powered shall be allowed on the lake except for approved events . I would appreciate the opportunity of addressing this with YOU, as I anticipate the City will be hearing more from local residents regarding this problem. While I do not want to overreact, the complaints definitely appear to be legitimate, and • the City should address them as soon as possible . M'IErl =0!L.DATE • MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Ray Windsor, City Manager From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Request for Proposals for a Traffic Signal at the Santa Rosa/EI Camino Real Intersection Date : October 4, 1988 Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to request proposals for the design of the above project . Background: The above intersection has been recently impacted by the new Post Office facility and southsi.de multiple family residences . It is assumed that this intersection will now meet the necessary signal warrants that could not be met prior to the opening of the Post Office . The Planning Commission, City Council and City Staff have all suggested that this project be moved up in the priority ranking once the Post Office opened. Discussion: The design for the above signal will cover any geometric changes or recommendations for median deviders along the E1 Camino Real frontage . The Scope of Services is attached for Council ' s review. This work is not on the Caltrans system but is on the Federal Aid Urban system. Therefore, since we are suggesting FAU funds below, the City will have to use the consultant selection guidelines presented by Caltrans, including encouragement of DBE firms . Fiscal Impact : Contributions from the Bordeaux House project and the Post Office facility amount to $50, 000 or approximately 50% of the cost of a new traffic signal . Another $23, 000 is expected from the Proposed bowling alley project nearby and $2, 000 has been committed by two smaller projects within the area . The remaining funds, aproximately $25, 000, not including median islands if necessary, • will come from future Traffic Development Impact Fees . 0 • Staff suggests that this project be submitted as a Federal Aid • Urban project which provides 100% funding for signalization work. The current budget shows the City ' s share of FAU funds for bridges recieving grants, but that money cannot be used to match other federal monies . The above contribution money will go into the Traffic Development Fee fund initially but will have to be transfered to the Bridge Development Fee account at a later date to replace the FAU funds which will be used for the signal . • October 4, 1988 Name Title Street Address P.O.Box No. City, State Zip Dear Consultant : You are invited to submit a proposal to the City of Atascadero to provide a design for a Traffic Signal and Traffic . Control for the E1 Camino Real/Santa Rosa intersection. Your proposal should be based upon the following Scope of Services : Scope of Services 1) Analysize the existing intersection with respect to geometrics and signal warrants . 2) Design a traffic signal and lane geometrics for the projected ADT for the year AD 2000 based upon current zoning. Include known proposed projects in the vicinity of 1/2 mile radius . 3) Provide plans and specifications for the above design, including 20 scale drawings and phasing and timing diagrams . 4) Gather existing plans, maps traffic counts and other data. The City will provide any maps, records or other data that it has readily available, upon request . The consultant should satisfy himself/herself prior to submittal as to what information is available . 5) Provide Construction Engineering estimates, including the timing of the signal on the assumption that the signal will be bid within 6 months after approval of the design. 6) Review the results with the Director of Public Works , The • consultant will be expected to- meet with staff at least on a weekly basis at the discretion of the Director and at least once before the City Council . At least one major review will be f Provided to the City Prior ,to submitting the final drawings . Two • weeks shall be given for such review and three (3) draft copies shall be provided. 's.;. 7) The consultant shall present the City with background information on his/her firm and the key individual (s) that will work on this project . A contact person will be named if the proposal is accepted. Personnel and available resources will be a determining factor for award. 8) The consultant shall give a fee based on a lump sum, not to exceed figure and shall include all incidental costs such as Printing, travel , etc . Additional compensation shall not be awarded. Progress payments are permissible with a 10% retention. 9) The consultant shall estimate a time of completion for the work. Time of completion may be a consideration for award. The consultant shall provide fifteen (15) copies and one original of the completed work. The City will complete the Bidding and Negotiating Phase with the Notice to Bidders to be provided by the Consultant . 10) The consultant shall be expected to enter into a agreement with the City for the above work which will be prepared by the City Attorney and is expected to provide limited liability insurance, not less than $500, 000 unencumbered. We look forward to your submittal and are ready to answer any questions that you may have . Proposals are due on or before 2 : 00pm, November 9, 1988 at the office of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Very Truly Yours, Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer • .MEETINGAGENDA ITEM, • MEMORANDUM To : Honorable Mayor and City Council Through: Ray Windsor,City Manager From: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject : Post Office Traffic Signal Participation Agreement Date : October 4, 1988 Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to enter into the attached agreement with the United States Post Office insuring a participation to the E1 Camino Real/Santa Rosa traffic signal in the amount of $36, 000 . Background: • Attached are several letters between the City and the Post Office and an agreement formated by the City Attorney and approved as to content by the Post Office . Discussion: This action addresses only the traffic signal issue and represents the City' s best negotiations . (This is $36, 000 more than Paso received. ) Fiscal Impact : The Post Office will place $36, 000 into an escrow account for a maximum of three years to be used for the above traffic signal . TRAFFIC SIGNAL PAFTICIPATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1988, by and between the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, an agency of the United States Goverment, hereinafter referred to as the "Postal Service"; Witnesseth WHEREAS, the City contemplates the installation of traffic control signals and safety lighting at the intersection of El Camino Real and Santa Rosa Road, hereinafter referred to as the "project", and desires to specify the terms and conditions under which the Postal Service will participate in the cost of installing said traffic control • signals; and WHEREAS, the El Camino Real-Santa Rosa intersection signalization is an identified project whose necessity is brought about in part by the recent construction of the Atascadero Plain Post Office; and WHEREAS, it is mutually agreed between the parties that the Postal Service should contribute its fair share to the cost of said signalization project, based upon its contribution to the need therefor; and 1 f� WHEREAS, it is mutdAlly agreed between the parties that a thirty-six percent (36%) participation by the Postal Service represents its fair share of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties hereto, and upon the express terms and conditions herein set forth, it is agreed by and between them, and each with the other, as follows: 1. Within thirty (30) days of execution of this Agreement, the Postal Service will deposit $36,000.00, which represents a thirty—six percent (36%) contribution to the new signal, into a three (3) year escrow account for the benefit of the City. • 2 When actual costs of the new signal are known, the City may draw on the excrow account in an amount not to exceed thirty—six percent (36%) of those charges upon completion of construction. 3. Any residual from the $36,000.00 plus interest will be returned to the Postal Service following completion of construction. 4. Should construction of the new signal not be completed within three (3) years, the entire $36,000.00 plus any interest accrued will revert to the Postal Service. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Postal Service have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. 2 • f. CITY OF ATASCADERO By BONITA BORGESON, Mayor ATTEST: BOYD C. SHARITZ, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PAUL M. SENSIBAUGH, Public Works Director UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE By 3 July 7, 1988 Maurice Roush, Project Manager DMJM Inglewood Facilities Service Office USPS-Western Region 13031 West Jefferson Blvd. Inglewood, Ca . 90311-9202 Re : Atascadero Main Post Office-Signalization Participation Dear Mr. Roush: • I have been asked to analyze the affect of the traffic generation to the new Post Office on the El Camino Real-Santa Rosa intersection. Concurring that the Post Office should only pay for its proportional responsibility for the future traffic problems, I have analyzed Previous traffic studies within the area and made no attempt to go into a costly in-depth traffic study or origin-destination study. If You agree with the fair share formula presented, I would suggest that the Post Office also not expend any significant amount on such an analysis . It should be understood that despite occasional complaints to the contrary the existing intersection does not warrant a traffic signal and I could not justify recommending a signal in the capital improvement budget sent to council , except to suggest need in the near future if the proposed projects are completed as expected. Therefore, it is, and has been, our position that those developments, regardless of their nature, shall pay their fair share of mitigating an impact that did not exist without such development . The City will probably have to pick up the cost of the "micellaneous"category since those Projects are not certain and the signal will be needed prior to the 100 occupancy of the intesection. • • The previous figure presented to you was $147, 000 and was based upon the theoretical impact on all intersections which is the normal Procedure for estimating fees . The unit cost per ADT, however, is an average figure for all types of uses in commercial zones and is, in my opinion, inflated if used for specific trip generation of special projects . Like the studies I have referred to, it is more fair to weigh the percentage of impact on a particular intersection with respect to other projects in the area. Of course, the impact that is apparent at other future signal locations is still logical and I have included a fair share based on $0 . 54/s . f . instead of the $47/ADT. You will find that distribution (from our fee ordinance) easier to deal with since it treats you as an average commercial facility. Therefore, I propose the following proportioning which is consistant with those Presented on other area projects, some of which have been completed and some of which have disappeared forever. The cost of a T—intersection signalization project is very close to $100, 000, as can be shown by the signal installed by K—Mart at ECR and San Anselmo and the one at ECR and Palomar that is out to bid. PROJECT VEHICLES PASSING THROUGH % OF TOTAL INTERSECTION FROM ANY LEG Bordeaux House 221 17 Apartment Complex Madrid Plaza 217 16 Commercial Center Misc. Other Projects 405 30 Mixed Uses POST OFFICE 488 36 All Projects 1331 100 This distribution takes into account that most of the peak hour trips must pass through the intersection twice due to the extreme southeastern location of the facility. It also considers that approximately 10% of the generation of traffic is more southeasterly of the location and will not pass through the intersection at all . The cost of the above share is 36% of $100, 000, or $36, 000 . The fair share for other intersections as discussed above is $0 . 54 x 22,550 sq . ft . = $12 , 177 . The total proportional responsibility of the Post Office project is then $48, 177. We would agree that the $36, 000 could be put in escrow until the signal costs are known. Since we will need to raise the additional money to complete the signal or rely on other anticipated projects we would suggest that the escrow account be open for three years from the date of opening the new Post Office facility. We feel that the $12, 177 should be paid up front, however, as it will be distributed to the traffic fund that is used exclusively for the addition of traffic control necessary to mitigate the impact from developments such as the above facility. • • Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. If I can be of further help or if'-you need additional information please do not hesitate to contact me . Very Truly Yours, Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer xc : City Council Planning Commission William C. Hanley, Interim City Manager Henry Engen, Director of Community Development Doug Leeds, Atascadero Post Master Larry McClements, Postal Operations Analyst Shane Yanagisawa, Project Manager, IFSO ,,,pTES POST,_ y� Y O � W T ~ A 2 � R � uswun m t � UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Los Angeles Facilities Service Office 3000 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 2001 Santa Monica,CA 90405-3026 August 9, 1988 Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Dear Mr. Sensibaugh: Thank you for your letter of July 7, 1988 concerning the Atascadero Main Post Office Signalization Participation. The E1 Camino Real-Santa Rosa intersection signalization is an identified project whose necessity is brought about partially by the Atascadero Main Post Office project. It is therefore considered appropriate for the • project to contribute its fair share. The 36% participation which was presented in your letter is considered a fair share. However, the Postal Service is precluded from accepting assessment for other future signal locations. Therefore, Postal Service cannot contribute the $12,177.00 suggested in your letter. It is now planned to hold the final inspection and accept occupancy of the new Post Office facility on August 19, 1988. With this in mind, it is suggested that you prepare and forward a draft Letter of Agreement Postal Service participation in the E1 Camino Real-Santa Rosa intersection signalization. The key points in the agreement should include: 1. The Postal Service will desposit $36,000.00 in a three year escrow account. 2. This represents a 36% contribution to the new signal. 3. When actual costs of the new signal are known, the City may draw on the escrow account in an not to exceed 6 of Y amount 3 % those charges upon completion of construction. 4. Any residual from the $36,000.00 plus interest will be returned to the Postal Service following completion of construction. r, Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh . Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93423 Page 2 5. In the event construction of the signal has not commenced within three years of opening of the new Post Office, the $36,000.00 plus interest will be returned to the Postal Service. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, M. D. Roush Acting Manager, Design & Construction 4 ,.� AOMINISTRATION BUILDING • ! POST OFFICEBOX 747 ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93423 PHONE: 18051 566.8000 POLICE DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 747 ATASCADERO.CALIFORNIA 93423 CITY COUNCIL r PHONE: (805) 466.8600 CITY CLERK CITY TREASURER INCORPORATED JULY 2. 1979 - • CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6005 LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ATASCADERO. CALIFORNIA 93422 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT PHONE: (805) 466-2141 August 31 , 1988 M. D. Roush, Acting Manager Design and Construction Los Angeles Facilities Service Office 3000 Ocean Park Blvd. , Suite 2001 Santa Monica, Ca. 90405-3026 Re : Santa Rosa/E1 Camino Real Signalization Escrow Dear Mr. Roush: Enclosed for your review is a traffic signal participation agreement that follows the guidelines discussed in your letter of August 9 which indicates that the Post Service has agreed the 36% fair share for the above signal . Upon return of said agreement the matter will be forwarded to the Atascadero City Council for adoption. After adoption a copy of the agreement will be forwarded to your office for follow up on the escrow account as agreed. It has been a pleasure dealing with you on this issue and the City is looking forward to a neighborly disposal of the traffic impact issue . If I can be of further assistance to the Process please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience . Very Truly Yours. Paul M. Sensibaugh. Director of Public Works/ City Engineer/Acting City Manager • xc : City Council Pqreffrey G . Jorgensen. City Attorney Henry Engen, Director of Comm. Dev. ""TES post' _ O� N W T H C • Z n U SMA1l T t � • UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Los Angeles Facilities Service Office 3000 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 2001 Santa Monica,CA 90405-3026 September 19, 1988 Mr. Paul M. Sensibaugh Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Atascadero P.O. Box 747 Atascadero, CA 93243 Dear Mr. Sensibaugh: Thank you for your letter of August 31, 1988 concerning the traffic signal participation agreement. Legal review has been completed on the draft agreement. The only change requested is on page 2 of the document. A new paragraph 4 has been added in conformance with our letter of August 9, 1988. I am confident that this point was inadvertently omitted from the draft which you forwarded. Assuming that you will find the enclosed draft satisfactory, it is requested that you have two copies of the Agreement executed by appropriate Atascadero officials and return two copies to this office for execution. Following execution here, one copy will be returned for your records. It is also requested that you send instructions for deposit of the $36,000.00 in ESCROW. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, .D. oush Acting Manager Design & Construction MEETI AGENDIZ-_OAT ITEM# • M E M O R A N D U M TO: City Council Members FROM: Ray Windsor, City Manager f�r SUBJECT: B.I .A. Property Acquisition DATE: October 11, 1988 BACKGROUND In accordance with my recommendation to you at your joint meeting with the Planning Commission, I would like to move ahead with a formal appraisal on the two lots identified in the attached memo from Henry. As indicated to you earlier, I believe it is in the best inter- ests of the community to begin to improve portions of the downtown and, even though this should not be done without a comprehensive master plan, I don' t believe that the acquisition of the parcels identified by Henry will affect the outcome of that planning process . At your next meeting, staff will be prepared to make recommen- dations for the development of a master plan. RECOMMENDATION City Council authorize staff to obtain formal appraisals on lots 23 and 24 of Block MF in Atascadero Colony. RW:cw • • N E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Ray Windsor , City Manager FROM : Henry Engen , Community Development Director RE : Proposed B . I .A. Parking Lot DATE : October 5 , 1988 Parcels being proposed for• acquisition as part of the beginnings of a downtown parking program are Lots 23 and 24 of Block MF in Atascadero Colony ( see attached Assessor ' s Map) . Each lot is 30 feet wide and 75 feet deep for• a total of 4500 square feet . It is zoned CR ( Retail Commercial ) . HE :ps • Enclosure : Assessor ' s Map t • W TRAFFIC WAY s7r77•w '- r • _ 21. J35 • -3( 7t a ��.,�p 9 • O/Q/ q,-X. 70 40 .. O _ •'31.77 70 .30 cm C/) .. •. .SSU •� ... P 2 . :' 891 , N J25 . g�q `og, 89i s, 2 Nos N •O " 26J7 -30 70 '35 100 ENTRADA AVE. w W OO 32 H - = N - ,•.t•. 2i.j7 70 70 75 100 n - Om a w � s7 -4 N rn 892 n a o (2 O y a - W o ; 892 m m 31.fajo 30 s �O.// �.804(Z i IJ jo j0 is p. m � ; 073 ,l� G v/ /J7 „ N O 'AlJ y 7i 37 n w 1y so 40 - H 9,77 '30 j0 JS Joe - s 2 3 n n C o 0 m o / rn z _ Z n v ' O •ni ro i i sYa w �i WEST •MALL o I 1 D z N -•1 0 O D y � +•. 2 p O 2 �W W MEE7 AGENDA DAf�ITEMN • MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors , Atascadero County Sanitation District THROUGH: Ray Windsor , City Manager FROM: Paul M. Sensibaugh, Director of Public Works Valerie Humphrey , Clerical Technician SUBJECT: Property Transfer DATE: October 5 , 1988 Recommendation : Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Quitclaim Deeds transferring property owned by the Atascadero County Sanitation District to the City of • Atascadero. Background: As the last official duty prior to dissolution of the ACSD the Board of Directors must transfer the real property owned by the District to the City . The property involved in this transfer consists of the new wastewater treatment facility on Gabarda , the old wastewater treatment facility on Traffic Way and a small parcel on North El Camino Real used for Lift Station #1 . Fiscal Impact : The transfer of property from the District to the City is a requirement of dissolution and has no financial ramifications for the City , • Recording requested by: When recorded mail to : CITY OF ATASCADERO Attn : Public Works Department 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 QUITCLAIM DEED The undersigned Grantor declares : Documentary transfer tax is $-0- . FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which - is hereby acknowledged, the ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, a county sanitation district organized pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 4700, et seq. , hereby remises , releases , and forever quitclaims to the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, the following described real property in the City of Atascadero , County of San Luis Obispo, State of California : A portion of Lot 12 , Administration Park, Atascadero Colony in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California , according to Map thereof, recorded in Book 4 , Page 1 , et . seq. , of Maps , County Recorder' s Office, San Luis Obispo County , and the boundaries of which are described as follows : Beginning at a point on the Westerly boundary of Atascadero Creek Reserve 1-A, said point being a corner common to said Atascadero Creek Reserve 1-A, the aforementioned Lot 12 and the adjoining Lot 13; thence Southerly along said Westerly boundary of Atascadero Creek Reserve 1-A, the following eight courses and distances : S20029' E, 196 .47 (One hundred ninety-six and forty-seven one-hundredths) feet ; S21029' E, 109 . 00 (One hundred nine) feet ; S27 °09' E, 102 . 00 (One hundred two) feet ; S4° 09' E, 69 . 00 (Sixty-nine) feet ; S33° 09' E, 74 . 00 (Seventy-four) feet ; S16°11'W, 268 . 00 (Two hundred sixty-eight) feet ; S11 °41'W, 86 . 00 (Eighty-six) feet ; S26 °19' E, 60 . 00 (Sixty) feet ; thence Northwesterly, N61023'W, 751 . 04 (Seven hundred fifty-one and four one hundredths) feet to the centerline of Traffic Way ; thence Northerly along the centerline of Traffic Way N5°55'W, 372 .71 (Three hundred seventy-two and seventy-one one hundredths) feet : thence on an arc to the right whose radius is 573 . 10 (Five hundred seventy-three and ten one- hundredths) feet , through an angle of 20°`38' , along the centerline of Traffic Way , a distance of 206. 38 (Two hundred six and thirty-eight one-hundredths) feet ; thence Northeasterly N85°13'55"E, 291 . 37 (Two hundred ninety-one and thirty-seven one-hundredths) feet ; thence N29005'E, 75 . 00 (Seventy-five) feet ; thence Southeasterly along the line separating the aforemetioned Lots 12 and 13, S60-55' E, 251 . 68 (Two hundred fifty-one and sixty- eight one-hundredths) feet to the point of beginning. The above described parcel contains 11 .99 acres , more or less . EXECUTED on October 11 , 1988 at Atascadero, California . ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BY BONITA BORGESON, President ATTEST : RAY WINDSOR Secretary i APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN Sanitation District Attorney f� Recording requested by : When recorded mail to: CITY OF ATASCADERO Attn : Public Works Department 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 QUITCLAIM DEED The undersigned Grantor declares : Documentary transfer tax is $-0-. FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, a county sanitation district organized pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 4700, et seq. , hereby remises , releases , and forever quitclaims to the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California , the following described real property in the City of Atascadero , County of San Luis Obispo, State of California : All that portion of real property of the unrecorded Lot 3 of Rancho Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo , State of California , lying adjacent to and southerly of Block 9 of the Atascadero Colony as shown on a map in Book 3A, page 7 of Maps , in the office of the County Recorder, County of San Luis Obispo, lying easterly of the easterly right of way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad, and lying northerly of the southeasterly boundary and its north- easterly extension, of the existing Atascadero County Sanitation District disposal facilities designated as Phase I on Exhibit "A" of that Agreement recorded in Book 1816 , Page 812 , Official Records , in the office of the County angles , Northeasterly 30. 00 feet ; thence Southeasterly Recorder in said County, more particularly described as : Beginning at the south corner of said Block 9, being a point on the easterly line of the right-of-way of the- Southern Pacific Railroad; thence , along the southeasterly line of said Block 9, North 39° 22' , East , 2500 feet , more or less , to the centerline of the Salinas River; thence , along said centerline, South 120 45' East , 330 feet to a point ; • • thence , continuing along said centerline , South 57° 55' East , 350 feet , more or less , to a point on the north- easterly extension of said southeasterly boundary of said Atascadero County Sanitation District disposal facilities ; thence, southwesterly along said extension and boundary, South 270 21' West , 1650 feet , more or less , to the South corner of said facilities , said corner lying on the said easterly line of said railroad right-of-way ; thence , along said right of way line, North 620 39' West , 365 . 00 feet , more or less , to the beginning of a curve concave to the northeast , whose radius is 1950. 00 feet ; thence, continuing on said right of way, along the arc of said curve , a distance of 1480 .00 feet through a central angle of 430 29' to a point ; thence, continuing along said right of way, North 190 10' West , 1775 .00 feet , more or less , to the point of beginning. EXECUTED on October 11 , 1988 at Atascadero , California . ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BY BONITA BORGESON. President ATTEST : RAY WINDSOR Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN Sanitation District Attorney 0 s Recording requested by: When recorded mail to : CITY OF ATASCADERO Attn : Public Works Department 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 QUITCLAIM DEED The undersigned Grantor declares : Documentary transfer tax is $-0- . FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, a county sanitation district organized pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 4700 , et seq. , hereby remises , releases , and forever quitclaims to the CITY OF ATASCADERO, a municipal corporation of the State of California, the following described real property in the City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California : That portion of Lot 17B in Block 18 of Atascadero Colony as shown on Amendment C to the Map of Atascadero Colony recorded in Book 3, Page 19A of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County , described as follows : Beginning at a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 17B, said point being the most Southerly corner of the land described in the Deed to Guy N. Southwick and wife , recorded February 20, 1951 , as Instrument No. 1884 in Book 598, Page 141 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said County ; thence North- westerly along the Southwesterly line of the land described in said Deed 130. 00 feet ; thence, at right angles , Northeasterly 30. 00 feet ; thence Southeasterly parallel to said Southwesterly line of said Lot 17B 130 . 00 feet more or less to a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot ; thence Southwesterly along said South- easterly line of said Lot to the Point of Beginning. • EXECUTED on October 11 , 1988 at Atascadero , California . ATASCADERO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BY BONITA BORGESON, President ATTEST: RAY WINDSOR Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN Sanitation District Attorney •