HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 012693 Approved as Submitted
02/09/93
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 26, 1993
MINUTES
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6 : 02 p.m. Councilperson
Kudlac led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL•
Present : Councilmembers Bewley (arrived 6 : 10 p.m. ) ,
Borgeson, Kudlac, Luna and Mayor Nimmo
Absent : None
Also Present : Muriel "Micki" Korba, City Treasurer and Lee
Raboin, City Clerk
Staff Present : Ray Windsor, City Manager; Andy Takata, Assis-
tant City Manager/Director of Community
Services; Henry Engen, Community Development
Director; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark
Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Mike
McCain, Fire Chief; Bud McHale, Police Chief
and Doug Davidson, Senior Planner
MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW:
Mark Joseph provided an introduction to the six month status review
of the current fiscal year' s budget . Andy Takata reported that
there were three requests for additional funding. The first, he
noted, was a request by the Fire Chief to make a $60,000 adjustment
in the department' s overtime account . The other two requests, he
continued, represent recommendations from the Police Chief to fill
a position left vacant by one police officer and grant a proposal
to acquire additional police vehicles .
Discussion followed regarding gas tax funds . Councilwoman Borgeson
asked for more information on these and Transit Development Act
(TDA) funds .
Chief McCain spoke in support of his request, noting that the
department' s overtime budget has historically been insufficient .
Mark Joseph provided cost projections for reinstating the police
officer. Chief McHale presented an estimate of vehicle costs .
Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that she was in favor of allocating
an additional $60, 000 for Fire Department overtime and filling the
CC 01/26/93
Page 1
vacant police officer position. She added that she would like to
see a ten percent reduction in expenses overall . Councilman Luna
pointed out that this suggestion would require negotiations with
employee bargaining units .
The Mayor remarked that the City was facing a $50-60, 000 deficit
with no remedy. He stated that it would be necessary to make
substantial reductions in personnel, departmental costs, programs,
services and requests for funding by community groups. All members
of Council agreed that fire and police services are essential and
it was time to look at other programs and where cut backs might be
appropriate .
MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilman Luna to
approve an additional $60, 000 for Fire Department
overtime; motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Kudlac
to direct staff to find additional budget cuts in the
amount of $60, 000 for the remainder of the 1992-93 fiscal
year; motion carried unanimously by roll call vote .
Discussion ensued regarding Police Department requests . Andy
Takata mentioned that surplus City vehicles could be transferred to
the Police Department and noted that this could be done administra-
tively with no formal action of the Council .
Mayor Nimmo expressed an unwillingness to support the recommenda-
tions of the Police Chief . Councilman Kudlac disagreed and made
the following motion:
MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson
to reinstate the Police Officer position; motion failed
2 : 3 (Councilmembers Bewley and Luna, and Mayor Nimmo) .
MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac to fund two additional vehicles for
the Police Department . Motion died for lack of a second.
By mutual concurrence, staff was directed to schedule another
meeting to look at Waste Water and other funds.
COUNCIL COMMENTS•
Councilwoman Borgeson asked staff to report on Proposition 116
projects and voiced objection to bikeways on El Camino Real as a
priority above bikeways (Safe Paths to School) on Traffic Way.
Henry Engen indicated that staff would prepare the report .
COMMUNITY FORUM
Bud Tanner, 5290 Barrenda, shared concern for lost school time for
children at the San Benito Elementary School because of traffic
congestion. In addition, he asked who will maintain trees planted
CC 01/26/93
Page 2
in the recently constructed median at the south end of El Camino
Real .
Ray Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive, spoke in favor of forming a
task force to work toward improving the social quality of life in
Atascadero and touched on issues relating to voter awareness and
City-wide health care.
Catherine Lickers of Atascadero addressed the Council regarding the
topic of guest houses. The Mayor pointed out that the matter of
secondary units would be taken up later on the agenda and invited
her to relay her comments then. (See page 5) .
The following members of the public voiced objections to the median
built on South El Camino Real and/or any future medians proposed
for downtown: Mark Simmons, co-owner of Hoover' s Hacienda; Archie
Westlund, 9192 Planewood Court; Tony Ranaletti, owner of Virginia
Plaza, Mike Goodman, The Tool Outlet; Dan Phillps, Dan' s Barber
Shop; Jim Carpenter, 8200 Casitas . In addition, Mary Joan Wallace,
Rancho Del Bordo resident, provided suggestions for improving the
traffic flow in and around the new median.
Councilwoman Borgeson announced that she would address the matter
of the median under Individual Council Comments later in the
meeting. See pages 8 & 9) .
A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing
committees. Informative status reports were given, as
follows. ) :
1. S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority - Mayor Nimmo announced
the next meeting would be Wednesday, February 3, 1993 .
2 . City/School Committee - Henry Engen remarked that the
committee had met on January 21, 1993 . He indicated that
there was a letter pending from the School District
regarding enforcement of a creek curfew and added that it
had been reported that the School Resource Officer would
be eliminated due to District budgetary reductions .
3 . Traffic Committee - Henry Engen reported that the
committee would meet on the following day.
4 . County Water Advisory Board - Councilwoman Borgeson
announced that the next meeting would be February 3 , 1993
at 1 :30 p.m.
5. Economic Round Table - Henry Engen mentioned that a
report from the Round Table was forthcoming.
CC 01/26/93
Page 3
B. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Mayor Nimmo read the Consent Calendar, as follows :
1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1992
2 . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - January 12, 1993
3 . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-89, 8625 ATASCADERO AVE. - Consider-
ation of time extension request (Iverson/Central Coast
Engineering)
4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17-90, 5392 BARRENDA - Consideration of
time extension request (Lopez/Cuesta Engineering)
5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 92-001, 9955 EL CAMINO REAL - Acceptance
of final map to create eight (8) airspace condominium units
within approved commercial buildings (Golden West Develop-
ment/Volbrecht Surveys)
6. SAN GABRIEL SEWER - Proposed modification of Sewer Extension
Reimbursement Agreement between the City and the Atascadero
Unified School District
7 . RESOLUTION NO. 06-93 - Authorizing the execution of a contract
with Computer Professionals Unlimited to provide software
support
8 . RESOLUTION NO. 07-93 - Clarifying insurance coverage for vol-
unteer City workers
The City Treasurer made a minor correction to Item #B-2 .
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to
approve the Consent Calendar; motion carried 5 : 0 by roll
call vote .
C. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. ORDINANCE NO. 265 - Consideration of proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendment to permit accessory second residential units within
single-family zones subject to conditions (City-initiated)
(Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by
title only, and (2) motion to introduce on first reading by
title only)
Mayor Nimmo announced that, in light of Planning Commission
recommendations, Council had been advised by staff that some legal
questions had been raised regarding State law and environmental
CC 01/26/93
Page 4
concerns. In addition, he reported that the City had received
requests for additional information from the School District and
Atascadero Mutual Water Company. The mayor suggested that the
matter be put over and referred back to staff .
Councilman Kudlac agreed that the matter should be sent back to
staff. Councilman Luna proposed that members of the public present
to speak to the issue be given the chance to provide community
input before the ordinance is brought back for consideration.
Councilman Bewley concurred.
Councilwoman Borgeson asked why the matter had been pulled out of
sequence and why it was not part of the Housing Element . She
argued that it would be appropriate to conduct an environmental
review of the impacts this kind of ordinance would have during the
same environmental review process for the Housing Element .
Public Comments :
Catherine Lickers, 4325 E1 Rio Road, indicated that she wished to
build a guest house and spoke in favor of secondary units,
especially for those who, like herself, have special needs .
Speaking in favor of the proposed ordinance were Ray Pitt, 8875 San
Gabriel, and Turko Sims, Toro Creek Road resident, and Jim
Carpenter, 8200 Casitas .
Hoyt Chambless, Carrizo Road resident, expressed objection to the
proposed ordinance and asked if the City was attempting to receive
a block grant . Mr. Engen reported that the City is not pursuing
any block grants at this time and no applicatios are pending.
Geraldine Brasher, 3202 Monterey Road, submitted a petition signed
by approximately 700 citizens opposing the proposed ordinance and
a list of concerns and questions regarding the second residential
unit ordinance (both on file with the City Clerk' s Office) .
The following individuals read prepared statements in opposition:
Jean Young Behan, 4925 El Verano, (see Exhibit A) .
Veda Thomas, 10695 Vista Road, (see Exhibit B) .
Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista Road, (see Exhibit C) .
Ed Goshorn, 10050 San Marcos Road, (see Exhibit D) .
Joan O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East, (see Exhibit E) .
Bob Powers, 7505 Carmelita, (see Exhibit F) .
Virginia Powers, 7505 Carmelita, (see Exhibit G) .
Glenda Gashard, 8555 Corriente, read the letter of San
Fernando Road resident Tom Imming, (see Exhibit H) .
John W. McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, (see Exhibit I) .
CC 01/26/93
Page 5
The following residents spoke in opposition to the proposed
ordinance:
George Highland, former Planning Commissioner
Livia Kellerman, 5463 Honda
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle
Celia Moss, 8040 Coromar
Ray Jansen, 6655 Country Club Drive
Robert Cardillo, 9400 Corriente Road
Tim O'Keefe, 9985 Old Morro Road East
Darlene Reynolds, 8040 Santa Rosa
Stewart Thomson, 7455 Bella Vista
John Cole, 8710 Sierra Vista
Charles Hall, San Marcos Road resident
Michael Olsten, 9600 Sausilito
Harold Surney, 7049 San Gabriel
Robert Huot, 3850 Ardilla Road
The mayor called a recess at 9:00 p.m. At 9:20 p.m. , the meeting
reconvened.
The City Clerk reported that she had received a number of letters
from citizens who were not present but who wished to have their
letters read into the record. On the advice of the City Attorney,
the Mayor suggested that the Council forego the reading of the
letters, but accept the letters and direct the Clerk to incorporate
them into the record and provide copies for each member of Council .
By formal motion, this was so ordered.
The following letters expressing objection to the proposed
secondary unit ordinance were submitted and are hereby made part of
the record:
Karen Riggs, 4935 Arizona, (see Exhibit J) .
Marjorie Mackey, 5504 Tunitas, (see Exhibit K) .
Gretchen & Paul Gray, 10420 San Marcos Road, (see Exhibit L) .
Bill Kellogg, 2575 San Fernando Road, (see Exhibit M) .
Andrew & Noreen Sandel, 12550 San Fernando Road, (Exhibit N) .
Margaret Phillips, 9800 Corriente Road, (see Exhibit 0) .
Edward & Norma Holzer (see Exhibit P) .
Craig Cunningham, 8707 Casitas, (see Exhibit Q) .
Katharine Barthels, 6820 San Gabriel Road, (see Exhibit R) .
Catharine H. Young (see Exhibit S) .
Eileen Cunningham, 8707 Casitas, (see Exhibit T) .
Fred & 011ie Bishop, 7655 Carmelita, (see Exhibit U) .
Lengthy Council discussion ensued. Councilmembers Bewley and
Kudlac agreed that there was a need for secondary units and
indicated that they wished to have more information on the matter.
Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated that she still believed the issue
CC 01/26/93
Page 6
should be taken up as part of the Housing Element .
Councilman Luna spoke in favor of reaffirming the findings in
Ordinance No. 74 and suggested that restrictions and/or standards
be placed upon guest houses. The City Attorney advised that if the
Council wishes to reaffirm the findings in Ordinance No. 74, they
would need to hold a noticed, public hearing to do so. He added
that if the Council desires to simply let Ordinance No. 74 stand,
it can do so without formal action.
MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to
direct staff to firm up standards on guest house
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and include
restrictions in favor of a 640 square foot limitation, no
cooking and no garage; in addition to deny Ordinance No.
265 . Motion withdrawn.
MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to
deny Ordinance No. 265; motion failed 2 :3 (Councilmembers
Kudlac and Bewley and Mayor Nimmo opposing) .
MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to
adopt changes to Zoning Ordinance Section 9-6 . 106 (b) to
add a number four: "No Garage" ; motion failed 2 : 3
(Councilmembers Kudlac and Bewley and Mayor Nimmo
opposing) .
MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilman Bewley to
refer the matter back to staff for more detailed
evaluation of the environmental impacts of the number of
potential units that could be created, and possible need
for an Environmental Impact Report; motion carried 3 :2
(Councilmembers Borgeson and Luna objecting) .
D. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. ORDINANCE NO. 246 - Amending Title 7 (Sanitation Ordinance) of
the Municipal Code to require connection to public sewer in
"Cease & Desist" areas, without exception
(Recommend motion to adopt on second reading by title only)
The Mayor introduced the matter noting that the ordinance was back
for second reading and adoption. Staff responded to brief inquiry
by Councilwoman Borgeson relating to sewer extensions . There were
no comments from the public .
MOTION: By Councilman Bewley, seconded by Councilman Luna to
adopt Ordinance No. 246 on second reading by title only;
motion carried 5 : 0 by roll call vote.
CC 01/26/93
Page 7
2 . RESOLUTION NO. 03-93 - Conditional acceptance of portions of
San Marcos and Vista Roads into the City-maintained system
(Cont'd from 1/12/93)
Councilmembers Bewley and Luna stepped down from deliberations due
to potential conflicts of interest . Henry Engen provided the staff
report and recommendation to approve.
MOTION: By Councilman Kudlac, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson
to adopt Resolution 03-93 ; motion carried 3 : 0 .
Councilmembers Bewley and Luna returned to the dias .
3 . STATE WATER ENTITLEMENT - Potential contracting agencies
(Resolution No. 09-93 - Councilwoman Borgeson, County Water
Agency Delegate)
Councilwoman Borgeson introduced the item and explained that the
proposed resolution was intended to send a message to the County
Board of Supervisors. Brief discussion ensued. Mayor Nimmo
pointed out that if there was default on the part of any of the
contractors, costs would have to be borne by the taxpayers and
asked what effect this would have on individual cities . The City
Attorney advised that the City would not have any liability.
MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to
approve Resolution No. 09-93 ; motion carried unanimously
by roll call vote.
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council
Councilwoman Borgeson indicated that she was looking for support
from the other members of Council to have staff take another look
at the design of the median constructed at the south end of town.
She stated she thought it would be appropriate to walk the median
with the engineer, residents and business persons.
Responding to inquiry from the Mayor, Henry Engen reported that
there had already been a change order for approximately $5, 000 to
cut an emergency turn pocket in the median. Councilmembers Kudlac
and Bewley shared concern about costs associated with any modifi-
cations that might be proposed. Mr. Engen pointed out that the
Traffic Committee would soon look at and make recommendations
regarding signage and curb painting in the area.
The City Manager suggested that the Council refer the matter back
to staff with direction to provide options and applicable cost
projections . By mutual agreement, staff was given said direction.
CC 01/26/93
Page 8
Mayor Nimmo mentioned that Councilman Bewley, because of his
present work schedule, was experiencing difficulty in attending the
afternoon meetings of the Traffic Committee and suggested that
another member of the Council be appointed alternate. Councilman
Luna volunteered to serve in this capacity.
2 . City Treasurer
Micki Korba reported that the December Treasurer' s Report would be
on the agenda the first meeting in February.
5. City Manager
Andy Takata extended gratitude to members of the Fire Department,
Police Department and Streets Division for their hard work in
responding to numerous situations as a result of the recent storm.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:35 P.M. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE CITY
COUNCIL WILL BE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1993 AT 7 :00 P.M.
MINUTES RECORDED PREPARED BY:
LEE RABOIN, City lerk
Attachments : Young-Behan - (Exhibit Al
Thomas - (Exhibit B)
McNeil, D. - (Exhibit C)
Goshorn - (Exhibit D)
O'Keefe, J. (Exhibit E)
Powers, B. - (Exhibit F)
Powers, V. - (Exhibit G)
Imming - (Exhibit H)
McNeil, J. - (Exhibit I)
Riggs - (Exhibit J)
Mackey - (Exhibit K)
Gray, P. & G. - (Exhibit L)
Kellogg - (Exhibit M)
Sandel, A. & N. - (Exhibit N)
Phillips - (Exhibit O)
Holzer, E. & N. - (Exhibit P)
Cunningham, C. - (Exhibit Q)
Barthels - (Exhibit R)
Young - (Exhibit S)
Cunningham, E. - (Exhibit T)
Bishop, F. & O. - (Exhibit U)
CC 01/26/93
Page 9
. s
i
J / 1. �� - i .i ✓,i/< < < � /.��:� �..r.... is.. ,� / � i
� .�i/ ./ � ' -�/moi a�•� .i � ,%11'i ��.� iir:/�—
IF
wl M
—
r
i
/
.__ ��r i✓/,�.�.v�.,
.! ,moi � � � ���.� .air...:. �.► .•...�� -!�'— 1 t�-
�. , .+rw it -� �_. ice.__ .tea... � ! - —�J �_ �i_•� .�...a.=_ 1 �.c.=..=.r_
MAW it / f.�.1 ��� �►�/
F77
10
i
cc1/26/93 - EXHIBIT B
I�
�1
i
i�
4
:1
i
1
i�
�a
1
1
it
i
1�
i
1
000015
i
t Dorot :z1�26/g��e��"�c�T
8763 ierr is
Atascadero, CA 93422
January 26, 1993
Atascadero City Council
Honorable Mayor and Council members:
My first question to staff is why tell us the sedian price of
a single family home in Atascadero or give us the county defini-
tion of affordable housing? Proposed Ordinance 265 has nothing to
do with the cost of houses for sale. It provides only for. rental
units. These second units are not for sale:. -hey have nothing to
do with affordable housing.
My next question to staff 4here is ,your evidence of a need for
more rental housing? If this proposal Is meant to provide afford-
able rentals, is there a dearth or lack of such rentals now? I
counted the rental ads in the last edition of the Atascadero News.
Most were for apartments, the remainder for condos and. homes.
There were 70 plus ads for Atascadero.. Some offered the first or
half of the first month' s rent free. Sere are their costs:
Per Month Rent number Offered
2004300 vz
$3C0-$400 15
$400-$5C0 25
3500-4-6CO l
$600-3700-
$700-380 C
over $1,000 '
70 total
According to staff' s own figures, 57% were affordable to very low
income famlies of four-4476.25 monthly. And 80-90n were afford-'
able to low incomes--4762.50 monthly. -hese figures demonstrate
that Atascadero has low income rentals.. According to a responsible
source, Atascadero now has a rental vacancy factor of approximately
30:x. Staff has not demonstrated a need for adding many more rental
units.. Indeed, a couple of people who signed my petition. tated.
they .came to Atascadero because of- the low rents.
Again, to -staff- Do you believe that homes which share a lot with
only one other home will rent for less then apartments and condos
which s3;iare a lot and building with many other famlies7 No- matter
whether' the house is 640, 800 or 1,200 sq.ft.• or the lot f, 11 2,
236 or many more acres. Can you guarantee- these will. be low income
rentals? Will you propose rent controls?
Gwner occupancy appears to be a farce. Staff admits age and. rela-
tionship of renters cannot be enforced., Yet staff says occupancy
by the owner of one of the units cam.- Ifs my job transfers me to
another city, and L do not 'want to give up my home here, I am free
to rent it until L return. If L have built a second unit, and the
job change occurs, are you ,going to tell me that I must leave my
home vacant or sell both of them? I"d like to see that event
settled in court.
000016
' Dorothy Y. McNeil
Page 2
For those who are concerned about caring for family members of
any age, an addition to your home of a large room, a bath and
kitchen is less expensive to build and heat, and is more caring.
If an older person falls, the. cries for help may well be too far
away to be heard in a separate house Many people have done this,
and such building requires no new ordinance,.
Ordinance 74, passed in 1983, seems more viable then it was then.
There is increased traffic on narrow, winding streets, more septic
problems, more parking demand, great impact on the- water supply,
and a high vacancy factor in homes for sale and rental units« We
need to reaffirm that ordinance,. Our schools are already impacted.
The question of motivation for presenting this ordinance is per
haps the most constant and puzzling question of all. I was asked
that repeatedly. The stated motivation is affordable housing.
Since this proposal obviously does not provide that, what is: the
reason for forcing more and more rentals and destroying single
family living in our town? Who will benefit?= it won't be the
seniors, low income citizens or first-time buyers. 14111 it be
construction. peopleZ Realtors?
I empathize with all the people who have lost jabs whether they
build homes, or swimming pools (like my son-in-law`3 or were
employees of Rileys, Sears or IBM. Many are suffering, here and
worldwide. But will we build rental homes which will remain
vacant, just as we over-built commercial units some of which
have remained vacant for. over two years? This is not a solution.
to a problem. It is a grave addition to a problem.
Let us discard this poorly conceived plan and, working through
the Housing Zlement, find .nays to build housing that is truly
affordable for people to buy. Sweat equity and Babitat are
examples. We already have ample affordable rentals.
Just asy NO to proposed. Ordinance 265,
4 1�')
0000i7
CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIT D
Page I
10050 San Marcos Rd .
Atascadero, Ca.
1/14/93
Atascadero City Council
Your Honors.
I am extremely concerned about what has been euphamistically
called the Granny House zoning ordance change.
After attending an informational meeting presented by the
staff planner at the Atascadero Library -January 7, I am
convinced that there is a real problem with the judgement
demonstrated by the Planning Commission. It is rather
obvious that its members have something else in mind than
the preservation of Atascadero as a superior single family
residential community--the kind of city that the vast
majority of the property owners here want as a desirable
place to live .-
As
i e ..As I understand it , the new "housing ordinance" was
necessitated because of both (a) abuses with the building of
"guest houses" and (b) needs to provide consistent and fair
standards for allowing "granny houses" .
To that end the planning staff drafted a conservative
ordinance to al l ow
(a) granny houses of one bedroom
(b) 640 sq .ft . on
(c) lots of one acre or more` in the service area and of
acres or more in the outlying areas of the city and
(d) provided that the owner always be an occupant of one
of the homes
They also (e) restricted the guest house ordinance
Contrast this to the changes the Planning Commission made:
(a) Granny houses of multiple bedrooms
(b) 800 sq .f t°/1200 sq.f t on
(c) lots of one half acre in the service area and 2
acres outside the service area, respectively
(d) only the original builder need occupy a house on
the property. Thereafter, future owners can rent out both
units . :
(e) The second home on larger lots is limited to 50%
of the main house in square footage,
000018
CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIT D
Page 2
It is clear that the staff planners made an intelligent
assessment of the city's needs by proposing a conservative
"granny house" standard and eliminating the, often abused
"guest house" provision .
What does the Planning Commission have up their sleeve
as they alter staff recommendations, doubling not only the
size of the second house, but also dramatically increasing
the density of houses by allowing a second house on all
parcels of more then one half acre? I 'm certain that they
know full well that these structures and the main house will
quickly be converted to rentals since they also altered
staff recommendations that the owner must live in one of the
two units. Additionally the Planning Commission changed the
common driveway restriction , thus compromizing a basic
community design standard that would soften -the high density
appearance in the community where second houses are allowed .,
Clearly the Planning Commission has a different goal than
that held by the staff . Could the personal wants of the
members of the Planning Commission have clouded their
reasoning thereby creating the conflict with the larger
goals of the cities General Plan , which provides for the
unique single family , rural residential quality among the
grand oaks of the upper Salinas River Valley?
In the General Plan the citizens have stated their
desires for the kind of community Atascadery is to become.
You cannot just ignore the findings of the original 1980
document that finds second homes an single family tots to be
damaging to the Atascadero life style, nor can you maintain
that this ordinance will have no significant impact on the
environment when you are increasing the buildout for
Atascadero. It is unfathomable to me how the city can
maintain that an ordinance that will add several thousand
new: homes will not have a significant impact on the
emvironment .
I maintain that this second home ordinance as proposed
by the Planning Commission will-- quite possibly
a. conflict with adopted envirnomental plans and goals
of the community (such as the General Plan)
b . have a substantial , demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect
c. substantially affect a rare orendangered species
of animal or plant or the habitat of .the species
d ., substantially degrade water qual i.ty
e. contaminate a public water supply
f . substantially degrade or deplete ground waver
resources
g . induce substantial growth or concentration of
population
h increase substantially the ambiant noise levels for
adjoining areas
i . cause an increase in traffic which is substantial
in relation to the existing traffic toads and capacity of
000019
CCl/26/93 - EXHIBIT D
Page 3'
the street systems (Recent studies show that we must
increase the city arterials to four lanes to carry traffic
at the maximum buildout of 32,000, and , already, we are
adding traffic lights all along Morro Road and E1 Camino .)
j cause substantial flooding , erosion or siltation
k . disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community
1 create a cumulative impact
The need for an Environmental Impact Report is abundantly
clear.
I therefore urge you, our city "fathers" , to take
action to protect the quality of the Atascadero envirommnet
by seeing this "granny house" ordinance for what it truly
is--a blatant attempt by special interests to force a level
of growth and conjestion upon our fair city .that is
intolerable to the home owners who have elected you.
You, consequently, have three choices as you, attempt to
deal honestly with the "granny house zoning ordinance" :
a. Approve the planning Commission's devious plan to
allow second units for rental purposes on the
majority of all single family residential lots,
b . Reject the proposed ordinance entirely , or
c. Reevaluate this second home ordinance and draft an
environmentally sound "granny house" ordinance that
meets the need for true granny houses and prevents
the abuses of the past
It should not take a great deal of intelligent debate to
select the proper option .
Than. you,
Ed Goshorn
Homeowner, resident ,
science teacher at AJHS
0000ti0
. CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIT E
Page 1
• Joan O' Keefe CP
,�.
9985 Old Morro Rd. East
It should be clear by now that this issue of a 2nd
residential unit is not about affordable housing.
This 2nd unit is certainly not going to make available low
cost owner occupied homes. It will provide -rental housing* in
areas zoned for single family residents thereby effectively
rezoning single family areas to multifamily. Atascadero has
plenty of vacant rental units. "Granny housing"? A- 120E sq
foot house is a house for a family not a modest. cottage for
an elderly person.
=s there a need for this type of alternative housing? This
has not been established. How many people who come in for a
2nd unit really have in mind a small 1 bedroom accessory
building.This should be the first step-. The need for this
type of an accessory building should be evaluatedd, in
conjunction with guest housing,, low cost housing,. rental
housing etc.. Not only the need should be assessed but the-
long,
helong range effect of various alternative solutions must be
evaluated.
According to staff the single largest. number of requests by-
the
ythe public are: for 2nd. units. r believe that. most of the
people: asking for these- Znd units are basing their requests
on a short sighted immediate need --• they want, a rentalon.
their property or they want a house for their children.
'hey have" no: interest: regarding the ultimate: effects on_
property* values, services-. or the way- this City develops:.
There has. been_ a: silent. majority, out there- who want to
retain: the single family, large lot rural atmosphere: they
bought. into when we: they purchased their homes. Up to now, we-
have been silent. r and many other people are here tonight
to tell you: we do care about the- way the city develops and
00004"A
CCl/26/93 EXHIBIT D
Page 2
that we want to insure the integrity of our neighborhoods
and our property. We don' t want to have to be spying on our
neighbor to make sure the 2nd unit hasn' t become a rental or
for that matter that both units aren' t rentals .
Ordinance 74, the ordinance which made findings for not
implementing this type of housing seems as valid today as it
was back in 1983 . The city still has winding streets,
sewage disposal problems, density bonuses and many acres of
vacant residential land. A parking place doesn't get rid of
the winding roads which is the way the relevancy of the
original findings have been explained away_
What is clear to me after reading staff's report is that
staff and the Planning Commission had different: objectives.
Staff was recommending a modest 640 square foot accessory
building,. the Planning Commission was proposing an
additional single family residence for in-laws. or adult
children. if Commissioner Carden' s recommendation had
passed 2nd units of 2500 sq feet would have been allowed.
When the Planning Commission upped the footage from 640 sq
feet: to 1200 square feet and. down 1300 sq feet from
Commissioner Carden' s proposal they crossed the boundry
between, an accessory building to a 2ndfamily- residence.
This.. is in. violation of State- Law,, which says. I,& second. unit
shall not be: considered: to exceed. the, allowable density for
they lot. upon. whish. It is. Located. . . " The allowable density
is one: residence- per lot: in. the: RS:. zone.
The+ changes to the- ordinance: made by" the`• Planning Commission.
the a ghtw o.f December- 1 were clearly significant: and: yet
Chairman_ Sohnson after, listing all of the changes. hurriedly
made a finding of no signi.f icant: impact, reaffirmed the-
negative- declaration and further instructed staff to send
the proposal to the- Council for approval at the next Council
meeting. r am very suspicious of the Plannings Commission' s
0000w
CCl/26/93 - EXHIBIT D
Page 3
ability to restrain themselves if even a modest alternative
• housing ordinance is enacted.
There may be a need for guest housing and small accessory
units but it is important that we evaluate this need in
terms of well documented facts, that what is proposed can be
enforced and we promote quality growth, This can best be
examined when the housing element is updated. .
I urge you not to approve this ordinance and to direct staff
to address the need when the housing element is updated.
z
OOOOZ3"
CCl/26/93 - EXHIBIT F
! want to go on xecond as being against second unit housing. Two thAr&p f thin
muot be taken .into cona4denatr on arae (/) Gcuc p—&—not accounted 14,t in aguw,4e
jC otag Wbutd tw ox moxe gmaagea be a towed and than, when signed og,
everz*=U# become bednooma, 4ecnoama on aaee olhex noon.
(2) The, number o 4 .Cot& on, the meek that quatt4 4ox a nentat uruU cute many 4a
th,r'.a AUuatlon w=U =M bon%�'ired cheek aetb".
We must took at thio notA� O& Axpact .it cauaeatod°4i but aAat Au d o4 a mesa
use wt tt .Leave oux cfii,(dn . ,het`wxncentwte on a oxda, & housing P,% young
peopGe to 6W&-not 'tett,,
3
0000#204
CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIT G
Aknq. people, to rag netqhboAhood ane etdeV# and Aetuted. Thep Aettted .in r?tawadew
4-tex geeing the owaded conditions and chime.in the ci ti eo die+ce Aeg had woAed.
Mangy bout theuc homes .in the e�e,6 wAm pui�cea wane h•4. Fax .acme, thio Az
the;Car .rnve4bwnt the# have even made,am 9 •
Thep Att #herd wotad be pwtected bg owc Genarrat Pty. The+ bought .into a >ravraL coa-
and did not know the ptm ca dd be changed at =LU and that theg cadd .tone
A& we gatherred in gnaupia to d i acrra___ahow
#hiA and&uzncre aa+o4& a46ect ad,use wence
att'r 4nightened acrd avAx ed about wirazt mnutd happen .in ;peana to come. The bqgeat
concerrn waa paope vatuea. We would ,Cine to- Atwx aAat the cauntg aaee 4&t has to
hag.about pwpentg aw.& becond houaing mutd. M16t mZt happpen 4 .second urtica ane
ne¢Cected and become .seed#. flow mca ma even get out mond out o4 oum pJropex&,t.
Second,, a Oat has the wa;6e c compang eaZd abo wt the pnaaL&& .sudden grwuti A o
the popuLa#iort and Trow wZtt Aeg 4enve t42 We aLt buA5d to Aon!&w the anter *;t. b
guide.Linea laat gervc and con4ewe-on ua wc. 1,t we go ua* overt pu izcted &U tdvut frost
wJ-t the a>aten be pati vned?
MAdC ao6t have the and 4aa about pwtw.tin 'oo&A'lic '.ao
pencerrt mune cizipna? rine their equipped toy handle the Ac me that w-U come vii
man* more inhabrtcuu.a?
Since,the p wpmted hwzea =tt be .Lange wvugh Px ° ,Lien ari th cfii td xm how
am-U tAe whoo" cope au#h the up mng .in erten a'.Llment
I hope pa can aaaune. ua that alt these VAeaaEum, &we bow adeWwte4 4tudied..
Ve alt know that with an eacpataa Ang popu.LaaEion 04'arez&&p. the ouse nate. gow up..
Section ci ti rna have pten;t oA p g&ta1t&-'.cone #tease don't &ddte there wiA mom
roonVabout: cre me, AoUn a ea and phgai cat
I that afj� act:rheas:concenraa have. beer case dmaded you Witt &vret�L vote::no-
on thio oAdinaace..`'
172Jf
CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIT H
JOSTENS
TOM IMMING
Sales Representative
(805)461-4878
(310)3941679
School Products Group
3120 San Fernando Rd.
Atascadem CA 93422
47 Seaview Terrace
Santa Monica CA 90401
�cc,�- ,d` d-�•�- Cly%' � /
,cam p �--�''"�� •� ���
10,
AW04fe 02
VIC;- ' r
` CCl/26/93 - EXHIBIT I
John gat. Mc N e i l
8755 Sierra Nista
Atascadero, CA 93422
January 25, 1993
Citi Counc it
City of Atascadero
:Honorable Mayor and Council Members
This proposed ordinance for second units, rental, units, throughout
Atascadero should be rejected outright for the following reasons *
1. The Negative Declaration is fatally defective. Cumulative
impacts for small projedts of twenty parcels or so are sometimes.
difficult to estimate. But, an ordinance for residential uriits
throughout all single family zoned areas in Atascadero undoubtedly
would have many significant impacts on water, septic tank and air
pollution, traffic circulation, schools, fire and police protection,
and a devastating impact on the rural character of Atascadero
2 Staff and. the Planning Commission have shown no demonst-rable
need for this additional housing at this time. staff admits having
no information as to existing rental vacancies in itascadero.
Newspaper want ads show a surfeit of rental. vacancies. This ordinance
would be unfair and discriminatory to landlords having difficulty
finding tenants,
3. This ordinance will not provide affordable housing. The
second units cannot be sold without lot s-olits. Rental :mite con-
structed on single family zoned property will demand much higher
rental than multifamily units.
3. Land in Atascadero now zoned multifamily is yet to be developed.
4. I question the legality of the owner residency requirement.
The City Attorney should furnish the City Council with a draft of
the proposed agreement with a written statement as to its legal
sufficiency and cases supporting his opinion.
5.. The ordinance gives unlimited administrative powers to the
Planning Staff to rune judgments as to the suitability of such
rental units with only posting notice to neighbors of their
deliberations. . Che ordinance lacus any suecifici Y as to t:�e
administration of the ordinance
CCl/26/93 - EXHIBIT I
6.. 3 F Meadows and Long Valley should be excluded from the
ordinance so that their residents would not be required to resort
to lawsuits to enforce the CCs prohibiting such second units.
7. Tris ordinance would be a "taking" of property rights of
single family resident property owners. It will invite lawsuits
costly to the complaining land owners and requiring your tax dollars
to defend this ill conceived ordinance
8. Compliance with State housing requirements can be made by a
declaration�in the 1083 ordinance that second units would have
sigificant adverse impacts on our essential services and rural
character..
Respectfully submitted,
John W. McNeil
x
-2-
0000A:.9
CCl/26/93 EXHIBIT J
Karen Riggs ,SAN Z 6 }
4935 Arizona CITY OF ATasc ER
s
Atascadero, CA 93422 am aRKME
Atascadero City Council,
a It is an admirable goal to develop affordable housing for the elderly.
But, the best intentions don't always have the desired outcome.
The Granny Housing proposal is not likely to serve the elderly as much
as it to serve current property owners who would like a second housing
unit for rental purposes.
The outcome would create a higher proportion of rentals to single
family homes, more density in outlying areas, and an undetermined
Population increase. None of these changes will serve the elderly, nor the
City of Atascadero.
Why wasn't this proposed before the recent general plan updates on
traffic, etc., so that its effect could be taken into consideration? I think
this proposal is ill-timed and without true merit.
Take this proposal to its logical extreme and you have a mushroom
effect of hodgepodge building.Wherever the ground is fertile for the
opportunist, you will sprout a second dwelling, and not a cottage for
grandma:
Please don't accept this hasty proposal.
Sincerely,
Karen Riggs
000029
CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIT K
CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 26, 1993
In regard to item C.1. on tonight's Agenda I wouldr/lto say that in 1983 we were opposed to
"Granny" Mousing because the people really in favor of the proposal were opposed to any restrictions
on the item. I believed then and I still do that to have the second unit in a single family district
there should be very restrictive rules. It seems that the staff recommendations would control the
addition of these unigso that multiple zoned lots would not be created every where in town.
Please be careful of what you pass under the guise of"affordable" housing. Thank you for your
a
consideration.
Marjorie R. Mackey
5504 Tunitas Av. 466-1811
a
JAN Z 610
CITY OF ATILM
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
000030
CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIIT ,L'
JAN 2 6 IM
January 6, 1993 oraIIA �o
K'S OFFIt0
ATASCADERO PLANNING COMMISSION
Since we will be unable to attend the session on January 12,we have asked that our
concerns on the proposed Rental-Unit Wiling be read into the record.
We moved to Atascadero because of the beauty of the area and the quality of life it
afforded. These two things are most precious to us,as they are to most people. Can we
use the words"spirituality and aesthetics"without seeming vague. Because these words
have a definite meaning to us. They mean how we feel. Do we feel good? Do we feel
bad? We believe we speak for a lot of people when we say that we feel good when we
see trees and grass and bushes and animals. And we feel bad when we see houses
crowded together,when we're stuck in traffic,when the air we breathe loops and smells
dirty,when we have to look at urban or suburban sprawl instead of the beauty of nature.
We are not strange. We are not loners. We like neighbors and people. We just believe
all of us need some open space around us to grow in,to be happy,peaceful and
productive citizens.
And we believe it is wrong for a small group of people to make a decision to destroy this.
open space to allow a second building on every lot in an entire town;a decision that will
completely change the quality of all of our lives. It is shocking and it is wrong to try and
change the riles after we have already placed our bets and put our money on the table.
One reason we bought our house was because there was minimum acreage protection. If
this is to be changed,then every household in each neighborhood should be afforded the
opportunity to vote on the change:
Who are we appeasing with this outrageous proposition?' rs-it the Developers and the
Builders?' We are all going:through tough economic times and they might just have to
wait with the rest of us until times get better. Even in this poor economic climate,there is
continual building on our street: it never stops. And there seems to be space all around
Atascadero p to build on according to the original ppian. Is this not enough forthem?
Do they have to double the buildings on.every existing lot? We,for ourpart,say a loud
resounding NO!
Werecentlg had the:opportunity to seethe PlanningComnussion at workand they appeal
to be men of reason. Whatwe ask from them is to put this proposition out taac ity-
referendum. Itis the only fair way to go. Otherwise,we feel it is acase of Destruc:ti
without Representation.
In hopes fora goodandbeautiful. for rdero,
*&Aj� 4 - �7
Gretchemand Paul Gray
10420 San 1Viarcos,Road
Atascadero,CA 93422
0000:31
CC1/26/93 EXHIBIT M
r
FN2575 San Fernando Road
JAN 2 6 FM Atascadero, CA 93422
January 25, 1993
TY CI77Y OF AT
OfTIM
City Council Members
Atascadero, California
Gear Members of the Council,
I am unable to attend the City Council meeting and
speak to' you regarding my views on the proposal to
allow multiple unit housing on single family lots. I
do, however, wish that this letter be read into the
record and be made part of the record on this subject.
I am opposed to a plan that would allow multiple
dwellings on single family lots. Allowing multiple
dwellings would place additional stress on our
resources in Atascadero, mainly water and our cities
infrastructure, not to mention what it would do to the
Quality of life in Atascadero. In other areas of our
state where this type of practice has been allowed
(i.e. - Los Anales County), cities have deteriorated to
the point that may residents. are forced to sell their
properties in order to escape the rapid decline in the
quality of life that once existed in their
neighborhoods.
We live in a beautiful city. My neighborhood possess a
quality that is unparalleled in other areas of our
state. Allowing additional dwellings on already
developed lots for the purpose of additional housing,
would be an extreme detriment to my neighborhood! I
have appreciated. past City Councils in Atascadero who
have been opposed to this type of proposal in the past.
i hope that your Council is not looking for additional
revenues for the city and view this practice- as away
to generate additional income. Doing so would greatly
exploit our community and: be a grave disservice to the
Atascadero. environment_:
I urge you to defeat any pian that would allow the_
development of multiple units.. on single: family lots..
Thank you. for your service to the. Atascadere community?
Sincerely,
Bill Kellogg
461-0456
000032
M/26/93 EXHIBIT N
b
January 26, 1993 JAN 2 6
qTY OF ATASCAOERO
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City Clerk
Atascadero, Ca. 93422
Because we are unable to be at the City Council meeting
this evening, please read this statement into the record
and make it part of the record.
We, Andrew L. and Noreen M. Sandel, residing at 12550
Santa Ana Road, strongly oppose the Zoning ordinance Text
Amendment which will allow second houses to be built on
single family lots.. Given the potential results of such
an amendment, it is difficult to believe that it could be
considered.
Homeowners in our particular- area bought property with
CC&Rs prohibiting the building of more than one
residential: structure.. It is not right, nor is it fair,
to now rule than anyone can purchase 2 1/2-plus acres and
build two: residences,. one of which could become a
rental. It is not right, nor is it fair that homeowners
within the city service area be subjected to depreciation
of home values by the construction of 640-ft. dwellings 5.
feet from property lines.
Since wecannot imagine any reason for the implementation
of the amen+dment, we will not go into itemized:
objections.. The removal of one of the values that has;
made Atascadero so: attractive to so many would be, at the:
very least, unwise.
Andrew L- Sandel' _Noreerr W. SandeL
000033
CCl/26/93 - EXHIBIT O
,JAN66 -
January 18, 093 CITY=KLARTICSONCITY
To the Atascadero City CouncLL,
One of the unique features ol . Atascadero is that
it has been dev ided into Large parce Ls of property.
This natura LLy keeps overcrowding curbed. If the
Second ResdentiaL RentaL Unit Ordinance is passed ,
our va Luab Le country setting c ou Ld be gone forever.
I urge the C'Lty Oounci L to vote against this ordinance
Thank you,
Margaret Ph L L L L ps
9800 Corr Lent
Atascadero,
BECAUSE I AM U .ABLE TO BE AT THE CITY
COUNCIL MF.FTIND, PLFASE RF'AD THIS STATEMENT
INTO THF RECORD AND MAKE IT FART T� -
RFC ORD.
000034
n �5 U l5 U U L C1/26/93 —'EXHIBIT P
JAN 2 6
man aOFF
rs o .7-/
— 9�-
�� � u: ,
OZt/,
ER�
i
le,,,.�
CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIT P
Ale
000034;
CC1/26/93 EXHIBITQ
Page 1
jAN2610
AATT WS
January 26 , 1993
I will not be able to come to the Council meeting,
and therefore respectfully request that my comments
be read into the record.
Members of the Council;
People have bought their home here because the
A General Plan assured them Atascadero ' s small town
characters. a population buildout of approximately
34, 000 , ",rural atmosphere" , '"elbow room" "Large
lot sizes "preservation of hills, flora and
fauna"',, "winding tree lined streets", "adequate
services and large areas of single family
residential neighborhoods _
Every member of this Council has run on a platform
of supporting the General Plan, the constitution
for the development of the City_ The proposal the
Planning Commission' s as well as Staff' s version,
is in direct conflict with that Plan. Every single
unit, whether 600 or 6000 square feet, will add to
the projected and planned for population buildout.
We have not been told how many lots would be large
enough at the time of buildout to qualify for a
rental unit . Please tell us that number so we can
multiply it by the average household size that can
be expected to live in these rental units:. That
will tell us how much this Ordinance will increase
the City' sbuildout population..
But it will not tell: us how it will affect the
City' s economy, since the economic study was based
on. the- General Plan- It will not tell us how it
will affect our traffi circulation since the
traffic study was based on. the: General Plan._ It
will not tell us how it will affect: our schools,
our water supply, and our public services because
the EIR for the General. Plan did not consider all
this additional growth.
However, some things we do know.' It will wipe out
all areas of single family living in the entire
000037
CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIT Q
Page 2
City. It will greatly increase population and
density, at least in some areas . It will destroy
the rural character and take the elbow room. It
will make the General Plan obsolete_
Please forget this proposal .
Craig unningham
8707 Casitas
Atascadero, CA 93422
000038
r
f /
i
' . • i tf :et •:+
� ! i i tl ' i i t i i i i :ki 1 • i FitiY t ' 1 " i' i t•.. 1 1 ' ":Mi !�# i t
As ♦a' ' r "M f7it' IM �r IV 1 F I!IF its I I 1 1 TZT.701 I I to C I I
ii e• Y t ` :.Y # at M' ♦ I I k I `- ► t•tla tli 4 4t ' '1 1f; e #isllt
SID D e 1r f ♦# •• « 1e : ar II «# ► # •. ► of ► # ♦: e :#
Ift s Wil1 : • w t 1 It :?/ # i t / �
trI' • f
/ ' i ri•'t: '+t i y i ! f i t tt •1# �1 a it # `i• D iJ f # al #
••seu. • t # ::# r i :,`t • ! e 1 `�tt f • tl • •' t # tteh #
t!i • Di �? • t r«♦• D ' ' ' :# • { 1 ! t•.` ' 1 0 �:1 68 t " t ►e.Y 4 ♦ t
4 t 14
I it
# : # a ! i # 1 ♦ 1 I{IU {! • �r'fh:.t!:' t 1 ' t t ! :t
11 i it t • # : Y ! 1 ! # # k" ! f :# ! f�, ' 1 • 1 :,# hi :ISI . 4,04
r 1 ►. i t ! i' :Iltt :#as i cif ;PM 1 II IIL # : Y e,I oft fIll i
If
• • 1 :-:t 11 '�: 1 .! .1 if .;# ,# I{ : tt i :.ti1 #'# 4i Ift til IIi ' df,' t! 11 #
i
r
CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIT S
FJAN
6l993January 26, 1993 �C
To the Atascadero City Council:
• 1 want to go on Public Record to urge you to reject the Ordinance Proposing Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to PermitAccessory Second Residential Units within Single
Family Zones(Subject to Conditions).
There is no need for such a radical change in the general pian of the City to virtually
destroy single-family residence zoning 1 feel thatthe number ofc ontractora
represented.on the Planning Commission and the City Council makes for aconflict
of interest on their parts. is this the proverbial"fox guarding the hen house"?
Again,l urge you to rejectthis proposed ordinance for rental property throughout
Atascadero and preserve single-family residence zoning.
Sincerely,
Catharine H.Youn
Atdscadero Citizen
No Zff
is t �0. 440
0000,10
1 19, W CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIT T
anuary 26 , 1993
: i Y ate+
I am not able to a en onig s ity *Council meeting_
Please read and submit my statement into the record_
_Thank you.
To the Atascadero City Council :
As a resident of 3-F- Meadow Ranches I strongly oppose
the Second Residential Rental Unit Ordinance_
People in areas such as 3-F Meadows and Long Valley
Ranches bought their properties with CC&Rs (Protective
Covenants and Restrictions that apply to the property)
restricting each lot to one residential structure on
it
Please let me quote from the CC&Rs .
First 3-F Meadows ..
"No structure shall be erected, altered, or permitted
to remain on any.residential plot other than on&
single-family dwelling . . 'r
And now Long Valley Ranches :
"No building shall be erected, constructed, altered, or
maintained on any of said lots other than a: residence
for a single family (including guests and household
servants)
This language in the CC&Rs has always been consistent
with the City' s zoning laws Adoption of the Second
Residential Rental Unit Ordinance would put the zoning
in neighborhoods, such as 3-F Meadows and Long Valley
Ranches, in direct conflict with the, legal restrictions
of the properties - The City would force property owners
into - cos-tly court action to maintain the single family
area that the owners bought into .-
We are
nto.We:` are not asking the City to enforce our CC&Rs - But,
please- keep the zoning consistent witli the: legal
restrictions of the CC&Rs in our neighborhoods .
Eileen Cunning
8707 Casitas
Atascadero, CA 93422
000041
. • � ECEIt1F
•_.-
/ �
���
� � � �
i i i �'� j' ' �.�� .� ��
� r
l '/ i / � � / � /' � �
�'i i � /�/
� s � `�/ .�
f
i/' i
� � s
/ j /
� � '�
-� �' a .-
�, .►
� ,. , ,, ,," f ,
` /
�s
� � �
� o � / , „
,� � dI i � ,
_ �
� f I''
,�
� / rr ,IIl
f�" w if i
/ / � f! �
f
���t s � , � / / '
� ,.
;�' � , � �
� � ��� .r
,� ., � , a,
,. � � l� ..
,v j/ s1"'
L r � �!'
I j
� � �
,j �� /, f � >..
� �
�` � , e
� r
�.� i �. ,i►- �t �''
r
'� / � „� ' �' .�' .c
f
/ ,� r �
/� ,, � �/
CC1/26/93 - EXHIBIT U
Page 2
Ae /iaf��F
LZ
.,_
/�
/^*:z�a.�+n '+rrl+;�._�;.adc�: -, ��i•�./,�r+s�_. .z- �./}�� .-:y.. -��-�+.r�.w
000043