HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 100990 Approved as submitted 11/13/90
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 1990
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p .m. by Mayor Lilley.
Councilman Shiers led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present : Councilmembers Shiers, Nimmo , Dexter ,
Borgeson and Mayor Lilley
Also Present : Muriel Korba, City Treasurer and Lee Dayka,
City Clerk
Staff Present : Ray Windsor , City Manager ; Art Montandon,
City Attorney; Henry Engen, Community
Development Director; Greg Luke, Public
Works Director ; Lisa Schicker, Natural
Resource Specialist ; and Bud McHale, Police
Chief
PROCLAMATION:
Mayor Lilley read the proclamation for "Fire Prevention Week" ,
October 7-13, 1990.
COMMUNITY FORUM:
Sarah Gronstrand , representing the Friends of the Lake Pavilion,
announced that on May 5, 1991 there would be a benefit event ,
"Festival of the Oaks and Antique Show" .
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Lilley read the Consent Calendar :
1 . SEPTEMBER 11 , 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
2. SEPTEMBER 20, 1990 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (Study Session)
3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11-90, 8065 AMAPOA - Request to
subdivide one lot into four four airspace condominiums and a
common space (Academe Enterprises, Inc . /Summit Engineering )
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12-90, 8045 AMAPOA - Request to convert
CC10/9/90
Page 1
common space (Academe Enterprises, Inc . /Summit Engineering )
4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12-90, 8045 AMAPOA - Request to convert
an existing four-unit project into airspace condominiums
(Shutt/Summitt Engineering )
5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13-900 6655 TECORIDA - Request to
subdivide one lot into four airspace condominiums and a
common space (Borba/Cuesta Engineering )
6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13-88, 6375 TECORIDA - Time extension
(Grinnell )
7. FINAL TRACT MAP 3-90, 7715/7745 SINALOA ROAD - Creation of
six parcels ranging in size from 3,206 sq . ft . to 4,775 sq .
ft . ( in conformance with Ordinance No . 198, Zone Change 8-
89, Planned Development Overlay No . 7) (Jones/Cuesta
Engineering )
8. FINAL TRACT MAP 15-89, 5900 BAJADA AVENUE - Amendment to a
previously approved condominium tract map to allow an
addition to unit #1 (Low/Cuesta Engineering )
9. FINAL PARCEL MAP 20-891 14205 SANTA ANA ROAD, 9800 & 9850
GARCERO ROAD - Subdivision of 17. 19 acres into three lots
containing approximately 5.7 acres each (Atascadero
Highlands/ Volbrecht Surveys)
10. RESOLUTION NO. 116-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A NO PARKING AREA
ALONG A PORTION OF EL CAMINO REAL IN FRONT OF THE K-MART
PLAZA
11 . RESOLUTION NO. 115-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A STOP INTERSECTION
ON ARDILLA ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF BALBOA ROAD
12. RESOLUTION NO. 117-90 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A NO PARKING AREA
ALONG A PORTION OF SAN LUIS AND PUEBLO AVENUES
13. AUTHORIZATION FOR PAVILION-RELATED EXPENSES (PHASE I )
14. AWARD OF BID #90-12 FOR BUILDING DIVISION UTILITY VEHICLE
15. AWARD OF BID #90-5 FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
Councilwoman Borgeson pulled items A-13 and A-15 for
clarification.
CC 10/9/90
Page 2
0. ,
13. AUTHORIZATION FOR PAVILION-RELATED EXPENSES (PHASE I )
Councilwoman Borgeson noted that she had pulled this item off the
Consent Calendar to ask why there was a 5% discrepancy in the
contingency. The City Manager , Mr . Windsor , stated that the 10%
contingency previously approved by Council was not necessary and
added that if it increases above the 5% speculated , the matter
will come back to Council .
15. AWARD OF BID #90-5 FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
Councilwoman Borgeson stated , for the public record , that she had
spoken with the Police Chief regarding the award of the bid and
that she had been satisfied with his report .
Chief McHale clarified that Witco Computers can supply the most
well-trained backup and can support the entire department ' s
computer system.
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to approve items A-13 and A-15; motion carried
5:0 by roll call vote.
H. HEARINGS/APPEARANCES:
1 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-89, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21-89, AND
ZONE CHANGE 15-89, 8555 EL CORTE - Appeal by Ray Bunnell of
Planning Commission denial of proposal to subdivide six (6)
existing lots of 21 acres into 79 lots for single-family
homes, including one common lot , and to revise standards of
the PD-6 Overlay Zone relating to the elevation at which
structures can be built on the site (Continued from
September 25, 1990)
Henry Engen, Community Development Director , gave the staff
report describing the proposed project and the additional
amenities of a hiking trail and a common recreational lot . Mr .
Engen reported that the initial staff recommendation was to
support the proposed development and adopt the ordinance, but
that the Planning Commission had recommended denial . He reported
that the issues of concern included density, impact of off-site
improvements, drainage, the request to change the 960 foot
contour elevation and the impact of increased traffic .
Mr . Engen responded to questions from the Council regarding
surrounding development , building heights, access routes and
minimum lot size.
CC10/9/90
Page 3
i
I
An alternative to the proposed 77-unit project , he added , would
be a 72-unit project , which is the scale schematically presented
in support of the original re-zoning in 1986.
Mr . Engen responded to questions from the Council regarding
surrounding development , building heights, access routes and
minimum lot size.
Ray Bunnell , owner-developer , clarified that he was not
requesting a re-zoning and that the proposed development would
not be unusual or new for the area. He gave background and
related comments in support of the Planned Development . In
addition, Mr . Bunnell addressed the 960 foot elevation, tree
removals and off-site improvements. At this time, Mr . Bunnell
introduced his design team, who individually addressed the
Council .
Rob Strong , planning consultant , gave a slide presentation of the
location and proposed development .
Steve Pults, architect , presented slides rendering architectural
concepts.
Fred Schott , project engineer , addressed issues of drainage, road
system, traffic and on-site grading .
Mr . Bunnell then responded to questions from Council regarding
lot size, side yards and property lot line design.
Public Comments :
Art Wells, 9105 La Linia, spoke in opposition to the planned
development claiming that it create major changes in character
and traffic levels.
David Mosher , 8895 E1 Centro , stated that he was not against the
property being developed , but asked that it be kept in line with
one-half acre zoning . In addition, he opposed the proposed
opening up of E1 Centro and expressed concern relating to
drainage.
Jay Peterson, 8519 E1 Dorado , submitted a petition (Exhibit A)
signed by property owners who were asking that the property be
restored to single-family residential zoning . He spoke regarding
the initial development proposed by the former owner , Bill Poe,
and opposed strongly to the planned development because of
density and expected increased traffic . Mr . Peterson asserted
that the proposed utilization was not in conformance with the
neighborhood .
CC 10/9/90
Page 4
0 0
Ronetta Davidson, 8545 E1 Dorado , spoke in opposition to the
number of homes proposed and the opening up of E1 Centro .
Mr . Sahl , 9083 La Linia, expressed concerns relating to drainage
and traffic .
Mario Perez , 8531 E1 Dorado , quoted an earlier engineering study
regarding traffic congestion, spoke in opposition to opening up
of E1 Centro and to the number of homes proposed . He urged
Council to restore the half-acre zoning.
Larry Waugh , 8580 E1 Dorado , proclaimed that the area already had
inadequate culverts, stressing concerns for drainage. In
addition, the resident stated that the proposed project was too
dense.
Mike Cox , resident of Morningside Drive in Atascadero , commented
that he was surprised that the matter had become an issue and
referred to the proposed development by Mr . Poe. He indicated
that his concern at the time had been that the homes planned were
to be duplex units and suggested that the current proposal was a
more appropriate development .
Vincent Lavorgna of Atascadero spoke on behalf of Mrs. Van Ryan,
a neighboring property owner , who was in support of the project .
Bill Watton, 8990 Arcade, voiced opposition to the planned
development stating that it would be more appropriate to cut the
proposed number of units in half. He also referred to a past
traffic fatality in the area and commented that the traffic
problems have not been adequately addressed .
Kay Wells, 9105 La Linia, noted that the development would add to
the problems of drainage and would disturb the natural floral and
wildlife habitats of an existing " live stream" . Additionally,
the resident expressed concern for the safety of children if E1
Corte was opened up for through traffic.
Ruben Diaz , 9085 La Linia, relayed concern for increased traffic ,
drainage and street surfacing .
Richard Schenberger , 10535 San Marcos Road , spoke in favor of
the project noting that it offered the feature of pride of
ownership .
Eric Hagen, 5500 Santa Fe Road , commented that the proposed
project would blend with the hillside and topography.
CC 10/9/90
Page 5
Mayor Lilley called for a fifteen minute recess at 9:30 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:45 p.m.
Tim McCutheon, 786 Horstman in Templeton, referred to another
Bunnell Construction project and stated that initially residents
had similar concerns. He stated that the Cherry Meadows
development was a good project and urged Council to approve the
proposal .
Janet Fillmore, 8830 E1 Centro Road , asked why there had not
been an Environmental Impact Report done on the project . She
expressed concerns relating to density, elevations and to the
opening up of El Centro .
Mr . Bunnell responded to concerns raised by the public regarding
off-site improvements adding that the City has good control over
follow-through . He indicated that he wanted to be proud of the
project and had no objections to leaving the live stream open.
He explained that once La Linia is improved , the streets will be
safer and commended the staff for their report . Mr . Bunnell
urged Council to approve the project .
Discussion came back to individual comments from the Council .
Councilman Nimmo stated that change is needed and that the
property is an eye-sore. He voiced support for the proposed
development indicating that he favored it over the alternative of
apartments and added that it offered an opportunity for improving
the infrastructure.
Councilman Shiers opposed the density level stating that it was
not consistent with the neighborhood . He also noted that while
he was supportive of alternatives to shielding cuts, he did not
favor lifting the 960 ' contour line restrictions. In addition,
he reiterated concerns about traffic and drainage.
Councilman Dexter stated that there was a need for the kind of
housing proposed because of the amenities it afforded ; but
asserted that he could support the project if the number of homes
was reduced to seventy-two (72) . He added that he was not ,
however , in agreement with the extension of E1 Centro .
Councilwoman Borgeson declared that the previous re-zoning was
done so inappropriately and stressed her concern that "unusable"
land had been considered for overall building lot calculations.
She expressed concurrence with the Planning Commission and their
findings for denial . Councilwoman Borgeson referred to a comment
made earlier by a member of the public regarding an E. I .R. and
stated that there would indeed be impacts to the neighborhood .
CC 10/9/90
Page 6
She concurred with Councilman Dexter that development should be
limited to seventy-two units.
Mayor Lilley indicated support of the planned development
describing it as sensitive. He noted that the area had outgrown
infrastructure and that staff had used planning tools to mitigate
the residents of not only the new development , but also those of
the present neighbors. The mayor commented that seventy-seven
units were too many, but added that he would approve of seventy-
two .
Discussion ensued regarding the building height limitations.
Councilman Shiers stated that if the 960 ' building height
restriction is lifted , he wanted to ensure that the building
height would not go above 30 ' . Mr . Engen reported that the
applicant had indicated that he was not planning on going any
higher .
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to adopt an amendment to the official Zoning Ordinance
text of the PD6 overlay zone relative to proposed
buildings extending above a specific elevation, as set
forth in Exhibit K of the staff report .
Discussion of the motion followed . Councilman Shiers asked
if there was consensus that there would be a reduction in
the number of homes and reiterated his concerns.
Councilwoman Borgeson asked for an opinion from the City
Attorney. Mr . Montandon advised that the action before them
was the introduction of the ordinance and that it would be
back for second reading in two weeks, at which time Council
had the option of adopting it or not .
Vote was taken; amendment to the ordinance was
unanimous.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the number of units and
options for Council direction. The mayor asked the applicant if
he would be willing to reduce the amount of homes to seventy-two
with one lot reserved for open space. Mr . Bunnell replied that
he would be willing to amend his request for a Conditional Use
Permit by reducing the number of living spaces to seventy-two
with one uninhabited lot . He added that he would surrender an
earlier request to waive the conditional off-site improvements
associated with that reduction.
CC10/9/90
Page 7
0 0
MOTION: By Mayor Lilley to approve the Conditional Use Permit
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the
staff report in Exhibits "L" and "M" ; as amended at the
request of the applicant for approval of seventy-two
residential units and the balance of the lot in
undeveloped open space; this motion contingent upon the
applicant submitting a revised site plan and staff
revising conditions of approval , all subject to further
approval as a Consent Agenda item for the meeting of
October 30, 1990; motion unanimously passed .
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to continue the matter of accepting the tentative tract
map , as a consent agenda item, to October 30, 1990;
motion unanimously carried .
2. CONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 12550 SANTA
ANA ROAD, FOR PURPOSE OF PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION
(Sandel )
Lisa Schicker , Natural Resource Specialist , was present to
respond to questions. There were no comments from Council or the
public .
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to support the findings of the Natural Resource
Specialist and approve the heritage tree removal ;
motion unanimously carried .
3. CONSIDERATION OF HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST, 9405 JAQUIMA
FOR PURPOSES OF HOME CONSTRUCTION (Lund )
Lisa Schicker gave brief staff report . There were no questions
from Council and no public comment .
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to approve the heritage tree removal with a 2: 1
replacement ; motion unanimously passed .
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1 . GARCIA ROAD TREE REMOVAL ISSUE (Cont ' d from 9/25/90)
Lisa Schicker reported that the application for the construction
of the Garcia Road had begun approximately 18 months ago and that
an acceptable design for Garcia Road had been proposed following
a series of designs, redesigns, prior City Council meetings,
public hearings and field meetings. She explained that a tree
cc 10/9/90
Page 8
removal application and protection map had been prepared by the
applicant ' s arborist , Jack Brazeal , and that the map had been
used to determine which trees were to be saved and which trees
were to be removed . She continued that on the basis of this map
and field visits, Council approved the tree removal application
for the road ; explaining that a maximum of sixty-nine trees ( 12
of them heritage size) would be removed.
The Natural Resource Specialist stated that road construction had
begun in early September and on the 20th day of September , it had
come to the attention of the Public Works Director , the Community
Development Director and herself that the trees removed had
exceeded the permitted amount . She then reported that a stop
work order had been placed on the job and that she had , along
with Mr . Brazeal , completed a field survey to assess the
situation. Ms. Schicker stated that there were a total of
eighteen trees that had been removed that had been slated to
remain, according to the map . She clarified that eight of those
trees were of heritage size, and according to the existing Tree
Ordinance, would have required Council action to allow for their
removal .
Ms. Schicker also noted that she had prepared some observations
and suggestions as to how tree removal applications during road
constructions might be addressed in the future.
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Nimmo
to extend the meeting beyond 11 :00 p .m. ; motion
unanimously carried .
Councilman Nimmo asked whether or not the applicant had been
required to post funds for replacement of seventy-five trees in
the amount of $15,000. Ms. Schicker responded that no posting
was required ; that the applicants had agreed , based upon the
sixty-nine trees to be removed , to replace these trees as well as
an additional six trees (representing some thirty trees possibly
impacted by the construction) .
The City Manager clarified that Council had made it clear at
their meeting on July 10, 1990, that $15,000 be determined as the
amount to be paid by the applicants. He added that the
applicants had concurred with this amount .
Ms. Schicker read a portion of Mr . Engen ' s letter to the
applicants which outlined the in-lieu donation to the Tree
Replacement Fund of up to $15,000 based upon the final tree
removal tally, noting that there might be a credit for costs
incurred by the developers for additional survey work in
CC°10/9/90
Page 9
• 0
relocating the alignment .
Public Comments:
Don Vaughn, representing the developers, explained that the
contractor on the job site had been sensitive to tree removals.
He stated that it was very difficult to put a road of this size
through a forest of trees and reported that there had been two
cuttings. The first cutting , he explained , had included those
trees marked for removal . Mr . Vaughn continued that two weeks
following the first cutting , a request was made to the Public
Works Department for approval of a second cutting . He remarked
that it was "understood" that approval had been given.
Jack Brazeal , arborist for the developers, gave background on the
tree removals. He stated that it became evident that there were
more trees in the right-of-way that would require removal and
that the contractor contacted the City to receive tentative
approval . Mr . Brazeal asked that , even though there were more
trees removed than originally planned for , the applicants not be
penalized because the end result would have been the same in
order to get the road established as required by the City.
Mayor Lilley asked Mr . Brazael if he had been on the job when the
request was made for the removal of the additional trees. He
replied that he had not , but that the contractor had been in
touch with him by telephone.
Council comments followed regarding action to mitigate the
unauthorized removal of trees.
Councilman Nimmo stated that the developer be required to pay
$200/tree for the trees cut down.
Councilman Dexter asserted that Council rule should be followed
and not circumvented by others. He added that the owners should
pay $200/tree removed and let the City do its ' own assessment of
blame.
Councilwoman Borgeson stated that eighteen trees were removed
without the consent of Council and proclaimed that $200/tree was
not enough for those of heritage size.
Councilman Shiers observed that proper procedure was not followed
and that the Tree Ordinance could not be ignored . He indicated
that he would be agreeable to $200/tree with an additional
$100/tree for the eighteen infractions of the ordinance and
acknowledged that even that figure was not really enough for the
CC 1.0/9/90
Page 10
heritage trees.
Mayor Lilley recognized the efforts made by the applicants and
expressed concern over the situation. He stated that he was
upset that policy made by Council was not followed and indicated
that it should have been clear to anyone who had the map in their
possession that the additional trees should have not been removed
without further action by the Council . The mayor then suggested
assessing $200/tree for the non-heritage trees removed without a
permit and $300/tree for each heritage tree removed without a
permit .
Councilman Nimmo pointed out that Council had adopted an interim
policy of $200/tree without any distinction between heritage and
non-heritage.
Councilwoman Borgeson asked the City Attorney what the fine was
for an infraction of the Tree Ordinance. Mr . Montandon explained
that it was $100.
Councilman Nimmo asserted that he recalled that Council had
approved the removal of seventy-five trees at $200/each for a
total of $15,000.
Lisa Schicker , in an effort to clarify Council ' s previous
action, read a portion of the July 10, 1990 staff report
recommending the tree removals. She explained that the
replacement formula she had devised was a 1 : 1 replacement ratio
for those trees to be removed (69 trees) , noting that the figure
could have been reduced if minor changes were permitted in road
building and alignment. A ratio of 1 :5, she explained , for a
total of six trees was assessed for those thirty trees
anticipated to be significantly endangered by cut and fill . Ms.
Schicker stated that no money had yet been collected ; that funds
were to be collected based upon the final field conditions, less
any additional survey costs.
Additional discussion followed regarding the assessment and the
following motion was made:
MOTION= By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilwoman
Borgeson to assess $200/tree for every tree removed
beyond those provided for in the permit plus an
additional $100/tree per infraction: for a total amount
of $5,400; motion carried 4: 1 with Councilman Nimmo
voting in opposition.
CC'1:0/9/90
Page 11
0 i
The City Manager indicated that there was another matter to be
resolved , one regarding money being held for progress payments.
Mayor Lilley clarified that an oral agreement had been made by an
agent for the City and the applicant to retain the original
collateral for the payment of the project subject to pay-up to
the contractors and that it was necessary to ratify that
agreement and to allow it to continue.
MOTION: By Councilman Nimmo and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to ratify the agreement between the City and the
applicant entered into with regard to the commitment
for funds; motion unanimously passed .
The City Council , by common consensus, directed the City
Prosecutor , Mr . Montandon, not to pursue these infractions
criminally.
The City Manager asked for direction from Council to amend the
ordinance as it relates to the issue of penalties. Council gave
such direction to the City Attorney. In addition, Council was
unanimously in support of directing the Natural Resource
Specialist to incorporate proposed amendments to the Tree
Ordinance for the implementation of tree removal plans as it
relates to roadways within the City.
2. CARLTON SQUARE PROPOSAL
Mayor Lilley introduced Norman J. Norton of Norman Norton
Construction. Mr . Norton referenced his letter of September 20,
1990 addressed to the Council and outlined plans for an extensive
revitalization of the existing Carlton Hotel . He reported that
if the developers were mandated to construct an additional
parking area in order to meet existing parking requirements, the
project would become financially infeasible and asked that
consideration be given relating to parking requirements for the
proposed commercial/retail mini-mall . Mr . Norton clarified that
the institution considering lending the funds for the remodeling
had asked for assurances that the parking issue will be resolved
by the City.
Brief discussion followed . There was consensus that the Carlton
Hotel was a key to the success of downtown renewal and that the
City may need to show some flexibility relating to parking .
The Community Development Director , in response to questions from
Council , reported on the number of units required and noted that
the Conditional Use Permit process before the Planning Commission
offers some latitude. Additionally, Mr . Engen announced that the
CC10/:9°./90
Page 12
W, W
Draft Downtown Master Plan would be before the Planning
Commission on October lb, 1990 and that the Commission would be
considering attendant ordinances, including one that gives a
variety of alternate ways of providing parking in the downtown.
He also noted that the Planning Commission had also received Mr .
Norton ' s letter .
Sarah Gronstrand , Downtown Steering Committee, reminded the
Council that the consultants for the Downtown Master Plan had
emphasized strongly that it would be necessary to modify the
parking requirements for anyone moving into the downtown area.
John Himes, President of the B. I .A. , expressed enthusiastic
support for the remodeling of the hotel , recommended cutting the
parking requirements by half and favored in-lieu fees to provide
parking elsewhere. In addition, Mr . Himes voiced concern for the
long term parking needs of residents of the hotel and asked that
this issue be given some consideration.
Mr . Norton reiterated that he needed some kind of assurance from
the City as soon as possible before the project could go any
further . The City Manager indicated that he wanted to meet
together with the developers in the very near future so that he
could come back to Council with a request for firm direction.
Council acknowledged that there is no present on-site parking
and concurred that in-lieu parking would be appropriate.
3. PRIDE DAYS
The City Manager asked the Council to give endorsement to a
clean-up project initiated by City department heads. He
indicated that he would , with the Council ' s blessings, send
letters to the school district , service clubs and organizations,
and the Atascadero Homeowner ' s Association in an effort to
stimulate interest so that it might grow into a community-wide
program.
The mayor , on behalf of the Council , thanked Mr . Windsor for the
initiative and gave approval to the program.
John Himes, owner of the Paper Works on Entrada, congratulated
the City staff and Council for the Pride Days project and
thanked those who participated in the clean up of his store
front .
CC10/ 91/90
Page 13
4. SET HEARING DATE FOR MANDATORY SOLID WASTE PICK-UP &
CURBSIDE RECYCLING
Mayor Lilley noted that the tentative date for the hearing was
November 13, 1990. The City Manager commented that he would use
discretion and keep the agenda light for that evening , as he
expected lengthy discussion of the matter . Council concurred and
asked that staff give appropriate notice to the public .
D. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1 . City Council :
A. Committee Reports - The following represents ad hoc or
standing committees and informative status reports were
be given, as follows:
1 . Recycling Committee - Councilman Shiers reported that
the committee was happy with the new appointments and
had set up sub-committees.
2. Solid/Hazardous Waste Committee - Councilman Nimmo
reported that the committee had met and had aired
frustration with County government as it relates to
funding .
3. Traffic Committee - Councilman Dexter gave a brief
report and referred to items A-10, 11 and 12 of the
Consent Calendar as those recommended by the Traffic
Committee.
4. City/School Committee - Councilman Dexter reported that
the committee had met for the first time this year and
referenced the action summary in the agenda packet
prepared by the City Manager .
2. City Attorney - No report .
3. City Clerk - No report .
4. City Treasurer - No report .
5. City Manager
Mr . Windsor gave a brief status report on the investigation of an
incident at the Waste Water Treatment Plant , noting that Council
would be receiving a full report within the next few days.
CC10/ 9/90
Page 14
• a
MOTION: By Councilman Dexter and seconded by Councilman Shiers
to adjourn to closed session for the purpose of
discussions relating to personnel matters; motion
unanimously carried .
THE OPEN SESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 12:02 A.M. COUNCIL ADJOURNED
THEIR CLOSED SESSION TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 30, 1990
AT APPROXIMATELY 12: 12 A.M.
r
MIND E ECO AND TREPARED BY:
LEE DAYKA, City erk
Attachment : Exhibit A (Citizen Petition re: 8555 E1 Corte)
CC10/ 9-/90
Page 15
CC 9/90 EXHIBIT A .mac.• �.''.�..o, �. 7-*14".,
o R E C E: VV 9 D
ADERO
PETITION TO RETURN PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIM4&XZONING
The under signed being the residents and/or owners of real
property affected by the development of property located 8555
E1 Corte , City of Atascadero , California hereby petition the
City Counsel to amend section 9-3 .650 of the City Municipal
Code to revoke the Planned Development Overlay Zone Number 6
so as to restofe the property to its original zoning of
single family residences in conformity with the existing
neighborhood instead of the present multiple family dwelling.
Date Name Adress
�%-►4��t0 C•c.�r•�\ ��y�^ ���G 1. \ ��^c� ��0.�:rc �•-z ccs
Cf
1
t - t
ZZ
cl-
S
qJQ 7
1 , S SS S . d I
Pate Name Address
,;X0 �-;a&W rt. ,�„
q �L �(pL j.c Ru AZI-5
t
PETITION TO RETURN PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING
The under signed being the residents and/or owners of real
property affected by the development of property located 8555
E1 Corte , City of Atascadero , California hereby petition the
City Counsel to amend section .9-3.650 of the City Municipal
Code to revoke the Planned Development Overlay Zone Number 6
so as to restore the property to its original zoning of
single family residences in conformity with the existing
neighborhood instead of the present multiple family dwelling.
Date Name Adress
Lli14 --,�: �
"'x �, � ccd La. o
e7��_.. '�:�. � I.C04— All
G���
e —L
u ✓
3 Jz1al-46E
ka;'� '
-AA&
Q:,Lirz
aLj 11V L&-
PETITION TO RETURN PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING
The under signed being the residents and/or owners of real
property affected by the development of property located 8555
El Corte , City of Atascadero , California hereby petition the
City Counsel to amend section 9-3.650 of the City Municipal
Code to revoke . the Planned Development Overlay Zone Number 6
so as to restore the property to its original zoning of
single family residences in conformity with the existing
neighborhood instead of the present multiple family dwelling.
Date Name Adress
�-v�-�U ,JLcrcL�cv d- Csi
19 qA
b X37 57:5G �C/Yr-i« 4a, ,4 >c
i