Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 090892 A G E N D A ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 6500 PALMA AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR ROTUNDA ROOM SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 7:00 P.M. This agenda is prepared and posted pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 54954.2. By listing a topic on this agenda, the City Council has expressed its intent to discuss and act on each item. In addition to any action identified in the brief general description of each item, the action that may be taken shalt include: A referral to staff with specific requests for information; continuance; specific direction to staff concerning the Policy or mission of the item; discontinuance of consideration; authorization to enter into negotiations and execute agreements pertaining to the item; adoption or approval; and, disapproval. Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk (Room 208) and in the Information Office (Room 103), available for public inspection during City Hmbusiness hours_ The City Clerk will answer any questions regarding the agenda. all In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to< participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please contact the City Manager's Office ((805) 461-5010) or the City Clerk's Office ((805) 461-5074). Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed Witt assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to.pmvide aecessibitity to the meeting or service. — 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 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 toublic open for Council discussion. p participation and Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll. Call City Council Comments; Presentation to Outgoing Planning Commissioner Ken Waage • Proclamation: United Way/Neighbors Helping Neighbors "Good Neighbor Months", September December, 1992 COMMUNITY FORUM: The City Council values and encourages exchange of ideas and comments from you, the citizen. The Community Forum period is pro- vided 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 beaddressedto 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 elected official, commissions and staff. A. COMMITTEE _REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports will be given, as felt necessary. ) : 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments 2. S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority 3. Solid/Hazardous Waste Task Force 4. City/School Committee 5. Traffic Committee 6. County Water Advisory Board 7. Economic Round Table 8. Colony Roads Committee - - 9. Liability Claims Review & Finance. Committee 10. Homeless Coalition x B. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Item B, Consent Calendar, are consid- ered 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: I. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 28, 1992 2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1992' 3. CITY COUNCIL. MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1992 (Special Meeting) 4. TREASURER'S REPORT- - JULY, 1392 5. RESOLUTION NO. 81-92; - SEWER EASEMENT" ABANDONMENT, 7110 SERENA (Aggson/City of Atascadero) 2 6. RESOLUTION NO. 82-92 - DESIGNATING A STOP INTERSECTION ON COL- ORADO ROAD AT SAN RAFAEL ROAD C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO: A. Precise Plan 92-008 - Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of 6,000 sq. ft. commercial building at 7025 E1 Camino Real (Jerry Taft) B. C.U.P. 92-007 - Reconsideration of appeal of Planning Commission signage approval for wall signs facing El Cam- ino Real and Santa Ysabel (Cont'd from 8/25/92) 2. SIGN ORDINANCE (City-initiated) A. Ordinance No. 255 - Repealing Sec. 9-4.130 through Sec. 9-4.136 and Sec. 9-7.109 of Title 9 and adding Chap. 15 to Title 9 of the Atas. Muni. Code regarding signs (ZC 92-006) (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to introduce on first reading by title only) B. Ordinance No. 256 - Amending the Zoning Ordinance Text to add a procedure for Administrative Use Permits (ZC 92- 007) (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to introduce on firs£ reading by title only) D. REGULAR BUSINESS; 1. REVENUE ENHANCEMENT' REPORT —COUNCIL REVIEW AND DIRECTION 2. ORDINANCE NO. 254 - ENABLING MANDATORX WASTE COLLECTION EXEMP- TIONS, AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (Health 8r Sanitation) (Recommend (1) motion to adopt on second reading by title only) .1 DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE AT ANNUAL LEAGUE MEETING ,(Oc- tober 10-13, 1990 L• INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION ANDJOR ACTION: 1. City Council 2. City Attorney 3 3. City Clerk 4. City Treasurer S. City Manager NOTICE: THE COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTERS (STATE BUDGET IMPACT) . s 4 Approved as Submitted 10/13/92 ATASCADHRO CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 MINUTES The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Councilperson Kudlac led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Bewley, 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; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Art Montandon, City Attorney; Mark Joseph, Administrative Services Director; Greg Luke, Public Works Director; Mike McCain, Acting Fire Chief; Lt. John Barlow, ' Police Department and Steve DeCamp, City Planner PRESENTATION: Mayor Nimmo presented a plaque to outgoing Planning Commissioner Ken Waage. PROCLAMATION: Mayor Nimmo read the proclamation for United Way/Neighbors Helping Neighbors "Good Neighbor Months", September -December, 1992 and presented it to Jon DeMorales, Campaign Chairman. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Councilwoman Borgeson announced she had been asked to participate on a citizen's committee to pursue and promote an inter-modal transportation facility in Paso Robles. In addition, she reported that the City of San Francisco has an ordinance limiting where one can display a "For Sale" sign in a vehicle and proposed that this kind of regulation might affect the number of requests for (and opposition to) red curbing. CCO9/O8/92 Page 1 COMMUNITY FORUM: There were no comments from the public. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS - (See pages 9-10) . B. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Mayor read the Consent Calendar, as follows: 1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 28, 1992 2. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 11, 1992 3. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1992 (Special Meeting) 4. TREASURER'S REPORT - JULY, 1992 5. RESOLUTION NO. 81-92 - SEWER EASEMENT ABANDONMENT, 7110 SERENA (Aggson/City of Atascadero) 6. RESOLUTION NO. 82-92 - DESIGNATING A STOP INTERSECTION ON COL- ORADO ROAD AT SAN RAFAEL ROAD MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilwoman Borgeson to approve Consent Calendar Items #B-1 through 6; motion carried 5:0 by roll call vote. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO: A. Precise Plan 92-008 - Appeal of Planning Commission' s approval of 6,000 sq. ft. commercial building at 7025 El Camino Real (Jerry Taft) Henry Engen presented the staff report and recommendation to deny the appeal. He provided an overview of the seven-point appeal and pointed out that if the proposed use was for an existing building, the project would not have been subject to the appeal. Council questions and comments followed regarding potential traffic impacts. Councilman Kudlac voiced concerns relating to traffic flow in and out of the shopping center at Santa Ysabel and in regard to the twenty-foot minimum landscape setback as set forth in the Downtown Master Plan. Mr. Engen clarified that the shopping center was located just outside the adopted boundaries of "downtown" and the implementing downtown rezoning therefore did not establish a twenty-foot setback on the property in question. He also reported that the Santa Ysabel entrance and exit was not addressed as part of the proposed project, but would be considered as part of the Highway 41 expansion. Councilwoman Borgeson asserted that the Highway 41 extension is still "down the road" and CC09/08/92 Page 2 argued that the subject project should have been conditioned to address the driveway. Mr. Engen remarked that the applicants had already agreed to certain modifications, and to additional inquiry by Councilwoman Borgeson, indicated that a site-specific traffic analysis had not been done. Public Comments: Jerry Taft, appellant, read a prepared statement in support of his appeal (see Exhibit A) . Dave Fulton, 8152 Santa Rosa Road, voiced concern for traffic impacts and proclaimed that out-of-town business owners do not know what the community needs are. Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, noted that Committee Reports had been jumped over and asked that they be given as the next item of business. Addressing the appeal, Mr. Greening shared concerns regarding traffic issues and described the proposed building location as unsuitable. Barbara Sims, 10835 Colorado, stated that the project will not promote the unique and rural atmosphere of the community. She asserted that the City must control what type of business goes in and argued that the proposed use would not meet the needs of the City. In addition, she asked for a focused Environment Impact Report for the project. Glenda Taft, appellant, argued that approval of the project would affect the health and welfare of her family and employees. Peter Boonisar, 5212 Magdelena, suggested that increased traffic from the video store would be minuscule compared to the effects of the proposed Highway 41 extension. Mr. Boonisar spoke in favor of the project Lanny Miller, 8330 Santa Rosa, asked if the video store was a legal use and pondered whether it was right or wrong for the City to regulate the location of a business. Curtis Land, 9350 Santa Clara Road, reported that he had built the Blockbuster Video store in San Luis Obispo and indicated that there have not been traffic problems in the shopping center where it is located. He described Blockbuster Video as a community-oriented franchise and suggested that the City welcome the project with open arms. Ken Waage, 7350 Balboa, proposed that the project be conditioned to provide modifications to the entire shopping center parking lot, including bringing the lot up to current standards and installing medians and landscaping. Dennis Lochridge, 10450 Morro Road, stated that the appeal was not CC09/08/92 Page 3 just about competition or comparison shopping. He argued that the project, or any other proposal abutting the downtown district, should be asked to honor the same setbacks set forth in the Downtown Master Plan. Robert Fisher, architect representing the applicant Pacific Entertainment, debated the issues set forth in the appeal and urged denial. He argued that the site is not located within the Downtown Master Plan boundaries and is, therefore, not subject to the twenty-foot setback standard. He pointed out that Caltrans had already prepared an EIR and proclaimed that the project would not complicate traffic. In addition, he reported that parking is more than adequate for the site and emphasized that although twenty spots are required, the project will have thirty. Mr. Fisher brought attention to benefits of the project, which included an increase in property and sales tax, and a well-designed alternative to an unsightly corner. In conclusion, he asserted that the basic thrust of the appeal was a matter of competition and contended that the City cannot regulate that. Larry Flagg, broker representing Blockbuster Video, provided background on research and acquisition for a suitable site. He indicated that his client was originally interested in the site directly next to Payless and reported that Payless had raised an objection and asked Blockbuster to locate elsewhere. He pointed out that Blockbuster Video has been up front from the beginning about this project and described the proposed project as a fine use. Mr. Flagg asked Council to deny the appeal. Peter Boonisar, speaking once more, stressed that people will comparison shop on their own and encouraged Council to avoid stifling competition. ---End of Public Testimony--- Councilman Rudlac read a portion of the Draft EIR for the proposed Highway 41 Extension regarding levels of service and shared concerns for the traffic impacts and piecemeal expansion. He stated that he wanted to see a comprehensive plan for development. Councilman Bewley remarked that he did not believe traffic was the issue and argued that the matter really was about competition. He pointed out that the applicants had met all the criteria and there was no reason to deny the use. He declared City government cannot regulate where business can go. Councilwoman Borgeson reiterated her concerns relating to traffic and stated that the Council had a responsibility to protect the public against inappropriate development. Mayor NimmQ remarked that it was not the business of City government to decide how many businesses come to town and where they are located. _He shared concern that the City is sending a CC09/08/92 Page 4 message to chains and franchises that they are not welcomed in Atascadero. The Mayor indicated that he would vote to deny the appeal because the applicant had met all the requirements and staff had responded to all seven concerns of the appellant. MOTION: By Councilwoman Borgeson, seconded by Councilman Luna to uphold the appeal of Glenda and Jerry Taft of approval of Precise Plan 92-008 and direct staff to bring back Findings for Denial. Discussion on the motion: The City Attorney, responding to inquiry by Councilman Luna, indicated that the discussion was sufficient to come back with findings. Councilman Luna stated that he had a problem with the Negative Declaration. Councilman Bewley repeated that the applicant had met all the criteria and voiced concern about possible litigation. Mayor Nimmo insisted that the Council would be acting irresponsibly if it votes to deny the project and uphold the appeal. Vote on the motion: Motion to uphold the appeal passed 3:2, Councilman Bewley and Mayor Nimmo voting in opposition. B. C.U.P. 92-007 - Reconsideration of appeal of Planning Commission signage approval for wall signs facing E1 Cam- ino Real and Santa Ysabel (Cont'd from 8/25/92) This item moot due to the action taken on the above. 2. SIGN ORDINANCE (City-initiated) A. Ordinance No. 255 - Repealing Sec. 9-4. 130 through Sec. 9-4. 136 and Sec. 9-7.109 of Title 9 and adding Chap. 15 to Title 9 of the Atascadero Municipal Code regarding signs (ZC 92-006) (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to introduce on first reading by title only} Henry Engen provided the staff report and recommendation. City Planner, Steve DeCamp responded to Council questions relating to political signs, the current enforcement process, poll-mounted signs and abandoned signs. Public Comments: Russ Kolemaine, representing the Atascadero Chamber of Commerce, reported that the Chamber was comfortable with the recommendations and that there was general agreement on the document. He pointed out that there were still a couple of issues of concern relating to monument signs, community identification signs and window signs. In closing, Mr. Kolemaine commended Steve DeCamp and staff on the comprehensive re-write. CC09/08/92 Page 5 Tom Jespersen, Jaime's Flowers & Antiques, spoke in favor of banner signs and asked for more leniency in their use. Carol Hull-McCouley, Safe signs of Atascadero, congratulated staff on the document and indicated that she was in support of its' adoption with the exception of two points. She mentioned that she was still in favor of the Chamber' s original suggestions regarding recommended materials for banners and proposed that consideration be given to allowing banners made from vinyl. In addition, she stated that she believed the freeway-oriented signs were still too preferential. Doug Lewis, Tunitas Avenue resident, asked for clarification about signage for kiosks. Mr. DeCamp noted that, at present, the City does not have any information kiosks. ---End of Public Testimony--- Councilwoman Borgeson encouraged Mr. Jespersen (Jaime's Flowers & Antiques) to find a more attractive kind of signage and mentioned that she thought his present banner sign was ineffective. Councilman Kudlac spoke in support of adding vinyl to acceptable types of banner material. Councilman Bewley agreed and added that he would also be supportive of extending the allowable number of days a business can display a banner sign. Mayor Nimmo indicated that he would not be opposed to these suggestions and proposed that some variation in color for awnings be permitted. Councilwoman Borgeson agreed. Steve DeCamp reported that the Downtown Master Plan gave support to awnings in dark green and added that the Downtown Sign Committee had been unanimously in favor of the recommendation. He suggested, however, that language be added to the ordinance that would, by administrative use permit, allow awnings in other colors. By consensus, the following amendments to the proposed ordinance were approved: (1) Section 9-15.002(c.14) Banner Signs: Add "vinyl" and change 1114" days to 1120" and (2) Section 9-15.005 (b.lc) Awning Canopy Colors: Add language allowing for other colors by administrative use permit. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Bewley to waive the reading in full of Ordinance No. 255; motion carried unanimously. MOTION: By Councilman Bewley, seconded by Councilman Luna to approve Ordinance No. 255 on first reading, by title only; motion passed 5:0 by roll call vote. Mayor Nimmo congratulated the Chamber of Commerce for outstanding contributions to the comprehensive re-write of the sign ordinance. CC09/08/92 Page 6 B. Ordinance No. 256 - Amending the Zoning Ordinance Text to add a procedure for Administrative Use Permits (ZC 92- 007) (Recommend (1) motion to waive reading in full and read by title only, and (2) motion to introduce on first reading by title only) Steve DeCamp provided a brief report and responded to questions from Council. He explained the streamlining intent of the ordinance and emphasized that adjacent property owners are notified and given the opportunity to respond to certain land use proposals. There were no comments from the public. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Kudlac to waive the reading in full of Ordinance No. 256; motion carried unanimously. MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Kudlac to introduce Ordinance No. 256 on first reading, by title only; motion passed 5:0 by roll call vote. D. REf3ULAR BUSINESS: 1. REVENUE ENHANCEMENT REPORT - COUNCIL REVIEW AND DIRECTION Mark Joseph provided an overview of the packet of proposed revenue enhancements. The Mayor asked for a presentation from each department head. Community Development Department: Henry Engen presented six recommendations for fee increases. Mayor Nimmo stated that he would support only an increase for Requests for Information. Councilman Luna proclaimed that the City was subsidizing development, was not re-cooping its, costs and was in favor of all proposed cost-recovery measures for the Community Development Department. Councilwoman Borgeson agreed, adding that the City should ask for more funds up front. Councilman Bewley concurred with the Mayor and asserted that now was not the right time to raise development fees. Consensus: Approve the recommendation for increasing fees for Requests for Information. Public Works Department: Greg Luke highlighted four areas for potential fee increases. Mayor Nimmo spoke in favor of raising Dial-A-Ride fares, but pointed out that he would prefer to wait until the City receives the results of the Wil-Max Disposal audit before examining the option of increasing trash franchise fees. Councilmembers Borgeson and Bewley indicated that they would like to see staff come back at CCO9/O8/92 Page 7 a later date with additional information on sewer fees. Consensus: Approve the recommendation to increase Dial-A-Ride Fares by twenty-five cents. Police Department: Lt. John Barlow presented recommendations for cost-recovery fees. Consensus: Approve revised Cost Recovery Schedule of Fees, as presented and recommendations to bring back for formal action two ordinances implementing cost recovery policies for response to emergencies relating to driving reckless or under the influence and response to false alarms. Fire Department: Mike McCain, Acting Fire Chief, responded to questions regarding the department's comprehensive packet of proposed cost recovery fees. Brief discussion ensued regarding paramedic fees. The City Manager provided background and pointed out that he, the Fire Chief and other members of the City Managers/Fire Chiefs Committee on Ambulance were in favor of the recommendation. He noted that staff would bring back, at the next meeting, a resolution of county-wide support. Consensus: Approve the Fire Department's Fee Schedule, as presented. Administrative Services: Mark Joseph briefly explained a number of revenue options. Consensus: Approval for raising the City's Bed Tax, revising the Business License Ordinance and implementing centralized billing. Community Services Department: Andy Takata reported that he was not proposing any new or revised fees at this time. He explained that he would, as previously directed, soon be coming back to Council with a six-month status report on fees relating to the Pavilion. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 254 - ENABLING MANDATORY WASTE COLLECTION EXEMP- TIONS, AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (Health & Sanitation) (Recommend ( 1) motion to adopt on second reading by title only) MOTION: By Councilman Luna, seconded by Councilman Bewley to adopt Ordinance No. 254 on second reading. CC09/08/92 Page 8 3. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE AT ANNUAL LEAGUE MEETING (October 10-13, 1992) Councilman Kudlac reported he would be attending the League Conference. Mayor Nimmo, with consensus from the Council, appointed him the voting delegate. E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION: 1. City Council The City Manager mentioned that staff had proposed scheduling a workshop for the Council and the public on solid waste issues for Tuesday, October 13, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. Councilman• Kudlac asked that another date be selected because it would conflict with his attendance at the League Conference. Councilwoman Borgeson requested that the workshop be conducted as a special session and not be added to a regular meeting. Mr. Windsor indicated that staff would come back to Council on this matter. City Manager: Mr. Windsor recognized resident Doug Lewis at the podium. Mr. Lewis criticized the Council for not having invited public comment on the second reading of Ordinance No. 254 (Item #D-2) and added that the staff report did not indicate what types of exemptions for mandatory trash collection were allowed. The City Attorney explained that exemptions had been adopted by resolution at the previous meeting and indicated that copies were available in the City Clerk' s office. The Public Works Director noted that applications for exemption were being accepted and could be obtained in Room 103 of City Hall. Brief discussion ensued regarding public hearings for the first and second readings of City ordinances. Councilwoman Borgeson noted that she thought it more appropriate to hold a public hearing at the second reading. Mr. Windsor stated he would check with the League of California Cities to determine what prevailing practice is among cities. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent ad hoc or standing committees. Informative status reports were given, as follows. ) 1. S.L.O. Council of Governments - Mayor Nimmo reported that there would be an Executive Committee meeting on September 16, 1992 to determine whether the Highway 41 Extension will come back before SLOCOG. 2. S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority —Mayor Nimmo stated that this committee was in the process of finalizing the appointment of a full-time manager. CC09/08/9a Page 9 3. Solid/Hazardous Waste Task Force - Councilwoman Borgeson reported that the Task Force had met on September 3, 1992 and reviewed the status of the proposed Joint Powers Agreement. 4. City/School Committee - The City Manager mentioned the next meeting would be on September 17, 1992. 5. Traffic Committee - Greg Luke noted that Council had acted upon a committee recommendation as part of the Consent Calendar (see Item #B-6) . In addition, he remarked that discussion had ensued regarding traffic around the new San Benito Elementary School. 6. County Water Advisory Board - Councilwoman Borgeson reported on the meeting of September 2, 1992. She explained that there had been a committee discussion regarding non-member participation and it was agreed that the Board would continue to accept public comments. In addition, the Board received an update on the County- implementation of the State Water Project of the Coastal Branch, status report on the preliminary engineering data for the Nacimiento Water Supply Project and listened to a presentation by Tim Cleath on the Groundwater Evaluation and Modeling for the City of Morro Bay. At 10:50 p.m. , the Council adjourned to a Closed Session for purposes of discussions regarding the impact of the adoption of the State Budget and matters relating to Personnel. At 11: 18 p.m. , Council moved back into Open Session for the purpose of appointing Mayor Nimmo and Councilman Luna to work with the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager and the City Attorney in the preparation of a budget reduction plan. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:20 P.M. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL WILL BE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY: LEE RABOIN, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A (Taft) CC09/08/92 Page 10 D 10 p CC09/08/92 W R EXHIBIT "A" 'EPTEMBER T. 1992 Page 1 To: ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL Re: Precise Flan #92-006 On the STH of September I ' ll be coming to the City Council meeting to voice my appeal on the Blockbuster project. I would like to give you a few thoughts of mine why I believe this project should not be passed . Hopefully, you will have time to think: about this for awhile and then come up with the same conclusion about it as I have. 1st on the Attachment C, Findings on Approval , I would like to comment on paragraph 3. It reads, 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 in the vicinity of the use. I believe this to be on the contrary. Because, if Blockbuster is allowec to operate in the same shopping center as we are in, then they will certainly take a great part of our business or income from us. . When the;; take that business from us that is detrimental to my wife and I and my employees welfare. And when we have a price war and have to lower the price on our movies, that means less money for public services, which means, it is detrimental to the general public. And if by chance I am put out of business this means that my building would be sitting empty like dozens of other buildings in town and that would certainly be injurious to the property owner of my building. keep in mind , there are 61 empty stores on E1 Camino and Morro Road at the present time. ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THESE FRANCHISES LIVE OUT OF THE AREA AND THUS THE MONEY OR PROFIT GOES OUT ALSO. THE MONEY WE MAKE, STAYS IN TOWN! In reference to the Appearance Review Manual , page 18, 4A: I believe the Blockbuster building will be contrary to the orderly development of the shopping center. Other stores are made up of slump stone and blocks except coronet and it is concrete (which is compatible with stone and block . ) Why should there be a store in front of all of these that conform to eac` other that' s made of wood and stucco and does not conform to the rest of the center. The architect stated in a letter that their building would relate more to the Century Federal building than to the shopping center buildings. But I believe it should relate more to the center it is located in. Mr. Fisher also stated that the use of concrete blocks is unimportant or insignificant in creating a conforming look to this group of buildings, yet further in his letter he suggested that his building set some kind of tone or standard for the future remodeling of the shopping 0010.11 CC09/08/92. EXHIBIT "A" - Pg. 2 center. So what is he saying; -now that Blockbuster is going stucco, -that the rest of the center has tp conform to them? I say it is time to make the at of towner conform to�thekaity! t> - Concerning the compas cion and coh,veni.ence shopping needs: . As very well stated��i;Aw K141Adsor regarding item #7, he says comparisicn and convenience shoppsi41g�i5 .aohieved when compatible land users are grouped together providing patrons with the ability to meet varied shoppil: needs in one location. Using the Websters Dictionary, the word varied means "consisting of different sorts, as You need mor' of a varied diet. " Having two video stores in the same center that sell or rent the ex ac t same movies and merchandise is absolutely not varied or consisting of different sorts and has absolutely nothing to do with comparison shopping. And what convenience is it to have two stores alike when you have to 50 some place else to do the rest of your shopping because there wasn ' t a variety of stores to choose from, So I must say this project does not follow the General Plan Direction .as written on Page II-14. :ommon sense will tell you this, and this item alone should be anough to shut this project down . The current minimum parking requirements for Lot ii is 142. The parking spaces for the project if Hwy. 41 goes thur will be 9 less than the required minimum. The City staff believes there are grounds for granting the lesser than the minimum parking . They say these grounds are based on the comoaritive shopping aspects of retail uses. So again. I refer bac':: item *7 where I ' ve shown them are no grounds for comparitive shopping which means there are no grounds for granting the lessor parking . Concerning the minimum CU' land setback required by the Atascadero Downtown Master Plan , this project does not allow for it. Concerning the EIR, there has been no EIR completed on the exact increase- in traffic or a project specific engineered traffic analysis prepared for this project. There needs to be study made encompassing the entire shopping center including the flow, of traffic in the shopping center and its potential future growth .and impact it will have on the traffic on LHWY. 41 East and West and El Camino Real. There have been 1aoo people who have signed a petition who do not .agree with this project and want some answers on the future of this shopping center. Sincerely, JERRY TAFT 7109 El Camino Real Atascadero, Calif. 974 .905-466-9590 0{1001