HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/1996, 2 - APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY A USE PERMIT FOR A GROCERY STORE AT 154 SUBURBAN ROAD (A 6-96) J
council N•�°�
j acEnOA REpoRt 1�N�
C IT Y OF S AN L U IS 0 B I S P 0
0
FROM: Arnold Jonas�o munit evelopment Director
Prepared By: Whitney McIlvaine ssociate Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission action to deny a use permit for a grocery store
at 154 Suburban Road (A 6-96)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action.
DISCUSSION
Situation
On May 8,the Planning Commission denied a use permit for a 51,000 SF grocery store, finding the use
inconsistent with the general plan. (See attached resolution and meeting minutes.) Seven members of the
public spoke against the project, some of whom acted as spokespersons for others in the audience- mostly
residents from neighborhoods across South Higuera Street, many of whom had spoken against the project
at the April 10 Planning Commission meeting. Two people spoke in favor of the project. Those objecting
did so primarily on the grounds that the scale and format of the proposed store would cater to a broader
regional market than described by the general plan as appropriate for neighborhood centers, leaving nearby
residents to bear a disproportionate share of project impacts.
The property developer is appealing the denial. The appellant's statement is attached. Also attached are
the Planning Commission resolution, the May 8 Planning Commission staff report, and minutes of both
the May 8 and April 10 public hearings. In addition, each Council member has received a reading file
with background information on the annexation, prezoning, and subdivision of the TK property. The
same information was provided to the Planning Commission during their consideration of this
application.
Issues
The controversy over the proposed grocery store centers around three main issues:
► Compatibility with existing development
Public testimony, as recorded in the minutes of the April 10 and May 8 Planning Commission
meetings, outlines residents' concerns about the proposed land use and project impacts.
► Consistency with the general plan
A discussion of relevant general plan policies is provided in the May 10 Planning Commission staff
Council Agenda Report-Appeal A 6-96
Page 2
report Staffs recommendation to the Planning Commission was for approval of the use permit,
based on a general plan policy encouraging neighborhood commercial centers within about one
mile of all residences. Conditions of approval were recommended to address neighborhood
concerns about the project expressed in public testimony, numerous letters, and a petition. Staff
also recommended that the commercial center be rezoned Neighborhood-Commercial. The
applicant objected to a condition limiting the store's size and to the recommendation for
rezoning.
A Commission majority disagreed with staff's recommendation. In reviewing all potentially
relevant general plan policies, the Commission followed general principles of statutory
construction. Those principles direct that where more than one rule or policy may apply, the
more specific prevails over the more general. In this case, the more specific policies are those
related to uses allowed in areas designated for services and manufacturing. The Commission
based its denial on Land Use Element Policy 3.5.3, which states that new neighborhood
commercial centers, including grocery stores by definition, should not be established in areas
designated for services and manufacturing.
To achieve consistency with adopted land use policies, the Council could direct staff or the applicant
to initiate a general plan amendment and rezoning of the project site to Neighborhood-Commercial.
► Implications of previous approvals for the TK Annexation grope
The appeal statement suggests that denying the use permit is a"wrongful breach of contract" since
the annexation and subdivision applications had indicated the applicant's intention to build a 100,000-
square-foot neighborhood commercial/retail center along South Higuera Street.
Commissioners pointed out that although the applicant had indicated his plans to construct a
commercial center in conjunction with previous reviews of the property's annexation and subdivision,
no application had ever been made for use permit approval. Therefore,the question of whether or
not a grocery store and neighborhood commercial center are appropriate at this location-based on
general plan consistency and public testimony-had not yet been squarely before the Commission
and the public,and had not already been decided Furthermore,testimony and discussion at previous
hearings indicated that members of the public, the Planning Commission, and City Council had
concerns with the proposed use.
CONCURRENCES
Other department comments are attached to the Planning Commission staff report.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal and approve the use permit. If the Council acts to approve the use permit,
the Planning Commission staff report of May 8, 1996 lists potential findings and recommended
conditions of approval.
2. If the Council determines that a grocery store is an appropriate use at this location, but not in
conformance with adopted general plan policies, deny the use permit (based on inconsistency
with current general plan policies related to Service-Commercial areas), and direct staff or the
o7_,Z
r 3•.
Council.Agenda Report- Appeal A 6-96
Page.3
applicant to process a general plan.amendmentind reaoning of the project site to Neighborhood-
Attachments:
eighborhood-
Commercial..
Attachments
Draft.resolutlons for denying and upholding the appeal'
Appellaht':s statement .
Planning Commission resolution
Planning Commission.. staff report(May 8)
Planning Commission minutes(May'S:& Ap it 10)
L:\MA6-96.APL
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR A GROCERY STORE
AT 154 SUBURBAN ROAD (A 6-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 8, 1996 and
denied a use permit for application A 6-96; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 18, 1996 and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's action to deny a use permit
for a grocery store at 154 Suburban Road (A 6-96) based on the following finding:
SECTION 1. Fin in
1. The project as proposed is inconsistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy
3.5.3, which states:
New specialty stores, department stores, or neighborhood commercial centers
should not be developed in Service and Manufacturing areas. However, existing
uses such as supermarkets and drugstores may be expanded if:
A. They are compatible with nearby residential uses;
B. The expanded use will not divert trade from other general-retail or
neighborhood commercial areas which are better located to serve the
expected market.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination
1. Denial of a project does not require environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section
15061(b)(1).
�-y
Resolution No.
Appeal A 696
Page.2
Upon motion of __ seconded by-
and on the following roll call.vote
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this — day of _ 1996.
ATTEST:
City Clerk: Mayor(Allen Settle)
APPROVED AS TO FORM: _
Wy7ey
- - - -- -- -- -
BRESDA6�96-D..APL
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMn'IISSION'S
DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR A GROCERY STORE
AT 154 SUBURBAN ROAD (A 6-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 8, 1996 and
denied a use permit for application A 6-96; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 18, 1996 and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby upholds the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny a use permit for a
grocery store at 154 Suburban Road (A 6-96), and approves the use permit based on the following
finding(s):
SECTION 1. in in
(Council must insert appropriate finding(s)).
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination
1. Mitigation measures established for the Annexation and Prezoning (ER 53-94) and
Tract 2202 (ER 74-95) and the Circulation Element EIR adequately address
potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of a
grocery store as part of a neighborhood commercial center at this location.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
(Council must insert appropriate conditions).
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
��o
Resolution No. _ -
Appeal A 39-96 —
Page 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this _. day of
1996.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor(Allen Settle)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
LARES6\A&96-U.APL
_7
�������i���►�IlUlllll��i����Q I cityWIS OBISPO
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of.the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
16ie t°la�,-��n�i � .��.ss �? rendered on /y'ec
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
See l-etre✓ Gda� e44 n4eey ( 7 (C('5 b
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: Nik,- 1 r�1r� ocv��� s4.� /'�a��a�4. e/-�
NameM le Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
.;4-37- 17F4
Home Phone Work Phone
i
Representative: ('cRM rood,°.er1y lrn d 4el 3006 5F(c. L,t✓:z Sfi-
Name/T'�tle 1l.P. Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only: /l /
Calendared for�Z/d'/CJ(p Date &Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): R E C OV E D
MAY 7 1996
Original in City Clerk's Office SAN LUIS OBISao,eA
-o
_< V _ ..
May 30, 1996
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attention: City Clerk-Via Fax: 781-7109
Re: TR Grocery Store Use Permit Appeal.
Dear City Clerk:
We have been informed that this appeal is now tentatively scheduled to be heard by the City
Council on June 18, 1996. We also understand that this is a very full agenda. We, on behalf of
our clients herewith request that this appeal be scheduled for the July 2, 1996 City Council
meeting as an item early in the agenda if possible. Please contact me as soon as possible to
confirm this scheduling so we can inform our client.
Sincerely,
RRM DESIGN GROUP
e:�Z_
Victor M me
_ xecutiv er
cc: Ho 1 Mayor Allen Settle
c' ember Dave Romero
C cilmember Dodie Williams
Councilmember Bill Roalman
Councilmember Kathy Smith
City Administrator John Dunn
Mike Timm,Timm Development
David St.John
Larry Kreutzkampf R E C E I',f IiG
John Mack, RRM
JUN 4 1996
Z/A94035/Govtivm-OVG=UsePetmit4ppeal
- CXFY CLPR!(
ixN i.J:3 0 3:Jro.C"..
DAVID ST. JOHN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
136 WEST CANON PERDIDO,SUITE B2 �
SANTA BARBARA,CALIFORNIA 93101 r1!�
TELEPHONE(805)963-7r-2
FAX(805)966-1787 MAY 2 1a
'ay CLERK
May 17, 1996 SAN LUIS 0131Spo'
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 HAND DELIVERED
Re: T.B. Project—Grocery Store Use Permit
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision of May 8, 1996
Honorable Members of the City Council:
The Applicant in the referenced project ("Project") hereby appeals the Planning
Commission decision of May 8, 1996, denying the Grocery Store Use Permit Application
for the Project on grounds that the use is inconsistent with the Commercial Service
("CS") Zone designation for the property. This appeal is made on the following grounds:
(1) Retail sales of groceries are an Allowed Use in the CS zone, with no
limitation on size. The Planning Commission's hearing and exercise of
discretion on May 8, 1996, is, therefore, without proper authority.
(2) The property was annexed and the tentative vesting map approved on the
basis of a 50,000 s.f. grocery store. The Planning Commission's hearing
and exercise of discretion on May 8, 1996, therefore, arbitrarily voids a
fundamental vested right.
(3) The Planning Commission is estopped from denying the Grocery Store Use
is consistent with the CS Zone designation, because all prior actions and
approvals of the City for the Project have been based on zoning consis-
tency. The City intended Applicant to rely, and Applicant did rely,
thereon, to Applicant's damage in amounts exceeding $10,000,000.00.
?-/a
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
T.S. Project—Grocery Store Use Permit
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision of May 8, 1996
May 17, 1996
Page 2
(4) The Planning Commission on May 8, 1996, was without authority to deny
the Grocery Store Use on grounds that it is a "Neighborhood Commercial
Center," and, as such, is inconsistent with the CS Zone designation. This
Project has been designed from its inception to meet demands of the City
and some demands of the region. It is not a "Neighborhood Commercial
Center" within the meaning of Policy 3.5.3. All traffic, parldng, circula-
tion, and other impact studies and analyses of the Project, and all City
actions and approvals over the course of three years, establish that the CS
Zone designation is proper.
(5) To the extent that it results in denial of the Grocery Store Use Permit
Application, the term "Neighborhood Commercial Center" is impermissibly
vague and uncertain and, as applied by the Planning Commission, is a
denial of due process.
(6) Applicant and the City entered into agreements in connection the annexation
and tentative map approval, on the basis of a 50,000 s.f. grocery store
being consistent with the CS Zone designation. The Planning Commission
action of May 8, 1996, is a wrongful breach of contract.
(7) The Planning Commission action of May 8, 1996, abrogating the City's
agreements with Applicant, is a bad faith denial of the contract after City
placed itself in the position to reap the benefits of Applicant's performance.
(8) The Planning Commission action of May 8, 1996, is a violation of
Applicant's civil rights and is an undue interference with the use of land.
(9) The Planning Commission action of May 8, 1996, is arbitrary and
capricious and is a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
This appeal is further based on such other grounds, facts, presentations by Applicant and
comments by interested parties, and on all the papers, records and other materials as may
be presented at the hearing on this appeal.
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
T.S. Project—Grocery Store Use Permit
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision of May 8, 1996
May 17, 1996
Page 3
A statement of background facts supporting the above stated grounds was made in our
correspondence datedUM 4r-t4W, to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is
attached hereto. Applicant will submit in writing an additional statement for the City
Council's consideration prior to the hearing on this appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
r
DAVID ST. JOHN
Attorney for Applicant
DSJ/dkm
c: Applicant
City Attorney
Planning Director
05/21/1996 08: 50 8055434609 PRM DESIGN GROUP PAGE 02
MAY. -20' 96 NON) 10: 59 DAVID ST. ,.,J TEL:805-96k, -187 P. 002
I)AVID ST. JOIIN
ArrORNsr AT uw
176 Wasr CANON PEADIoo,surra B2
SANTA aARBARA,CAUFORNiA 9710!
TELENIONS(60S)967.7721
r•AX(1135)955-1787
May 7, 1996
Mr. Barry Karleskint, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of san*Luis Obispo
990 Pala, Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: T.K. Project--Grocery Store Use Permit
Dear Chairman Karleskint:
We recently received and reviewed the latest staff report dated May S, 1996, The report,
on pages 2 and 3, provides a review of the actions taken by the City on this project up
to the last Planning Commission meeting held April 10, 1996 regarding the grocery store
use permit. We ask the Planning Cominissi()i to carefully consider the following:
l- The initial applicAlion for this project filed by lite applicant requested tltal the
grocery store be zoned CN. We were advised that the CN designation had some
General Plan policy issues and, Ileltce, on advice of the City modified the zoning
request to be CS (page 3 Of staff report - City Council action December 7, 1993).
2. At each step in the process OF City review of this project, the applicants have been
careful to snake their intent known to everyone involved with the project - City
staff, neighbors, Airport Land Use Commission staff, Airport Land Use
Commissioners, City P'""'ng Co►ntnissioners, City Architectural Review
Commission members, and City Council members. At each step in the govern-
ment agency reviews of [itis project, there has been direct discussion of the
proposed grocery store and its size. The proposed grocery store use and size have
been clearly identified as a part of the environmental reviews by the City staff,
City Planning Commission, City Council and Airport Land Use Commission and,
most recently, by the City Architectural Review Commission.
. -2 .4-3
05/21/1996 08: 50 8055434609 RP.4 DESIGN GROUP PAGE 03
NAY. -20: 961MONf II :00 DAVID ST. TEL:805-96. _ . 81 ..........P. 003_
May 7, 1996
Mr. Barry Karleskint, Chairman
Planning Commission
Page 2
3. The size of Elie grocery store and its location were a part of the record and
discussions of the Planning Commission at two prior advertised hearings where t11e
PIanning Commission took action to approve Ilia project, as follows:
First, at the rezoning annexation hearings (November 1993) where
the P1811"ii19 Commission took action to recommend approval, Elie
CS rezoning and annexation included findings to support a negative
declaration of environmental impact; and
Second, at lite hearings for Elie vesting tentative subdivision map
(December 1995) where the Planning Commission again took action
to recommend approval of the vesting subdivision ►nap, and again
makefinding for a negative declaration.
The vesting tentative subdivision map even shows the footprint of Elie proposed grocery
store in order to snake clear what was intended by the configuration of the lots which
match lie building configuration for the grocery store.
The applicant has gone to great lengths to keep the project plan co tri with what has
been shown to the City during Elie review of Elie project in order to (1) communicate the
intent clearly, and (2) avoid conflicting recommendations or conditions between various
City Commissions aiul Elie City Councils as the project moved through a lengthy City
review process.
Our clients are, quite frankly, at a 101111 Joss to understand how Elie grocery store use
permit can be discussed as potentially inconsistent with City General Plan policies and
zoning after the City Council provided direction to the applicant regarding what toning
designation to apply for. And the City, through various Commissions and tie City
Council, has conducted at leas) seven advertised public hearings where Ilio project was
considered, approved with fi»dings a,1cl conditions and negative declarations of environ-
mental impact approved. No mention or General Plan inconsistency is made in the
findings even though (Ile project description clearly indicated the size and location of tite
proposed grocery store use_ Even now, the staff is presenting the Planning Coinmissian
arguments which can support findings for approval of Elie project as proposed.
05/21/1996 06:50 8055434609 P.P,M DESIGN GROUP PAGE 04
MAY. -20. 96(MON) I I :00 DAVID ST. TEL:805-96t. 87 P. 004 _r
May 79 1996
Mr. Barry Karleskint, Chairrnan
Planning Conunission
Page 3
The project is Elie same its it was at the Buie of Elie prior approvals. There is no new
evidence, circutttstance, factor or rinding In the context of a use permit versus the
prior zoning and vesting neap approvals to support the two radically different
recotnmendatiotis contained in tate April 10, 1996 staff report. The City's reversal
of its earlier decisions and approvals would, therefore, be inconsistent, unreasonable,
arbitrary, copriclous, and a prejudicial abuse of discretion. CCP § 1094.5; Topanga
Assn for a Scenic Contmuniry v. Counry of Los Angeles, (1974) 11 Cad 506.
The staff report presents two recommendations substantially different from the April 10,
1996 staff report. First, (fiat (lie grocery should be limited in size to 30,000 s.f, versus
50,000 s.f. proposed. The evidence before the Planning Commission is that the size of
stores, as directed by the majority of grocery store tenants, is 45,000 to 61,000 s.L
depending upon the tenant. The size of grocery stores constructed 10.or more years ago
are not a proper yardstick for a new store, and the economic requirements of a modern
foodstore operation. The new stores proposed on sites of a size similar to this project are
48,000 and 57,00() s.f. (Albertson's and Van's).
The second new recommendation that the site, containing the grocery store, have a
General Plan Amendment aril be rezoned from CS to CN. This is unreasonable since the
City'prezoned !iris site CS after adoption of the General Plan Update And knowing that
the grocery store was a proposed tise. Even as early as the arrrtexation hearings, the City
had requested that the npplicant provide a site plan and project description so the City
could incorporate the intended use into its planning decisions rrom the very inception of
the process. Tile City has been informed throughout that a 50,000 s.r. grocery store was
the proposed use. Members of fire City Council attended neighborhood meetings held by
the applicants with nearby residents where the site plan and grocery store were primary
topics of discussion. The project description is essentially the same know as it was then.
We ask that you consider these questions before making your decision:
= what will become of the vesting tentative map which is configured to a
specific shape to accommodate the grocery store?
• if the grocery store is prohibited or reduced dramatically in scale, what will
happen with the conditions of the rnap which are based upon the 50,000 s.f.
grocery store and its irrrpacts?
05/21/1996 08:50 8055434609 PPM DESIGN GROUP PAGE 05
mAy. -20' 961 MON) 11 :00 DAVID ST. JOHN TEL 805-966-1781 P. 005
May 71 1996
Mr. Barry Karleskint, Chairman
PIanning Commission
Page 4
■ Will the conditions of the map which related to the impacts of the grocery
store be waived or recalculated?
11 Can the map be reconfigured to accommodate additional lots for users who
may replace the square footage deducted from the grocery store?
Will tine map need to be reprocessed to accommodate such changes?
■ 1s here a nexus between the conditions of the map and a project without a
grocery store or with a dramatically reduced grocery store?
Staff has indicated that the grocery store m 50.000 s.f. is a "regional draw" (no definition
provided) arid, therefore, inconsistent witli the City General Plan. Theis no attempt
to reconcile other uses of this size which may be a "regional draw" but re re not require a
use permit under the zoning ordinance. A grocery store is no more a regional draw than
a similarly sized building materials supply store which is allowable without a use permit.
There is no evidence submitted to support the staff theory that a smaller grocery store
will, its fact, have less traffic impact than a larger grocery store. For convenience scrvic-
es, this si2ialler-size-equals-less-traffic theory is not supported in the ITE manuals.
Lastly, please put yourself in the position of lite applicant when considering your action.
They should be treated fairly and with recognition of the efforts they have made to follow
through with the intended use clearly stated almost three years ago. They have followed
a logical path ill seeking approvals from the City. The City, until this point, has been
reasonable, consistent, and in agreement with the applicant. On behalf of die applicant,
you are respectfully urged to continue lite path followed in your previous decisions and
to approve the use permit as requested.
Sincerely,
David St. John
c clients
Ae
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5180-96
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California, on
May 8, 1996, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under City File: A 6-96,Timm & Kreutzkampf
Development, applicants.
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEWED:
Administrative Use Permit to allow a grocery store in the C-S zone.
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION.-
154
OCATION:154 Suburban Road.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Service Commercial.
PRESENT ZONING:
C-S
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made
by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the following
circumstances:
The project as proposed is inconsistent with the following General Plan Land Use Element
policy:
4. LUE Policy 3.5.3 General Retail and Neighborhood Commercial Uses:
�7
Resolution No. 5180-96
A 6-96
Page 2
New specialty stores, department stores, or neighborhood commercial centers should not be
developed in Service and Manufacturing areas. However, existing uses such as supermarkets
and drugstores may be expanded if:
A. They are compatible with nearby residential uses;
B. The expanded use will not divert trade from other general-retail or neighborhood
commercial areas which are better located to serve the expected market.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Use Permit A 6-96 is hereby denied.
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Veesart, seconded by Commr. Kourakis, and upon the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Veesart, Kourakis, Jeffrey and, Whittlesey
NOES: Senn, Ready
The motion carried.
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
vO
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT maH#
BY: Whitney Mcllvaine�Associate Planner MEETING DATE: May 8, 1996
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage
FILE NUMBER: A 6-96 �C'
PROJECT ADDRESS: 154 Suburban Road
SUBJECT: Request for use permit approval of a grocery store in the C-S zone.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
1. General Plan Consistency: Determine if the proposed 51,635 SF grocery store at its
proposed location is consistent with general plan policies, which are identified and discussed
below.
2. Environmental Determination: If the Commission determines the use is consistent with the
general plan, the Commission must then determine whether the previous environmental
reviews conducted for projects outlined below sufficiently analyzed potential environmental
impacts resulting from the establishment of a 51,635 SF grocery store at this location.
Previous relevant environmental reviews were separately distributed to Commissioners and
include:
a) ER 54-93 conducted for the annexation and prezoning of the site,
b) ER 74-95 conducted for the subdivision of the annexation site, and
C) EIR conducted for the update of the Circulation Element as it pertained to noise
mitigation for widening South Higuera Street (mitigation measure #11 in Council
Resolution 8332).
Note: If the Commission determines the use is not consistent with the general plan and denies
the use permit, no environmental determination is required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA Section 15270). However, further consideration of the application on appeal
of a denial will be facilitated by adoption of an environmental determination.
3. Use Permit: Approve- with or without conditions - or deny the use permit request, based on
appropriate findings. Staff recommends approval of the use permit based on findings and
subject to conditions noted under StafReconunnedation.
BACKGROUND
Situation
Zoning regulations require administrative use permit approval for grocery stores in the Service-
Commercial zone. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 51,635 square foot market as
part of a commercial center at the corner of Suburban Road and South Higuera Street. The
schematic plan shows another large tenant and some smaller tenant spaces. Although the
4P2
A 6-96
Page 2
application does not specify a particular grocery store, Foods for Less has been identified as a
potential tenant.
This item was originally scheduled for the Administrative Hearing on April 5. However, given
concerns expressed by nearby residents, the Director determined that the item should be referred
to the Planning Commission, consistent with Section 17.58.030A.3 of the zoning regulations.
Data Summary
Project Address: 154 Suburban Road
Applicant: Larry Kreutzkampf
Property Owners: M.Timm Development, Inc., Larry and Linda Kreutzkampf
Representative: Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group
Zoning: Service-Commercial (C-S)
General Plan: Services and Manufacturing
Environmental Status: ER 54-93; ER.74-95; 1994 EIR for Land Use and Circulation Elements
Site Description
The project site is relatively flat and currently vacant. To the north are agricultural fields, the new
Telegram-Tribune office and production building, and an expansion of San Luis Sourdough.
Industrial development, including a concrete block manufacturer, is across Suburban Road to the
south. Creekside and Silver City mobile home parks and the Meadows and Los Verdes housing
developments are across South Higuera Street to the west. The grocery store would be located on
a separate 3.84-acre lot within the proposed 8-acre shopping center. (See attached subdivision
plan.)
Previous Review/Project History
April 10, 1996 - The Planning Commission continued action on the use permit request for a
grocery store with direction.
February 20, 1996 - The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) granted schematic approval
to the overall site planning and building layout for a shopping center with direction. (See
attached letter notifying the applicant of ARC action.) Once major tenants have been
identified, design details finalized, and all required use permits approved, the project can
return for final architectural review.
January 16, 1996 - A tentative tract map, which subdivides the entire 22-acre annexation area
into 21 lots was approved by the City Council. The Council also approved a mitigated
negative declaration for the subdivision (ER 74-95).
December 13, 1995 -The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the
proposed subdivision of the site with a modification in lot design to include larger lots along
.2 ao
A 6-96
Page 3
Tank Farm Road. (Council did not require the modification.)
May 9, 1995 - Annexation complete and recorded with the County Recorder.
October 4, 1994 - City Council approved the annexation and Service-Commercial prezoning, and
approved a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact (ER 54-93).
August 1994 - City Council adopted an update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the
general plan.
March 1, 1994 - City Council denied the annexation and prezoning request, finding it premature,
and inadequate with regard to open space policies and water resources.
December 7, 1993 - City Council continued action on the annexation and prezoning with direction
to the applicant to consider C-S-S zoning in lieu of C-N zoning and provide open space
dedication or in-lieu fees.
November 17, 1993 - The Planning Commission recommended approval of the annexation and
Service-Commercial prezoning.
In the review process for both the annexation and subdivision, the developer indicated he planned
to construct a neighborhood commercial center along South Higuera Street, with a site layout and
tenant areas similar to what is shown on the attached site plan. Therefore, for purposes of
environmental review, the project was defined to include development of a commercial center with
a 50,000 SF grocery store as proposed. Potential environmental impacts of developing a
commercial center were addressed as part of environmental review for both the annexation and
the proposed subdivision of the annexed area.
However, no approval of the commercial center or individual stores within such a center has been
granted. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council acknowledged that development
of a commercial center and certain proposed uses within such a center would require architectural
as well as use permit approval and that decisions regarding uses and site development would be
premature without submittal of more detailed development plans and applicable applications for
review. The applicant submitted a use permit application on January 17, 1996 and an application
for architectural review on January 26, 1996.
EVALUATION
General Plan Consistency
A. POLICIES WHICH COULD SUPPORT A FINDING OF CONSISTENCY
Locating a grocery store at this site could be found consistent with Land Use Element (LUE)
policies that encourage neighborhood retail centers to be within about one mile of all residences
Z a2l
A 6-96
Page 4
with access from arterials and policies that state convenience facilities serving daily needs should
be located in and near employment centers ( LUE Policies 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.6.2). To ensure
consistency, provisions within these policies should be applied to the project as conditions of
approval.
LUE policies 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 apply primarily to properties zoned Neighborhood-Commercial (C-
N). If the Commission supports a grocery store at this location, it may be appropriate to direct
staff to process a general plan amendment and rezoning to change the zoning designation from
Service-Commercial (C-S) to Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N).
1. LUE Policy 3.2.1 Neighborhood Commercial, Purpose and included Uses:
The City should have areas for Neighborhood Commercial uses to meet the frequent shopping
demands of people living nearby. Neighborhood commercial uses include grocery stores,
Laundromats, and drug and hardware stores. Neighborhood commercial centers should be
available within about one mile of all residences. These centers should not exceed about eight
acres, unless the neighborhood to be served includes a significant amount of high density
residential development. Specialty stores may be located in Neighborhood Commercial
centers as long as they will not be a major citywide attraction or displace more general,
convenience uses.
2. LUE Policy 3.2.2 New or Expanded Centers:
New or expanded Neighborhood Commercial centers should:
A. Be created within, or extended into, adjacent nonresidential areas;
B. Provide uses to serve nearby residents, not the whole City;
C. Have access from arterial streets, and not increase traffic on residential streets;
D. Have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from surrounding service area, as well as good
internal circulation;*
E. Provide landscaped areas with public seating;*
F. Provide indoor or outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a focus for some
neighborhood activities.*
* - Approval of the use permit may need to include project conditions to ensure the grocery
store is consistent with the provisions of this policy.
aZ-.2Z
A 6-96
Page 5
3. LUE Policy 3.6.2 Convenience Facilities (applies to all commercial zones):
Convenience facilities serving daily needs, such as small food stores, branch banks, and child
and elder care, and amenities such as picnic areas may be allowed in centers of employment.
Space for such amenities may be required within large commercial and industrial development.
4. LUE Policies 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 Neighborhood Traffic, Neighborhood Connections:
Public Works staff response to consistency with LUE Policies 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 regarding
neighborhood traffic and neighborhood pedestrian connections is attached. In their evaluation,
the project is, in part, not subject to certain policy provisions and otherwise consistent.
5. LUE Program 3.7.3 Neighborhood Uses:
The City will rezone to Neighborhood Commercial existing Service Commercial sites which
have become neighborhood convenience centers, if: (1) they primarily serve a neighborhood
rather than a citywide market; and (2) they are appropriately located considering access and
compatibility with other nearby uses.
B. POLICIES WHICH COULD SUPPORT A FINDING OF INCONSISTENCY
The grocery store, especially in the context of a neighborhood commercial center, may not be
consistent with policies that state such centers should serve nearby residents, not the whole City,
and that new specialty stores, department stores, or neighborhood commercial centers should not
be developed in Services and Manufacturing areas (Policies 3.2.2, 3.5, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.1.1,
and 3.1.2).
1. LUE Policy 3.2.2 New or Expanded Centers:
The full text of this policy is provided above. Provisions marked with an * denote areas of
concern with project consistency that may or may not be able to be resolved through project
conditioning.
2. LUE Policy 3.5.1 Services and Manufacturing, Purpose:
The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to meet most
demands of the City, and some demands of the region, for activities such as wholesaling,
building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, bakeries, and retail sales of
large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials,
plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants and
other activities primarily serving area workers.
Z-23
A 6-96
Page 6
3. LITE Policy 3.5.2 Appropriate Uses:
The following types of uses are appropriate in areas designated Services and Manufacturing.
Certain areas designated Service and Manufacturing may be reserved through special zoning
provisions for certain types of uses, to assure compatibility among the wide range of potential
uses, and to assure adequate land for certain types of uses.
A. Wholesaling, warehousing, and storage;
B. Vehicle sales and rental (other polices specify their location in the Auto Park area);
C. Retail sales of products which require outdoor areas or large floor areas for display and
storage, such as warehouse stores, lumber and building material dealers, home
improvement centers, furniture and appliance stores, and plant nurseries;
D. Repair shops, printing services, laundries, animal hospitals, sporting goods stores, auto
parts stores, and some recreation facilities;
E. Light manufacturing, research and development, and laboratories.
F. Large offices, with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet, and having no
substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be
located in the Services and Manufacturing districts, subject to approval of a Planned
Development zoning application.
4. LUE Policy 3.5.3 General Retail and Neighborhood Commercial Uses:
New specialty stores, department stores, or neighborhood commercial centers should not be
developed in Service and Manufacturing areas. However, existing uses such as supermarkets
and drugstores may be expanded if:
A. They are compatible with nearby residential uses;
B. The expanded use will not divert trade from other general-retail or neighborhood
commercial areas which are better located to serve the expected market.
5. LUE Policy 3.1.1 General Retail, Purpose and Included Uses:
The City should have areas for General retail uses adequate to meet most demands of City and
nearby residents. General Retail includes specialty stores as well as department stores, warehouse
stores, discount stores, restaurants, and services such as banks. Not all areas designated General
Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses.
2-2- Y,
A 6-96
Page 7
6. LUE Policy 3.1.2 Locations for Regional Attractions:
The City should focus its retailing with regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area
around the intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101 - Madonna Shopping Center and
Central Coast Mall - and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road - Froom
Ranch. (Italics added correspond to areas designated General retail on the LUE Map)
C. CONCLUSION
The policy which best supports a grocery store at this location on a site with C-S zoning is LUE
Policy 3.6.2, which promotes small grocery stores and other convenience facilities in all
commercial zones to serve both nearby residents and employment centers.
Establishment of a neighborhood commercial center with a large supermarket may be consistent
with LUE Policies 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, providing amenities and other criteria noted in these polices
is incorporated into the neighborhood center. Consistent with Implementation Program 3.7.3,
the Commission should then direct staff to process a general plan amendment and rezoning of the
neighborhood center site to C-N.
The policies which most clearly do not support approval of a large warehouse-style grocery store
in the context of a neighborhood center are LUE Policy 3.5, which specifically discourages new
neighborhood commercial centers in the C-S zone, and LUE Policy 3.1.2, which states that
retailing with regional draw such as warehouse stores and discount stores should be located
downtown, or in the Madonna Road malls or in the area designated for General Retail along Los
Osos Valley Road.
CEQA Compliance
As noted above under the summary of previous review, the potential environmental impacts of
developing a commercial center with a 50,000 SF grocery store were addressed as part of
environmental review for both the annexation and the proposed subdivision of the annexed area.
Potential areas of impact which were identified and addressed include consistency with community
plans, land use, transportation and circulation, public services and utilities, noise levels,
topographic modifications, air quality, plant life, archaeological, energy/resource use and soil
contamination. Some additional project details have been submitted as part of the architectural
review application, but none that significantly change the project description utilized for purposes
of environmental review. Therefore, staff have concluded that the environmental review prepared
for the annexation and subdivision of the site meets CEQA requirements to prepare environmental
documents at the earliest possible time in the review process and to avoid duplicative paperwork
(CEQA Sections 15004 and 15006).
Section 15063(d)(5) requires an initial study to contain an "examination of whether the project
would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls." This
2 2r
A 6-96
Page 8
same section does not require inconsistency to be treated as a significant environmental impact
(emphasis added). The issue of whether this site should be developed with a grocery store or
some other use with similar environmental impacts is a land use decision beyond the question of
environmental impact significance. Ultimately, it is the role of the Planning Commission and City
Council to weigh various general plan policies relevant to a project and make a determination
regarding whether the project can or cannot be found consistent with the general plan.
Remaining Latitude, Given Previous Approvals
In addition to the environmental mitigation measures which are applicable to any development
project on this site, the approval of the tentative map for a 21-lot subdivision establishes the
maximum number of lots and their configuration, access points, frontage improvements and
changes to the surrounding streets and intersections.
Attached is the Council resolution (No. 8485) which specifies all conditions that must be met by
the applicant prior to final map approval and which apply to development of individual lots. The
conditions in the resolution togetherwith the approved tentative map (also attached) constitute the
subdivision project approved by Council. The final map and all required physical improvements
must be in substantial compliance with the tentative map prior to final approval and recordation
(Subdivision Map Act Sections 66473 and 66474..1).
Previous actions did not convey any use permit approval of a grocery store or neighborhood
commercial center. This issue has always been identified as one to be resolved in conjunction
with the applicant's submittal of a specific development plan and associated land use applications
(beginning with pp. 6-8 of ER 54-93). However, if the Commission determines the use is
consistent with the general plan, and acts to approve the request, any use permit conditions should
be consistent with previous conditions of approval.
Zoning Regulations
Zoning regulations allow "Retail sales - groceries, liquor and specialized foods (bakery, meats,
dairy items, etc.)" in the C-S zone, subject to use permit approval. The purpose of use permits
is to allow flexibility in providing for, regulating, or preventing various uses, to achieve
compatibility with existing' or desired conditions in a neighborhood. Use permit approval is
required for certain uses so that their detrimental effects can be reduced or.avoided and so
potential conflicts in land use can be prevented (Section 17.58.010).
If the Commission decides to approve this use permit request, it may be appropriate to condition
the following aspects of the project to improve compatibility with nearby residential land uses and
to achieve continuity in the attractive pattern of site planning and frontage landscaping along this
portion of South Higuera established by developments such as the Granada building, the Hind
building, and the Telegram-Tribune.
Hours of Q=tion- The applicant has not specified desired hours of operation. Nearby residents
A 6-96
Pave 9
have expressed concern over a 24-hour grocery store at this location, because of the potential for
late-night noise and traffic and are requesting hours be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.M.
Square Footage: Limiting the size the store would improve consistency with LUE Policies 3.2.2,
3.6.2, and 3.1.2.b The average square footage of all existing markets, including the approved
Mangold Center Vons, is 25,325 square.feet. The most recently constructed market, Scolari's,
is 30,000 square feet.
Circulation: The traffic study prepared in conjunction with the annexation request projected traffic
volumes and identified necessary changes to surrounding streets based on a development scenario .
that included a 50,000 square foot grocery store as part of a 100,000 square foot shopping center.
Nearby residents are now concerned that turning movements into and out of the South Higuera
Street entrance to the shopping center, combined with the increased volume of traffic will make
it difficult and dangerous to enter and exit Las Praderas - the only point of access to the Meadows
housing development. Public Works staff have evaluated those concerns and their analysis
indicates that street improvements that will be installed as part of the subdivision will adequately
accommodate additional traffic and turning movements.
LUE Policy 3.5.4 states that in Service and Manufacturing areas, driveway access onto arterial
streets should be minimized.
The Planning Commission could limit turning movements at the South Higuera Street driveway
based on testimony presented by nearby residents. Alternatively, the Commission could require
the use permit to be reviewed at a specified time in the future to consider how well traffic is
moving in this vicinity and whether limiting turning movements at the South Higuera Street
entrance is necessary.
Pedestrian and Alternate Transportation Access- The project does provide bicycle lockers and
employee shower facilities and a new bus stop and pedestrian access from the bus shelter into the
shopping center. Crosswalks will be provided at the Suburban Road and Tank Farm Road
intersections which tie the site into existing pedestrian circulation systems in the area. A new
traffic signal will be installed at the Suburban Road intersection. In addition to environmental
mitigation already required of the project and recommended conditions of approval noted at the
end of this report, the Commission may consider other project conditions deemed necessary to
accommodate pedestrians and alternative modes of transportation. A site plan showing pedestrian
access routes in the area is attached as part of the Public Works comments.
Delivery Hours: One potential problem with additional truck traffic is their arrival time.
Delivery hours could be limited. For Scolari's Market, deliveries were limited to between the
hours of 7:00 am and 9:00 pm.
Los Verdes Wall: The Los Verdes Home Owners' Association is requesting that the project
.2
A 6-96
Page 10
include construction of a wall along their eastern property line to shield the neighborhood from
traffic noise and pollution and for safety reasons. The resolution approving the Circulation
Element update stipulates, as mitigation for traffic noise levels on street widening projects, that
the City will reduce traffic speeds through limits or physical features and require developments
to attenuate noise through setbacks, berms, or walls (Resolution 8332, Mitigation Measure #11).
The project could be conditioned to include construction of a wall along South Higuera Street.
Parking_Lot Maintenance and Sweeping: Also to reduce noise exposure for nearby residents,
parking lot maintenance, sweeping, and trash compaction should be limited to between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
Pa rking LDt Screening and Setbacks: The ARC, nearby residents, and staff would prefer to see
additional landscaping and street setbacks to better shield views of the parking lot and vehicle
headlights.
Number of Parking Spaces: Parking for the grocery store would be provided consistent with
zoning regulation requirements of 1 space per 200 square feet or 258 spaces. Total parking for
the project would be roughly 450 spaces. The traffic study built in a 25% multi-purpose trip
reduction factor for the shopping center. It would seem logical to consider a mixed-use parking
reduction as well.
Lighting* To minimize impacts on nearby residents and night time drivers along South Higuera,
and to conserve energy, exterior lighting should be directed downward only and average
maintained footcandle levels should not exceed 1/2 footcandle (Illuminating Engineering Society
standard).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the use permit with or without conditions, based on findings of general plan policy
consistency, land use compatibility, adequate environmental review, public health, safety and
welfare, or other appropriate findings of fact.
2. Deny the use permit, based on findings of general plan policy inconsistency, land use
incompatibility, potential threats to public health, safety and welfare, or other appropriate
findings of fact.
3. Continue action to allow the applicant time to address specific unanswered concerns of the
Commission and/or to require preparation of an initial environmental study with direction
regarding issues to be examined.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other department comments are attached and recommended conditions are incorporated into the
staff recommendation.
e7-2t
A 6-96
Page 11
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the use permit, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings-
I. As conditioned, the grocery store use will be compatible with nearby residential uses.
2. As conditioned, a grocery store in this location is consistent with general plan policies that
encourage the location of neighborhood commercial centers within about 1 mile of all
residences, serving nearby residents and not the whole City.
3. Approval of a use permit to allow a grocery store at this location is consistent with zoning
regulations since zoning regulations implement the general plan and provide for grocery stores
in the C-S zone with use permit approval.
4. Mitigation measures established for the Annexation and Prezoning (ER 53-94) and Tract 2202
(ER 74-95) and the Circulation Element EIR adequately address potential environmental
impacts resulting from construction and operation of a grocery store as part of a neighborhood
commercial center at this location.
Conditions:
1. Provide a greater setback along the Suburban Road and Higuera Street frontages with
berms and landscaping for the purpose of screening views into the parking lot; shielding
pedestrians, nearby residents, and vehicles on surrounding roads from headlights of cars
in the parking lot; enlarging the buffer between pedestrians and vehicles using the parking
lot; and providing continuity in the pattern of frontage landscaping along this portion of
South Higuera established by other large developments such as Granada, Hind, and the
Telegram-Tribune building (similar to what was submitted at the April 10 Planning
Commission meeting).
2. Provide additional information / plans to show how the project's buildings and lighting
will comply with tentative map conditions of approval related to energy conservation in
conjunction with architectural review of the neighborhood shopping center (ARC 6-96).
3. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
4. The project shall post signs limiting delivery hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
and notifying drivers that truck engines must be turned off when parked to the satisfaction
of the Director.
5. The project shall include construction of a wall along the eastern property line of the Los
Verdes residential area to shield the neighborhood from traffic noise and pollution and for
A 6-96
Page 12
safety reasons to the approval of the ARC in conjunction with architectural review of the
neighborhood commercial center ARC 6-96.
6. Parking lot maintenance and sweeping shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 9:00 p.m.
7. To minimize impacts on nearby residents and night time drivers along South Higuera and
to conserve energy, exterior lighting should be directed downward only and average
maintained footcandle levels should not exceed 1/2 footcandle (Illuminating Engineering
Society standard).
8. The grocery store shall be limited to a maximum area of 30,000 square feet.
9. The South Higuera Street driveway shall be limited to right in, left in, right out turning
movements. The use permit shall be reviewed one year after the grocery store opens to
consider how well traffic is moving in this vicinity and whether any further limiting of
turning movements at the South Higuera Street entrance is necessary.
10. The grocery store shall be developed as part of a neighborhood commercial center and not
as a stand alone use.
In a separate motion, direct staff to process a general plan amendment and rezoning of tentative
map lots 1 through 4 to Neighborhood-Commercial from Service-Commercial.
Public Works Conditions-
1. All conditions for tract 2202 shall be strictly adhered to.
2. Driveway ramps on Jenny Way shall conform to the City's Engineering Standard Detail No.
2111 (ADA compliance).
3. Street type driveway entrances shall be designed with appropriate handicap access ramps in
accordance with the most current City of San Lids Obispo Engineering Standard Details and
Standard Specifications.
4. Any building located within flood zone "A" shall have a finished pad elevation at least one
foot above the 100-yr storm water surface elevation.
Transportation, Circulation & Bicycles
5. Sidewalk Alignment: the sidewalk alignment should be meandered similar to the detached
sidewalks north of the project site.
6. Limit Lines: Limit lines or "stop bars" should be painted on the main entrance driveway, set
back a minimum of 2 feet from the proposed textured crosswalk.
A 6-96
Page 13
7. Bicycle Rack Location: The bicycle racks should be relocated to meet the standards set forth
by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October 1993):
Be located as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and be located at least
as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking.
Be visible from the interior of the destination.
The proposed locations along the sides of Buildings A and B do not meet these criteria.
8. Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces: Bicycle parking shall be provided to meet the standards
set forth by the Bicycle Transportation Plan(October, 1993). Specifically, the plan stipulates
that bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of 15% of the required parking
spaces; a minimum of 50%of these spaces should be for short-term parking (bike racks) while
a minimum of 40% should be for long-term parking (bicycle lockers).
9. Design of Bicycle Racks: The developer shall review and receive approval of the design of
bicycle racks with the public works staff prior to their installation. The staff has information
available for review at the Public Works Department that can assist in rack design selection.
10. Transit Stop Design: Signage at the proposed transit stop and the design selected for the
transit shelter shall be to the approval of the City Transit Manager.
11. The plans must reflect the interim street and utilities phasing (e.g. - turn around, fire
flow/water main sizing, etc...).
Attached:
vicinity map
site plan
subdivision plan
comparative grocery stores
Council resolution
other dept. comments, including Public Works resonse to general plan policies
ARC 2/20 minutes
letters from Strong Planning Services
letters from the public received since April 10
-2'31
A 6-96
Page 13
7. Bicycle Rack Location: The bicycle racks should be relocated to meet the standards set forth
by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October 1993):
Be located as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and be located at least
as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking.
Be visible from the interior of the destination.
The proposed locations along the sides of Buildings A and B do not meet these criteria.
8. Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces: Bicycle parking shall be provided to meet the standards
set forth by the Bicycle Transportation Plan(October, 1993). Specifically, the plan stipulates
that bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of 15% of the required parking
spaces; a minimum of 50% of these spaces should be for short-tern parking (bike racks) while
a minimum of 40% should be for longi term parking (bicycle lockers).
9. Design of Bicycle Racks: The developer shall review and receive approval of the design of
bicycle racks with the public works staff prior to their installation. The staff has information
available for review at the Public Works Department that can assist in rack design selection.
10. Transit Stop Design: Signage at the proposed transit stop and the design selected for the
transit shelter shall be to the approval of the City Transit Manager.
11. The plans must reflect the interim street and utilities phasing (e.g. - turn around, fire
flow/water main sizing, etc...).
Attached:
vicinity map
site plan
subdivision plan
comparative grocery stores
Council resolution
other dept. comments, including Public Works resonse to general plan policies
ARC 2/20 minutes
letters from Strong Planning Services
:2 3z_
o BONEM a
W
�4 GRANADA N
MOSSNER
`o
HIND
J� o�
n
Tank Farm Road
�9S PRADE
CHUPARROSA
LOS VERDES
o .pF
OS
Cp
Nr z
J LOS
PALOS
LU
Q
BUCKLEY
VICINITY MAP A 6.96 NORTH
154 SUBURBAN A-1
2 -33
Hill
aEli ..cf 3 55172 b F 5.n F a e o y
• z
¢ E b
piL � a n i t-• 9 P'Ci
L oz
aQ
� l z
�` �ti13 ;� -' ..., � j` r'• baa€ v mQ
g { t n o>e .j a• c',:;d+iir.. "fl is J?o 0 4 O Q
'.YA^.n'N'
22{ � 5 :, �::�, .y.;;�: .::- 'r<.'•�}� 'Ui,'! ^ RAS; � O lyJ
4 C FSI ..s.. _ /t/} ij •�.;'r 3x'..;'.•.•aT N ,..' �.
rn
It
at
a = = LSF
C _
If
2 n
j o o Si m
z
0
LSF p
1 ' ' IT
7-1 M
O
p
NN\1 NN
i
z-3�
• _ ..��.\\\ cx III I
I. 1y, 5 "ig �d�;q:xx_Q@xa•F.7ok�
• I --o ter: :�,_�s�/ .�� � F3�x^ �r:i _
Fq :h,: ^bJ❖.
Ill •- �� "� AffJ S:�Es
�::IIi �jl �'---xVu— _ �I.! I .r �_.�Itl rW'tge \ •: `'\
I I —.�-�•� ` rJ` •Cp Ylh b"4rp�..r •rte \ \
La5
e I I xtlu Ii
o l l i I r-� o L �.... .�..• -- I • 1 F a i
II• - __ - .•. - s._ _�eta,.—• -r, aai- � I+ I�
>Ey_ Y �y.''• •IM,
^f'_ <_e. •I . ISI
:� ,I'• n• i .�, ,.,. _ _ ,�..' = 1 I _ I [ `�G IIA + � {
10
ri :'If
•�I�I�. .� r i i� ��{� �r - ,-tlm r. III�
IIIA III4 fc�°� IIS\ w-,`;o^Tr-c�� I� \ ni �: I -:� ,?T. 'i� I I : I ----�- k�l; .�5., arl; :I,.• �'g� r. _Fye. I
I " 1}•i I, , Zett�.-- :.. `.�� r �_�--Vel r ,�• li
�-•Swd�— y--------------- Is•LLGs,ua•'(�. .f �� Z � LOMC IPC[r !� � I� •Lp� -
..— ..--............ ........ .iso: r.:. — •_
,' II f x .............
H•�" r• 33 C Stle - WAS 6-bA:SH
ir
LAS c
Ar-.
EA
�j�=�ev eatFi
Nm CJ
5II=1,� O'r F Y •� � IVC ry:cy Sf l
i r
V
a F-- •i. -. •y S
�_ E- _r
yi• - ro �S •e� i I -
s :8• I
S�:' �X 7 � r• r�
_ s
82
6
W2
de
Nx,
Ux-
COMPARATIVE GROCERY SIZES AND ZONING
crty or
san Luis omspo AIRPORT AREA
—3L
RESOLUTION NO. 8485 (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF A TRACT MAP (TR 74-95, TRACT 2202)
LOCATED AT 154 SUBURBAN ROAD
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Council, after consideration of the tentative map of TR 74-95 (Tract
2202), and staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with
the General Plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the C-S zone.
3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious
health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the tentative map or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements for
access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
5. The lots are large enough to allow proper building orientation and maximum feasible control of
solar exposure by the lot owner, regardless of lot orientation.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The Community Development Director has
determined that the proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on the environment and has
granted a mitigated negative declaration. The City Council hereby approves the negative declaration and
concurs with the recommended mitigation measures, which are incorporated into the conditions of
approval noted below.
SECTION 3. Conditions. The approval of the tentative map for Tract 2202 (TR 74-95) shall
be subject to the following conditions, to be accomplished prior to final map.approval unless otherwise
specified:
Environmental Mitigation Conditions:
Land Use
1. The subdivider shall grant an updated avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via
an avigation easement document prepared by the County prior to recordation of the final map for
phase 1.
2. All development within the parcels created by Tract 2202 (and any subsequent subdivisions)shall
be reviewed for compliance with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). 7
. d2 - 3 /
TR 74-95, Tract 2202
Page 2
Recommendations of the Airport Land Use Commission shall be forwarded to the approving
hearing body for a determination of General Plan conformance.
3. The use of materials - especially in the roof- shall be nonreflective to reduce glare. The use of
mirrored or reflective glass shall be prohibited.
4. If specialty retail stores are deemed desirable to serve nearby residential neighborhoods, a cap on
the amount of square footage allocated to specialty retail uses should be established as part of a
Special Consideration(S) or Mixed-Use (MU) overlay zoning to avoid conflict with City policies
which favor concentrating specialty retail stores in the downtown and in the shopping centers on
Madonna Road.
5. At the time of sale or lease, the applicant should disclose to prospective buyers and tenants the
consequences of existing and potential intensive agricultural operations on nearby parcels
including but not limited to dust, noise, odors, agricultural chemicals, and the County's Right to
Farm Ordinance. A copy of such disclosure should be submitted to the Community Development
Director for review, approval, and recordation prior to any further subdivision or site
development.
Geologic
6. A revised soils engineering report, which addresses the extent of fill material and necessary soil
preparation in filled areas and in the pond area, is required prior to issuance of any grading or
construction permit, whichever comes first. The report shall also address retaining wall design
where cuts from the exisiting grade are proposed to create lots.
7. Site improvements shall conform with recommendations in the approved soils engineering report
to offset the effects of expansive soils.
Water
8. A preliminary grading plan must be submitted with the final map application. Provisions shall
be incorporated that eliminate cross-lot drainage, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Building Official.
9. The developer shall construct drainage facilities which convey drainage to adequate points of
disposal to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
10. A portion of the property lies within an A-Zone per the current County's FEMA Flood Hazard
map. The developer shall provide the City Engineer with a detailed hydraulic analysis which
identifies any area within the site subject to inundation during a 100-yr storm.
11. Any lot(s) subject to 100-yr storm flooding shall be filled to provide pad elevations at least 1 foot
.2'
TR 74-95, Tract 2202
Page 3
above the 100-yr storm elevation,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The effect on adjacent
properties, as a result of the fill, must be evaluated by the developer's engineer. Mitigation
measures may be imposed by the City Engineer based on the impacts.
12. The subdivider shall process a FEMA "Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or a "Letter of Map
Amendment" (LOMA), as appropriate, prior to recordation of the final map for phase one,which
also includes the newly annexed area.
13. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges
associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land
disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is
part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required
until the construction is complete.
To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where
construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the
appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. The developer shall submit copies of general
construction activity storm water permits prior to the City's issuance of any grading or building
permits.
14a. In order for the Council to consider approval of a project that includes the use of private wells
in lieu of acquiring a water allocation, the developer must submit a report with the findings of
qualified, independent, hydrological investigation that demonstrates the well(s) can reliably
provide sufficient quality and quantity of water for the proposed project and will not impact the
yeilds from City wells (Adopted Urban Water Management Plan, Policy 2.9.1B). The findings.
in the report will be reviewed by the Utilities Department in a recommendation to Council. The
Utilities Department generally does not support the use of private wells that result in a project
not acquiring a water allocation, when water allocations are available through the retrofitting
program.
14b. Plans for well investigation should avoid areas of soil contamination. Well location and use shall
be approved by the County Health Department, the City Utilities Department, and any other
agency with authority relating to the use of well water.
14c. Well water may be used, subject to obtaining necessary permits from the County Environmental
Health Department,to reduce commodity charges. A private well may serve only the lot on which
it is located. Use of well water is not permitted in lieu of obtaining a water allocation credit
through the City's retrofit program. Well water may be used for landscape irrigation to reduce
the amount of necessary retrofitting.
15a. Discharge of wastewater from any well water treatment process is also subject to approval by the
City and may require a permit to discharge and on-site pretreatment.
2 --3
TR 74-95, Tract 2202
Page 4
15b. If well water is approved for use on any of the parcels, a determination will be made by the
Utilities Department on what the appropriate wastewater charge will be. Typically, wastewater
charges are based on water consumption. In the absence of a City water meter, City staff will
estimate the usage. This estimate may be based on fixture units, usage by similar properties,
installation of a meter on the well, installation of a meter on the wastewater discharge lateral, or
some other means. Any cost associated with the determination of wastewater flows will be the
responsibility of the developer.
ALQuality
16. Consistent with grading standards in the Uniform Building Code appendix (Chapter 70, Section
7004 b), all graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to
prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall
constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of the
project's construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete
coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
C. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite
or off site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved surfaces
onto the surrounding streets:
g. Daily wash downs, or mechanical street sweeping, of Suburban Road, South
Higuera Street, and Tank Farm Road in the vicinity of the construction site;and
h. Use of non-potable water is required in all construction and dust control work.
17. All PM,o mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. The
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program consistent
with APCD guidelines and shall provide the contact name(s) and telephone number(s) to the
Community Development Department prior to permit issuance.
18. Future site development shall include measures to minimize negative impacts to air quality, such
as:
a. Extensive tree planting in the parking areas to reduce evaporative emissions from
automobiles.
b. A carpool/rideshare/public-transit information bulletin board installed in a visually
prominent and easily accessible location.
C. Weatherproof and lockable bicycle storage, and short-term bicycle parking racks.
�2 -yb
TR 74-95, Tract 2202
Page 5
d. A plan for dust control during construction.
e. Bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use.
f. Shared-use parking reduction.
g. Designated carpool parking.
h. On-site food facilities to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch
hour.
19. Soil contamination on the project site must be removed under the direction of the Fire Chief and
in compliance with Air Pollution Control District standards.
Transportation and Circulation
20. Direct driveway access from South Higuera Street shall be limited to one location with a
minimum spacing of 150 feet from Las Praderas Street. The common driveway shall be designed
as a street-type entrance, located so as to minimize tree removals and shall also provide adequate
sight distance, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The driveway entrance shall not be
signalized. Vehicular access to Lot 1 shall be provided via the proposed common access and
driveway easement.
21. The subdivider shall enter into an agreement prior to recordation of the final map for phase one
that guarantees certain improvements and/or devices will be installed as required by the City.
Engineer within 60 days of notification that left turns to and from the project via the South
Higuera Street driveway are causing unacceptable-traffic conditions. It may be necessary to
preclude left turns into and out of the site.
22. There shall be no driveway access from Tank Farm Road.
- e
23. Driveway access from Suburban Road shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
24. Tank Farm Rd., S. Higuera St., and Suburban Rd. improvements (curbs, gutters, and sidewalks,
street pavement, drainage, signing, vehicle and bike lane striping, transitions between new
improvements and existing, barricades, etc.) shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, in accordance with City standards and specifications. However, some modifications
will be necessary to accommodate new ADA standards and changes from the County project.
Existing streets that become adversely affected by excavations or other damage caused by the
construction of the subdivision will require an asphalt blanket prior to acceptance of the project.
25. The internal street and Long Street will be dedicated and improved as a public street (60' R/W,
44' curb/curb, with sidewalk on both sides meeting ADA standards).
TR 74-95, Tract 2202
Page 6
26. Vehicular access rights along South Higuera St. with the exception of the driveway access as
specified in condition 20, Tank Farm Rd., and the westerly 200 ft. along Suburban Rd. shall be
dedicated to the City.
27. The developer shall dedicate a 10' wide (minimum) public utility easement and 10' wide street
tree easement along all street frontages, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additional
public pedestrian easements, outside of the basic right of way, shall be dedicated along all street
frontages to accommodate the trees along South Higuera St. and to meet ADA requirements, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
28. The developer shall dedicate 12' wide bus stop easements on South Higuera St. and Tank Farm
Rd. and shall construct bus tum-outs and concrete pads. At the South Higuera St. turn-out, a
transit shelter, "P" pole sign and trash receptacle shall be installed, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The locations shall minimize tree removals, to the extent possible.
29. The developer shall install street lighting per City standards, along all street frontages, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
30. A traffic signal shall be constructed at the intersection of South Higuera St. and Suburban Rd.
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, traffic signal modifications at the SE comer
of South Higuera St. and Tank Farm Rd. shall be installed by this subdivider, including
interconnections between Los Osos Valley Rd. and Tank Farm Rd. Pedestrian refuge islands
shall be installed at the intersections of Tank Farm Rd. and Suburban Rd., at Higuera St, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Emergency pre-emption devises (Opticom) shall be installed
on both signals.
31. The City recently adopted traffic impact fees MF). Certain traffic mitigation measures required
herein will be credited against said fees on a pro-rata basis, as determined by the City Engineer,
as provided for in the ordinance establishing the fees.
Traffic inVact fees shall be paid as a condition of the issuance of building permits! Traffic-
related improvements, including the traffic signal at Suburban Road, signal interconnection,right
tum lane from Higuera St. to Tank Farm Rd., bus turnouts and shelter qualify for credit against
the TIF. The subdivider shall submit a certified statement of costs after completion of the project
to establish the credits.
Unless otherwise requested by the subdivider, the City Engineer will determine credits for the
respective lots on the final map, on a pro-rated area basis.
32. Median striping and other related traffic control devises (signs/symbols etc.) shall be installed in
conjunction with the installation of street improvements along all street frontages, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
�-yz
TR 74-95, Tract 2202
Page 7
33. To accommodate emergency vehicle access, including fire engines, an emergency vehicle turn
around shall be installed in the cul-de-sac of the internal road as part of phase 1 to the
satisfaction of the Fire Chief.
34. A time line for completion of the internal road link between Suburban Road and Tank Farm Road
shall be guaranteed to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief.
Biological Resources
35. The existing Monterey Cypress trees to remain shall be pruned by a certified arborist as a "Class
1" pruning as defined by the International Society of Arboriculturists and to the satisfaction of
the City Arborist. Trees allowed to be removed to accommodate the construction of the
improvements shall be removed to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and City Engineer.
Measures shall be taken during construction of site improvements to protect trees to remain to
the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
36. Street trees and parkway landscaping along Tank Farm Rd. and any required replacement trees
along the South Higuera St. frontage (due to necessary/approved tree removals), shall be planted
as a subdivision condition. Credit will be given for existing trees, as determined by the City
Arborist. All other street trees shall be planted in conjunction with building permits.
Energy and Mineral Resources
37. Future construction projects shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded
materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan
must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community
Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
38. Future site development shall incorporate:
a.z Skylights or other mechanisms to maximize natural daylighting.
b. Operable windows to max=i i e natural ventilation.
c. Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
d. Facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
Hazards
39. Under direction of the Fire Department, soil contamination must be removed prior to development
of the affected lots and in no case later than the initial expiration of the tentative map for the
subdivision. The clean up level shall be 100 ppm (parts per million) unless otherwise specified
�-y�
TR 74-95, Tract 2202
Page 8
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
40. No buildings, septic systems, roads, utilities, or other structures shall be constructed above the
approximate area of contamination.
Utility and Service Systems
41. Public water mains shall be extended in Suburban Rd. and Tank Farm Rd. from South Higuera
St. to the easterly limits of this project. A public water main shall also be constructed within the
internal street and shall be looped from Suburban Rd. to Tank Farm Rd., to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer.
42. The City will participate in any public water main upsizing, "above" the size required to provide
the required fire flows for this development (minimum of 8" diameter).
43. All sewer mains will be public and shall be constructed within public streets.
44. Sewer lift station (Howard Johnson lift station) charges are required to be paid prior to
recordation of the final map, as determined by the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. Sewer
Impact Fees will be required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits for the
development of individual properties, in accordance with City policy. Water Impact Fees may
also be charged prior to issuance of building permits regardless of whether or not the property
is served by a private well.
45. The developer shall underground all existing overhead wires along all street frontage(s) and
within this subdivision, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and utility companies.
46. Phase 1 of this tract may require offsite utility extensions within Phase 2, and any other
improvements deemed necessary to provide for reliability and safety caused by phasing. An
agreement must be executed by the Subdivider, prior to final map approval for Phase'1, which
provides for such utility and/or street improvements to be installed at the time certain pre-
established criteria (set by the City Engineer and/or Utilities Engineer) are met. The agreement
shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and shall run with the land.
47. New public and private fire hydrants and public distribution mains will be required (e.g. in
Suburban Road, Tank Farm Road, and in the internal street, in access easements, and where
development exceeds 300 feet from a street) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire
flows. Fire hydrants shall be spaced per Fire Department Development Guidelines (maximum
intervals of 225 feet).
Jther Conditions:
48. All boundary monuments, lot comers, centerline intersections, etc.shall be tied to the City's
TR 74-95, Tract 2202
Page 9
control network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall
be submitted to the City Engineer with the final map. A 3-1/2" computer disk, containing the
appropriate data for use in autocad for Geographic Information System purposes shall also be
submitted to the City Engineer.
49. The subdivider shall submit a final map or maps to the City for review, approval, and
recordation.
Lot Configuration and Site Development
50. All site development is subject to architectural review and shall be subject to standards similar
to those applied to the northern portion of Higuera Commerce Park (pp. 7 & 8 of the HCP
specific plan and Architectural Guidelines for HCP).
51. City staff shall process an amendment to the annexation boundary to include the full width of
Suburban Road where it fronts the annexation property.
SECTION 4. Code Requirements. The following are required by San Luis.Obispo Municipal
Code, but not all code requirements are listed:
1. All structures on lots shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
2. All applicable water, sewer, and traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to building permit
issuance.
3. The subdivider shall install individual sewer, water, and utility services for each parcel. New
utilities shall be underground. A utility easement is required where utilities cross lot lines.
4. New lot comers shall be staked with durable boundary markers by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
5. Lots shall be addressed as assigned by the Community Development Department. Addresses for
all lots shall be posted at the street frontage to the approval of the Community Development
Department.
On motion of Roalman seconded by Romero and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Roalman, Romero, Smith, Williams and Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT' None
-95, Tract 2202
10
regoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16thday of January 1996.
2�
Allen K. Settle
ST'
'le Kim Condon, Assistant City Clerk
LVED:
i
y�
convey pedestrians to existing and planned signalized intersections at Tank Farm Road
TK Commercial Project
April 23, 1996
Page three
and Suburban Road. These crossing points will provide access to the projects site and
sidewalks installed as part of the shopping center development. After the project is built,
sidewalks will be continuous on the east side of South Higuera Street between. Vachell
Lane and Tank Farm Road. North of Tank Farm Road there is a missing link in the
sidewalk system adjoining the vacant parcel at the southern end of the Higuera Commerce
Park development. When that lot is developed, this missing sidewalk link will be
completed and will be continuous from Vachell Lane northward.
Pedestrians typically cross streets at intersections where there are stop signs or traffic
signals. With the development of the project there will be two signalized intersections
(Tank Faun Road and Suburban Road) that will provide cross street access to nearby
residents. The residential developments in the near vicinity of the TK project includes
about 800 dwelling units. The Suburban Road intersection will serve the Los Verdes I
and H projects and the Housing Authority apartments at the south end of the residential
area, which is about 24 % of the existing nearby residential developments. The Tank
Farm Road intersection will service the Silver City and Creekside mobile home parks at
the north end of the residential area. These two areas comprise about 64 % of the total
dwellings in the area.
The Meadows subdivision (about 12 % of the total dwellings in the area) lies between
these two areas, with its entrance street being approximately 400 feet north of the
Suburban Road intersection. This distance is about the same as the distance from the
Palm Street Parking Garage to Monterey Street. Residents from this subdivision should
walk south and access the project via this intersection.
In staffs opinion, with the facilities installed by the shopping center developers, there is a
network of sidewalks and signalized intersections that provide sufficient access to the
shopping center from nearby residential areas.
2. Constructing A Pedestrian Bridge: A pedestrian bridge could be built across South
Higuera Street in the vicinity of the Meadows Subdivision. However, right-of-way needs
have not been evaluated, but are influenced by the design of the bridge's abutments and
stair and/or ramp systems to meet Americans with Disablilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Staff estimates that the cost of the bridge (assuming no additional right-of-way is
required) is approximately $700,000. This estimate is based on cost estimates for Jennifer
Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge ($1,100,000) that the City plans to install across the
railroad in the Railroad Square area.
TK Commercial Project
April 23, 1996
Page Four
Professional engineering associations do not recommend the installation of pedestrian
bridges or tunnels unless there are no other convenient safe crossings or there are very
high pedestrian traffic volumes (eg. in center city locations) that would justify the high
expense. Given the relatively small size of the residential area along the western side of
Higuera Street and the presence of other pedestrian crossings at intersections, staff does
not recommend the installation of a bridge. Rather, staff will focus on making the
pedestrian crossings at Tank Farm Road and Suburban Road as convenient and
comfortable for pedestrians as reasonable. This strategy will include pedestrian-activated
signals, clearly-delineated crosswalk areas and appropriate median refuge islands, in
accordance with the conditions established for the approved tentative subdivision map.
The attached exhibit shows the expected pedestrian travel patterns to access the site.
Attachment: map
G:\...\misc\tkPeds
.2 —�j�
i WA JANE
P
o1e e\ec� ne)
* SPS
■+ < p`(
V
3 �SS
G<e1\1151,6e PctKI a taa� VI
�o
40
TK CO 'L
PAR
P �L
Q Y
4p
.a
O
P Q
�B
Stl
P \ ?
4P
N
T
1 6
e
bN
4
h
O o
r�
LEGEND
BOUNDARY OF IDENTIAL
! DEVELOPM (700. units)
< ED RIAN TRAVEL PATTERNS
V SN TK COMMERCIAL PARK
a I
0
__�_ Cir '01T ��
,
�iiiiu���lllllll �Du$I�J� city of P��
san lugs oBIspo APPLICATION
artmrnt of Public WLeS 955 Mono a San Luis Qb' g2,CA 93401
February 12, 1996
To: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner
From: Mike Bertaccini, Engineering Assistant
Subject: TK Business Park (ARC 6-96)
COMMENTS
A. Property lines must be shown on the plan.
B. The limits of flood zone "A" must be shown on the plans. Proposed buildings within the
flood zone must have raised building pads (see condition below).
C. These plans a subject to any changes required based on approved subdivision plans.
CONDMONS
1. All conditions for tract 2202 shall be strictly adhered to.
2. Driveway ramps on Jenny Way shall conform to the City's Engineering Standard Detail No.
2111 (ADA compliance).
3. Street type driveway entrances shall be designed with appropriate handicap access ramps in
accordance with the most current City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standard Details
and Standard Specifications.
4. Any building located within flood zone "A" shall have a finished pad elevation at least one
foot above the 100-yr storm water surface elevation.
Transportation, Circulation & Bicycles
5. Sidewalk Alia—nment: the sidewalk alignment should be meandered similar to the detached
sidewalks north of the project site.
6. Limit Lines: Limit lines or "stop bars" should be painted on the main entrance driveway,
set back a minimum of 2 feet from the proposed textured crosswalk.
7. Bicycle Rack Location: The bicycle racks should be relocated to meet the standards set
forth by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October 1993):
O Be located as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and be located at
least as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking.
st-S�
❑ Be visible from the interior of the destination.
The proposed locations along the sides of Buildings A and B do not meet these criteria.
8. Number ofBicycle Parking Spaces: Bicycle parking shall be provided to meet the standards
set forth by the Bicycle Transportation Plan(October, 1993). Specifically, the plan
stipulates that bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of 15% of the required
parking spaces; a minimum of 50% of these spaces should be for short-term parking (bike
racks) while a minimum of 40% should be for long-term parking (bicycle lockers).
9. Design of Bicycle Racks: The developer shall review and receive approval of the design of
bicycle racks with the public works staff prior to their installation. The staff has
information available for review at the Public Works Department that can assist in rack
design selection.
10. .Transit Stop Design: Signage at the proposed transit stop and the design selected for the
transit shelter shall be to the approval of the City Transit Manager.
11. The plans must reflect the interim street and utilities phasing (eg- turn around, fire
flow/water main sizing, etc...).
V� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,prograrns and activities
l! Telewrmnuniations Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410
�sl
MEMORANDUM
TO: Whitney Mcllvaine, Department of Community Development
FROM: Spencer Meyer, Fire Department
SUBJECT: Suburban Road, Tank Farm and South Higuera Street, ARC 6-96
DATE: January 29, 1996
General
Note: The basic requirements set forth in the Fire Department's Project Review (dated March 6,
1995 - MS, ER, 18-95 - listed below) remain unchanged with reference to any subdivision(s)
and/or development.
ACCESS:
All proposed access ways (within and around this project) shall conform to all current San Luis
Obispo Fire Department Development Guidelines. Required access ways (fire lanes) shall have
minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and vertical clearance of not less 13.5 feet. Dead-end access
ways/roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turn-arounds. All
primary access ways shall be designed as fire lanes. Required fire access ways (with minimum width)
shall be posted with the appropriate signage to prohibit parking.
Required access compliance with reference to emergency response apparatus and required turn-
arounds (travel distance in excess of 150 feet) is unclear based on the present submittal (e.g. Jenny
Way,.private streets, access easements, etc ).
FIRE-FLOW:
Public distribution mains (Higuera Street only) appear adequate to supply the proposed land use.
New public and private distribution mains will be required (e.g. Suburban Road, Tank Farm Road,
Jenny Way and any proposed private streets, access easements (development in excess of 300 feet
from a street, etc.) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire-flows. (Please note - any dead-
end water main calculations/justifications, with reference to fire-flows requirements shall also include
any high demand sprinkler/high-piled storage requirements)
HYDRANT LOCATIONS:
Public and private fire hydrants will be required on all streets). Fire hydrants shall be spaced per
SLOFD Development Guidelines (maximum of 225 foot intervals) and shall be capable of supplying
the required fire-flows.
General Notes:
(1) All structures shall be protected with approved automatic fire alarm system and fire sprinkler
system per NFPA 13.
(2) When traffic control signals are installed, emergency preemption devices (e.g. Opticom
systems) will be required to expedite emergency access.
(3) Due to the proposed developments close proximity to old petroleum transmission mains and
past site/area history, there exists a probability of"undefined" area(s) of contamination. Prior
to building approval (on a site/lot), the developer/owner must justify to the satisfaction of the
Administration Agency that no contamination exists on the proposed site.
Please note: Unocal's England Shanin & Associate's/Danes & Moore reports have only
defined the areas of contamination (@ Tank Farm Road area) down to 1,000
ppm. (action levels start at 100 ppm. for soil), areas of contamination maybe
greater than represented in reports.
(4) Plans lack the detail to definitively assess the proposed project for all Fire Department
concerns with reference to life-safety and fire protection.
c:
Jerry Kenny Engineering Department
Dan Gilmore, Public Utilities Department
Ron Hanson, Fire Department
�-s3
SITE/GRADING COMMENTS
DATE: October 5, . 1995
SUBJECT: T.K. Neighborhood Center
------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------=--------------------------=--------------
COMMENTS:
1 The property lines shown on the schematic site plan do not
correspond with the property lines shown on the vesting
tentative map. Building entrances and openings will not be
allowed along a property line.
Bob Bishop
ARC Minutes
February 20, 1996
Page 3
Commr. Illingworth said that he drove by the newly-remodeled-Standard station on Foothill, but
forgot to look at it. He felt that white was too bright and that Texaco stations look better than
others. He wanted to go with the staff recommendation. He was not too concerned with the red
fascia. He would go with either option, noting the existing station looks pretty dark in
comparison to its surroundings.
Commr. Day had no comments.
Commr. Mandeville would like to see consistency in ARC approvals of service station signage
and therefore limit the total area to 200 square feet. She state that the Arco station has one
freestanding sign and one portable and an illuminated canopy, and not as many extra signs as the
Texaco station.
Commr. Aiken agreed with Commr. Mandeville. He said it was hard to count all the sign in the
photo. He generally agreed with the staff recommendation to stay under 200 square feet
maximum. He stated there isn't a need for too many signs saying the same thing. He prefers non-
illuminated signage but felt red is acceptable. He felt that modernization was probably necessary.
Commr. Regier supported the staffposition. He also preferred non-illuminated fascia.
Commr. Farrell indicated that he is more concerned with the 200 square foot limit than with
illumination.
Commr. Combrink felt that the lighted fascia makes the fascia all one big sign.
Commr. Mingworth moved to approve the signage and fascia changes with two conditions: that
the illumination be eliminated and that total signage area be kept at or under 200 square feet.
Commr. Mandeville seconded the motion.
AYES: Illingworth, Mandeville, Aiken, Day, Regier, Farrell, Combrink
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed.
3. ARC 6-96: 154 Suburban Road. Review of new shopping center development; C-S
zone; Timm&Kreutzkamf Development, applicants.
.2 s�
ARC Minutes
February 20, 1996
Page 5
ARC's purview.
Rob Bryn, 37 Mariposa Drive, felt that the traffic study flaws were obvious. He also said the
removal of the trees for the bus stop was not a good idea and wondered if there wasn't a better
place for the bus stop. He thought the exit could be on Suburban rather than Higuera.
Bruce Wiedmer, 32 Las Praderas, felt the traffic study was flawed. He felt the study did not
accurately project traffic levels and that traffic in the area is already heavy. He thought that
another access would be better. He did not support the tree removals and said that nobody walks
in that area and thought the meandering sidewalks were not necessary. He would prefer the
buildings to be away from Higuera and be low in height. He wanted a sound wall and shrubs to
hide the parking.
John Mack described the view from Las Praderas. He said they planned to use drought-tolerant
ground cover similar to the Telegram Tribune. He felt a wall could be added if it were requested.
Vic Montgomery said there had been a similar project reviewed by the county and there was only
one access on Tank Farm Road. He said the traffic engineer had recommended that the entry be
directly across from Las Praderas, but the City required it to be offset. He said they would add a
traffic light at Suburban and will change the light at Tank Farm Road.
Bruce Wiedmer stated that the fumes from the trucks are very bad already, and this project will
aggravate that problem.
Lary Kreutzkampf, applicant, indicated that he wants to do extensive planting in the parking lot.
He also wants to assure safety for people walking through the parking lot. The parking stalls will
be wider than Scolari's in front.
Dean Werner, 74 Del Oro, said that he likes the type of center proposed but he was concerned
about traffic and noise. He felt there is a need for a sound wall.
Elisabeth Mott, 14 Mariposa Drive, said that the extent of her concerns is greater than what is
under consideration tonight. She has traffic concerns and feels that if the store is open 24 hours
there will be a great problem in that area. She also had concerns that the store will be bringing in
people from outside the city.
Commr. Combrink indicated that the lighting and other physical details can be addressed by the
commission.
Elisabeth Mott said she is a visual artist herself and she admires the design but does not want it in
her front yard.
SSG
ARC Minutes
February 20, 1996
Page 7
project does not contribute to pedestrian or bike usage and she would not support the design.
Commr. Mandeville thought the design was off to a good start and would support schematic
approval. She would like to see more order to the materials on the facade. The setback is
consistent with the Higuera Commerce Park specific Plan. She felt that the cypresses on the
street side should stay low and be trimmed on the parking lot side more. She wanted the parking
lot screened with landscaping and on the north property line a minimum of 10' width of
landscaping. She did not want trees taken out for the bus pull-out. She indicated that she would
not press for one planter every six spaces but the existing landscape planters should be wider than
they are now. She would like to see trash enclosures incorporated into the pad buildings. She
agreed with the other commissioners about the lighting. She wanted to pass on all letters and
concerns heard tonight to the use permit hearing. She felt that the main concerns were the truck
deliveries and the hours of operation. She appreciated the neighbors' comments.
Commr. Aiken clarified that Commr. Day's concerns were aesthetic. The buildings at the street
would block sound, also.
Commr. Aiken stated that the architecture was well thought-out. He echoed Commr.
Illingworth's concerns about the block layout. He felt that the character of the building was
pleasing and acceptable. He was somewhat sympathetic to Commr. Day's concerns but also
aware of the access problems. He mentioned that a wall along Higuera and landscaping would
reduce visibility and soften noise. The same architectural firm did the Telegram-Tribune and he
felt that they could come up with a good solution. He suggested that a wall could increase the
noise along Higuera as the sound bounced off it. He suggested having a lower wall and some
berming to leave 2'-3' exposed. He was in favor of the design and would support schematic
approval.
Commr. Regier concurred with Commr. Mandeville on the possibility of increasing the Higuera
setback to allow more landscaping options. He felt the view of the parking lot was the main
concern. He agreed with Commr. Aiken on reflected noise. He questioned if a bus stop was
really needed.
Commr. Farrell stated that he like the building. He would accept the setback as shown. He
concurred with the other Commissioners on the lighting and screening. He said Scolari's does not
have enough parking which causes people to park on the street, affecting the neighborhood. He
also asked why a bus shelter was planned for that area.
Commr. Combrink said his views were similar to Commrs. Day and Mandeville. He felt that since
the project is close to large residential neighborhoods that the sea of parking should be modified.
He wanted to see a concerted effort in berming to shield the lights and felt at least 15 is needed to
accomplish this. The Telegram-Tribune building is very close to Higuera but the orientation is
S7
ARC Minutes
February 20, 1996
Page 9
Vic Montgomery stated that the Airport Land Use Committee will look at the use, not the site
plan. He said not to expect the buildings to be brought closer to Higuera, given his experience
with shopping centers. They will look at screening, setbacks, and the wall.
Commr. Combrink stated that he will not support the project without a 15' setback from the
sidewalk.
Commr. Day requested a vicinity map that shows other properties nearby to compare setbacks.
Vic Montgomery said they can do sections.
AYES: Illingworth, Aiken, Farrell, Regier
NOES: Combrink, Day, Mandeville
ABSENT: None
The motion passed.
4. ARC 15-96; 1423 Calle Joaquin. Review of modification to approved freestanding sings
at an automobile dealership; C-S zone; Kimball Motor Co., applicant.
Judy Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending denial of the request,
based on findings.
The public hearing was opened.
Jim Kimball, applicant, stated that the business started in 1972. Now his dealership has moved to
Los Osos Valley Road. He originally asked for four signs similar to the Mitsubishi signs. He felt
that was a good idea, but the work"Chevrolet" is so long that it can't be read easily.
Nick Russell, General Manager, handed out drawings of alternative pole sign designs. He said
that they are losing Chevrolet business. A survey done through Cal Poly indicated that 92% of
people identify the type of dealership by the shape of the logo, but the Chevrolet logo is not easily
identified. He said that 36% of their customers are drive-bys and noted that Chevrolet is their
primary product.
Jim Kimball, applicant, said that it would be the same sign as used before but on two posts and
lower. It would be about the same size as the KIA sign at Sunset Honda. The Mitsubishi
002-.9ir
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 2
Commissioner Senn nominated Bang Karleskint to serve as C rro a Pf�h Tanning Commission.
The nomination was seconded by Commissione a as isChairman Karleskint accepted the
nomination and was elected by una ' bice vote of the Commission:
Commissione urakis nominated Charles Senn .to serve as Vice Chairperson of the Planning
Corr mi ion. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Ready. Commissioner Senn accepted
,----the nomination and was elected by unanimous voice vote of the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 154 Suburban Road: (A 6-69): Request to allow a grocery store in the C-S Zone; C-S
Zone; Timm and Kreutzkamp Development, applicants.
Chairman Karleskint refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest.
Commissioner Senn was designated as the Acting Chairman for this item.
Associate Planner McIlvaine presented the staff report, recommending acceptance of the negative
declaration(ER 74-95) adopted for Tract 2202 by the City Council on January 16, 1996; the negative
declaration(ER 54-93) adopted by the City Council for the C-S prezoning of the property on October
18, 1994; and the EIR adopted for the 1994 Circulation Element on August 23, 1994, and approval
of the use permit with conditions.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked staff to address the difference between a neighborhood shopping center
and a regional shopping center.
Associate Planner McIlvaine stated the traffic study looked at a site plan very similar to the one that's
displayed, and specifically listed a grocery store of 50,000 s.f. There was consideration given to the
distribution of traffic to the site, but, the study did not distinguish between a locally serving grocery
store and one with a regional draw.
Associate Planner McEvaine displayed an overhead of the distribution of traffic to the Commission.
Commissioner Kourakis stated the Commission is being asked to accept a negative declaration for
a tract map from a subdivision map approved in January of 1996; a negative declaration adopted by
the City Council in for the C-S prezoning in 1994; and an EIR adopted for the 1994 Circulation
Element. She stated she has not seen any of these documents and feels others might not have seen
�-sf
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 3
them either. She asked staff about the appropriateness of resting the decision of a negative
declaration on the information, or lack of information, that has been available to the Commission.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated she was not aware that the Commission had not been
provided with the previous documents. She suggested that the Commission not take action until the
documents have been seen. She is concerned that an initial study may need to be done to determine
that all the environmental impacts have been addressed in the previous environmental documents.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated a second environmental review was done at the
time of the subdivision. In the environmental review all potential land uses including a grocery store,
were discussed. Stafffelt the environmental analysis at that time was specific enough to address the
project to include the subsequent development. Staff did a more detailed environmental review at
the subdivision stage to specifically avoid having to do 21 separate environmental reviews.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated she is concerned about what is referred to as tiering.
Commissioner Kourakis stated she is not questioning the competency or the thoroughness of staffs
decision. She is concerned about information available to the Commission to make a decision, as well
as information being available to the public.
Commissioner Kourakis is also concerned with other parts of the General Plan that were not
mentioned in the staff report, specifically Land Use Element policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.3.2, and 2.2.4
regarding traffic and neighborhoods.
Commissioner Veesart asked staff how this item relates to the square footages of existing markets
in San Luis Obispo.
Associate Planner McDvaine displayed an overhead to the Commission showing the square footages
of various markets in San Luis Obispo.
Commissioner Veesart asked staff what kind of development is being proposed for Lot 5.
Associate Planner McIlvaine stated there aren't any applications for any kind of development at this
time.
Commissioner Veesart asked where the sound wall is being proposed.
Associate Planner McIlvaine said it is being proposed inside the hedge on Higuera.
�-Ga
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 4
Commissioners Whittlesey and Kourakis both stated they had conversations with Rob Strong about
this item on April 9, 1996.
Commissioner Kourakis expressed concerns regarding the Zoning Ordinance, Page 13, relative to the
standards of neighborhood grocery markets.
Acting Chairman Senn asked for Assistant City Attorney Clemens'direction on which way to proceed
at this time and to address tiering.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated she hasn't reviewed the previous environmental studies in
enough detail to say whether or not this is a tiering situation. She is concerned that the Commission
is being asked to accept that previous documents adequately address environmental impacts. She.
questions whether or not the documents fully analyzed this project or were more general, and,
therefore creating a tiering situation. She suggested continuing the item to make the environmental
determination to make a decision.
Acting Chairman Senn asked staff if it would be appropriate to take public testimony tonight and then
continue the matter for the decision making process.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens recommended, due to the amount of audience members, to take the
public testimony tonight.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Victor Montgomery, 3026 S. Higuera St., applicants' representative, stated there was an initial study
done for the tentative subdivision map which matches the site plan. The subdivision map came to the
Planning Commission for review and was approved.
Mr. Montgomery stated the grocery store at the size and location proposed has been a part of the
project description submitted to the City for processing since 1993. Included in the traffic report, the
location and size were both identified. It was a part of the annexation and rezoning request, the
traffic analysis, the City's environmental review, the annexation hearings of the Planning Commission
and the City Council, consideration by LAFCO, the Airport Land Use Commission hearing, the
subdivision map hearings of the Planning Commission and the City Council, and at the ARC hearing.
Their intent has been clear for at least three years and at least ten public hearings.
Mr. Montgomery stated the center as proposed is smaller that the Marigold center, which was
approved. The center as a whole is smaller that the Laguna Village Center. The grocery store is
smaller than the grocery store approve for the Marigold center. The grocery store is about the same
d�'G�
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 5
size as the proposed Albertson's. The grocery store is bigger than the existing grocery stores in town.
Grocery stores do want to be bigger.
Mr. Montgomery stated an extensive traffic analysis was performed. The analysis includes a number
of mitigation measures and they agree to them all. The City's Engineering Dept. actually selected the
locations of the entries. They feel traffic was addressed quite adequately in great detail.
Mr. Montgomery stated there was a long discussion at the subdivision map level about preservation
of the trees. Where they could, they have preserved every single tree. There are eight trees proposed
to be removed in a single location at the City bus stop. The location of the bus stop was made by the
City.
Mr. Montgomery stated what is proposed for this project is equal to or exceeds the Telegram Tribune
standards. They will have a meandering sidewalk lined with trees. The parking lot setback will be
36'-80' for this proposal, along with variable setbacks along the frontage of the project. The ARC
requested that in the setback a berm be built for screening. He displayed across-section of the street
showing the placement of various facilities. The closest parking spot to Higuera St. is approximately
36' away from the curb line.
Mr. Montgomery did a phone survey of hours of operation of local stores in town. He stated the
hours vary from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight.
Mr. Montgomery believes they have met Condition#1, and, therefore, it is acceptable. Condition#2
is acceptable. They request that the hours of operation be from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Condition
44 is acceptable. Regarding Condition#5, they had a meeting the previous night with members of
the Los Verdes Park#1 Homeowners' Association and their Landscape Committee and have agreed
to participate in the construction of a wall along the frontage of Higuera St. He would like the record
to reflect that they have reached an agreement with the homeowners' association. Condition#6 is
acceptable is they have the hours of operation as requested. Condition #7 is acceptable. Public
Works 9144 are acceptable. Transportation, Circulation, and Bicycle Conditions #547 are
acceptable. Mr. Montgomery noted, referring to #7, the visibility of the location of the bicycle racks
from the interior of the grocery store will not be possible because of the limited access into the store.
The bicycle racks will be located in the front of the store but they will not be able to be seen from the
inside of the store. Conditions#8411 are acceptable.
Mr.Montgomery stated the store and its layout and size has been indicated as what they will do for
the last three years. It is not an unusually big store. They have tried to keep their neighbors informed
all the way along. They believe the project is compatible with the Land Use Element and consistent
with the General Plan, the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, and Energy Elements. This
project puts the services where the people are. He asked the Commission to approve the use permit
conditions as were noted. He offered to answer any questions.
a- Gz
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 6
Commissioner Veesart asked how high the sound wall is envisioned to be.
Mr. Montgomery stated the sound wall will be between 4'-6'high, although it has not been designed
yet.
Commissioner Kourakis asked the route bicyclists and pedestrians will take to get to the store.
Mr. Montgomery stated, from the immediate area, they would be coming south on Higuera St. on
the west side and they would cross at Tank Farm Rd. to the east side of their meandering sidewalk.
They will be required to modify the signal at Tank Farm Rd. and move some of the arms of the signal
themselves. There will be a pedestrian refuge island in the center of Higuera St. For pedestrians
coming from the south, there will be a new signalized intersection required at Suburban and Higuera.
There will be new sidewalks and a pedestrian refuge island. There will be separated walkway to the
front door of the grocery store.
Commissioner Kourakis asked Mr. Montgomery to respond to the request listed in Randy Bullock's
letter of putting an entry directly across from Las Praderas and a four-way stop.
Mr. Montgomery stated they had proposed this originally, but the City Engineer recommended the
location as shown.
Commissioner Kourakis stated she would like to strike General Plan Section 2.3.2 from the list she
previously gave Mr. Montgomery.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if there were any other considerations given for ingress and egress.
Mr. Montgomery stated, as a part of the traffic analysis and the review by the engineering, they are
allowed to have one entry off of S. Higuera and one off Suburban Rd.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked how many households this project would service.
Mr. Montgomery doesn't know the numbers exactly, but it is significant. The size of the store has
been dictated by the potential tenants they have spoken with.
Commissioner Kourakis asked the area from where customers would be drawn.
Mr. Montgomery stated all grocery stores commission a study which can show customers coming
from as far away as ten miles. There is a company in San Diego which does most of the demographic
studies for markets.
o� 'G3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 7
Tim Slaught, 3 Francisco Dr., Santa Barbara, stated the demographic study looked at a series of rings
at one,three,five, and ten miles. The study also establishes a percentage draw from each ring. The
rings at one and three miles will draw the most customers.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked Mr. Montgomery to address the contamination at the site.
Mr. Montgomery stated a portion of the site at the northeast corner has been identified as
contaminated by Unocal during their fire in 1926. Unocal is responsible for cleaning up this
contamination. They have been put on notice twice in the last 90 days that this subdivision map has
been approved. The City has imposed a timeline by which this cleanup must be completed.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the subdivision was done in phases with the idea
that the applicant could proceed with the first phase, which is quite a ways from the area of
contamination.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if there is the possibility of contamination underneath phase one.
Mr. Montgomery stated there has been testing done and none has been identified above the levels that
staff has set.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if the testing was done at the initial study stage.
Development Review Manager Whisenand replied yes, at length.
Commissioner Veesart asked if they are planning on drilling wells for irrigation.
Mr. Montgomery stated the wells already exist and have been tested for contamination and were
negative.
Acting Chairman Senn asked if Mr. Montgomery is at liberty to say who the tenant will be.
Mr. Montgomery stated they.do not have a signed lease.
Randall Murray, 43 Del Sol Ct., stated he is one of the members of the Board of Directors for the
Homeowners'Association of Los Verdes Park 1. He demonstrated the location of the proposed wall
to the Commission on the overhead. The wall is needed for safety and security. This will be the
second largest grocery store in San Luis Obispo and they are expecting a heavy increase in the
amount of traffic. The developer participation in the construction of the wall needs to be defined
more clearly. He asks that it be a 50150 split for the cost of the wall and that the color, materials, and
dimensions be negotiated between the homeowners' and the developer.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 8
Commissioner Ready asked if the hedge would remain and the wall be build behind it.
Mr. Murray stated he envisions the hedge coming out.
Commissioner Veesart asked who would be responsible for graffiti cleanup if it became a problem.
Mr. Murray assumes it will be the homeowners' responsibility.
Robert Mott, 14 Mariposa Dr., stated information is available to the residents if they are willing to
pay 25¢ a page for it and if you know what to ask for. He does not want a 24-hour grocery store
located here, like a Food 4 Less store. After the Architectural Review Commission meeting in
February, five neighborhood families met to share information. As a result of this meeting, it was
recommended that a survey be sent to all of the residents in the Meadows.
Mr. Mott displayed a map on the overhead to the Commission. He asked that the median on Las
Praderas be cutback approximately 40'-50'to allow.for a left-turn merging lane. There is a problem
with the timing of the signals on S. Higuera at Tank Farm Rd. for left turns. There is no crosswalk
at Las Praderas, but pedestrians will cross there anyway. The City's Engineers Office has said that
the raised median is to keep left turns out of the commercial park from coming into his subdivision.
He recommends full access into the commercial parks but only right turns out. He asked that the
hours be limited and limit it to a local draw.
Commissioner Ready asked if the proposed hours of operation of 6:00 to 11:00 are agreeable.
Mr. Mott replied yes.
Commissioner Veesart asked is signalization at Las Praderas would solve some of the traffic issues.
Mr. Mott feels it may cause more problems than it would solve.
Commissioner Kourakis asked about the route children of the neighborhood would take to get to the
market.
Mr.Mott stated the children in the subdivision range in age. The younger children stay pretty close
to home and do not cross the street. School buses are brought into the subdivision. The cut back
median will help the pedestrians.
Ella Weinstein 3860 S. Higuera, stated she is in favor of the project. She would like a Food 4 Less
in San Luis Obispo. She feels that any of the stores that are not represented in San Luis Obispo will
create a large draw.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 9
Commissioner Jeffrey asked how many times a month she travels to Food 4 Less.
Mrs. Weinstein stated not that often because she doesn't care for driving over the grade and Santa
Maria is too far away. .
Acting Chairman Senn asked how many units there are in the Silver City Mobile Home Park. .
Mrs. Weinstein stated there approximately 300 units. The Creekside Park has approximately 215
units.
Robert Strong, from Strong Planning Services, Palm Desert, representing Robert Strausbaugh, stated
there hasn't been any developer contact with the commerce park. He doesn't have any argument with
development or with the basic concept of a neighborhood center. He has very definite concerns about
the apparent attention to mitigation measures and details of design and traffic compromises on a use
that isn't even permitted, based upon the adopted General Plan policy and the intent of the General
Plan. Neighborhood centers are not to be considered large-scale, community-wide centers. There
is a conscious effort to reinforce existing centers instead of creating new ones. This residential area
is the smallest neighborhood in San Luis Obispo. There are larger neighborhoods with smaller
markets and they're doing just fine. This will be a regional shopping center. The 1993 EIR that has
been referred to in the General Plan and the Circulation Element looked at the possibility of additional
commercial beyond what was proposed on the General Plan and concluded that Los Osos Valley Rd.
between 101 and Hiiguera St. would have to be widened to four lanes. There are two absolutely clear
policy statements in the General Plan which contradict this proposal which say that neighborhood
centers of this magnitude should not locate in the service commercial manufacturing areas. He is
amazed that the Airport Land Use Commission approved this because shopping centers are not
appropriate in this area. He is not happy with the extended environmental analysis. He does not
accept the negative declaration. He offered to answer any questions.
Elizabeth Mott, 14 Mariposa Dr., feels that all of the residents in the area are in the dark She is
amazed that someone would think that they could come in and build the size of store that they have
in mind without having some idea of who a potential tenant might be. She understands why they are
not sharing that information with them;however, it allows neighbors to stay in the dark. There hasn't
been any talk on what is planned for Los Osos Valley Rd. by Mr. Madonna for a possible Costco.
If we are able to visualize ahead and plan for what the potential might be, they should be thinking of
a draw from potentially a 25-mile radius. Traffic will not only be increased on S. Higuera, but also
on Los Osos Valley Rd. These regional-type centers have a huge draw. There is the potential for
a very large problem Right now she has to get on 101 to get downtown. There is a traffic problem
already and she only sees it getting worse. If the developer could assure that this will not be a Food
4 Less she still would not be satisfied because the size of the building would have the permanent
potential for an atypical commercial situation to come in.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 10
Diane Whitehouse, 38 Los Verdes Dr., is concerned about a neighborhood concept and is not sure
that this project is in line with this concept. People don't walk down Higuera because the noise is too
great. She requested that the wall that will be constructed needs to help reduce the noise in the area.
Warren Brown, 7 Chuparrosa, concurs with Mrs. Mott's concerns about the traffic in the area. He
feels that any solution other than a traffic light is not going to work. He wants to make sure the trees
are preserved in this area. He feels putting the entrance opposite of Las Praderas with a traffic light
is the way to do it.
Barry Kauthman, 3960 S.Higuera, Space 995,President of the Creekside Homeowners' Association,
stated they had a meeting with his residents and this project was the subject on their agenda. Only
one person at the meeting would like to see a Food 4 Less or even a Costco. There.are 215 mobile
home spaces in their park.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if they have traffic issues entering or exiting their park.
Mr. Kaufhman stated they are satisfied with the signal that went in years ago. With regards to this
development, he doesn't know how they will be impacted.
Cindy Fraughman (Inaudible), 39 Chuparrosa, concurs with Mr. and Mrs. Mott's concerns and Mr.
Strong. This should be a community based on well-paying jobs. We don't need another grocery
store. A large store doesn't fit in San Luis Obispo and is atypical. She feels the wall has not been
planned well. The hedge should remain and the wall may attract graffiti. She expressed concerns
regarding the removal of the trees. The community should be thinking long-term and she feels this
should be a business and not a store.
Commissioner Veesart asked how she would feel about a smaller, neighborhood-serving store at this
site.
Ms. Fraughman prefers a business over a grocery store. If this has to be a grocery store, a 25,000
s.f store is large enough.
Commissioner Veesart asked how she would feel about a signal and crosswalk at Las Praderas.
Ms. Fraughman stated she doesn't like this idea. If this type of development has to go in, it might
help a little.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated he counted the trees and there are 97 from Tank Farm to Suburban.
�'G7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 11
Mark Fraughman (Inaudible), 39 Chuparrosa, feels that the traffic study is not recent and does not
take into account the current planned development. He concurs with Mr. Strong and the Mott's.
Traffic in this area will be increased heavily. This project needs to be looked at in terms of how it's
going to affect the neighborhood. The environmental report needs to be looked at again.
Commissioner Ready asked for this thoughts on a traffic signal at the Las Praderas intersection.
Mr. Fraughman feels Tank Farm Rd. should be modified properly to make an entrance on Tank Farm
Rd. The trees should be preserved. He would prefer an off-set entrance. The problem of lining up
the street would be headlights shining into the homes at night. There may also be people mistakenly
entering his neighborhood.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if there is a traffic calming plan for Las Praderas.
Mr. Fraughman stated there is, but he doesn't know the status of it..
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariners Cove, stated he is concerned with traffic for this project. As a former
Commissioner,he has sat through the environmental review for this project in detail. There may be
some concern over the way the public is notified. Legally, the City meets the notification
requirements. The City has reviewed the annexation and the development plan for this project with
very little input from the public, but now there is a tremendous amount. He cautioned the
Commission with regards to the wall because the design has not be defined. The Commission has
never determined what neighborhood markets are. He feels that a Food 4 Less is an atypical store.
Margaret Wallace, 52 Mariposa, stated she is a new resident in this city and has lived here for seven
months. This is the first she has received notice of this project. Her Realtor did not inform her of
this plan. She feels she has been left in the dark about the project. She concurs with the comments
of the Mott's. She chose to move to this city because of the beauty and the harmony of the
neighborhood. She is concerned with traffic and the children playing in the streets. She is from Los
Angeles and has seen projects like this go in. She is really unhappy with this project.
Mr. Montgomery stated the split for the cost of the wall at 50/50 would be acceptable. The idea of
cutting back the median north of Las Praderas is acceptable. They have been prohibited from having
any entry on Tank Farm Rd. The locations of the accesses is a condition of approval of the map with
the County and City.
Mr. Montgomery stated they have in place an approved vesting tentative map with a set of conditions.
That map and the conditions reflect many of the traffic issues that have been mentioned tonight. He
asked the Commission to talk with the City's engineers, planners, and attorneys.
,249
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 12
Commissioner Whittlesey asked Mr. Montgomery to address a right-turn only out of the
development.
Mr. Montgomery believes there ought to be a left-turn egress.
Commissioner Kourakis stated the staff report says the proposal may not be consistent with Policy
3.2.2.
Mr. Montgomery stated he does not want to get into a discussion of specific policies of the General
Plan because he does not have a copy of them. He feels the staff did a fairly balanced job which show
that it can be considered consistent with not only the Land Use Element, but the Circulation Element
and the Energy Element.
Cindy Fraughman (Inaudible) feels the wall should be paid 100%by the developers. She asked the
Commission to consider the troubles for the community, not the troubles for the developers. This
project is against the intended purpose for this property. She feels this community needs good-paying
jobs.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated this applicant has been very honest with staff,
Commission, and Council with this plan from day one.
Barbara Malone, 85 Chuparrosa, stated she is concerned for the air quality and the rate of pollution
that will increase. She is concerned about the exhaust fumes from cars. At six o'clock tonight there
were 15 cars lined up at the Tank Farm Rd. Light from the entrance to the Creekside Mobile Home
Park A third light at Suburban Rd. will increase the amount of exhaust and air pollution. She asked
if it would be possible to change the traffic flow to the other side of the market. When she bought
her house their was a field across the road. A market is not acceptable. Her neighborhood has had
to put up the Telegram Tribune bringing paper in at 3:00 a.m. and taking newspapers out at 4:00 a.m.
She stated there is a problem with water and the water table. Something is shifting the water table
below her home. If another well is dug there are going to be big problems.
The public comment session was closed.
Development Review Manager Whisenand feels that this project does not require an additional
environmental study. He feels comfortable coming back at the next meeting with a copy of the initial
study that was done for the subdivision and the environmental review that was done as part of the
annexation and prezoning.
Acting Chairman Senn asked Commissioners Veesart and Jeffrey to meet with staff to catch up with
the past history of this site before the next meeting.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 13
Development Review Manager Whisenand suggested scheduling this item for action on the meeting
of April 24.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens and Commissioner Whittlesey stated they would be absent on the
meeting of the 24th.
Larry Kreutzkampt one of the owners, 1706 Las Tunas Rd., Santa Barbara, stated the Commission
and staff came to the meeting unprepared. He feels discriminated against because one of the
Commissioners and the City Attorney can't be at the next meeting. He has been working with the
Planning Commission and staff and has followed through on everything. A two-week delay or even
longer is very disappointing.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated she understands Mr. Kreutzkampfs frustrations. The main
purpose for delaying the meeting is that proper documents were not in front of the Commission,
which may jeopardize approval of the project.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated she has concerns for the Supervising Civil Engineer to address
regarding the bus stop location, the tree preservation issue, the amount and speed of runoff into the
culvert, a pedestrian crossing at Los Osos Valley Rd., a current traffic count, the contamination issue
with Unocal,the possible water table issue, the left-turn median being shortened, the right-tum only
egress, the noise issues, and a description of the wall.
Supervising Civil Engineer Jerry Kenny stated, regarding the bus stop location, she Transit Manager
feels this location is appropriate for buses re-entering the flow of traffic and for the needs of the
residential area and the shopping center.
Mr. Kenny stated the drainage issue is a minor diversion of about four acres of property to fit into
a pipe that was designed for a 100-year storm.
Mr. Kenny stated the pedestrian crossing at Los Osos Valley Rd. is signalized and he is not aware of
any problems here. If there is a problem with the timing, it can be adjusted. Pedestrian refuge islands
are a possibility at this location.
Mr. Kenny stated the traffic study that was done is a current study of the neighborhood specific to
this.project. A sound wall is a.consideration that might help address the noise impacts at the corner.
Mr. Kenny stated there is a provision in the approval of the subdivision for an agreement that would
require the subdivider to provide for closing or modification of the South Higuera Street entrance and
exit regarding left turns if traffic safety problems occur.
2-70
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 14
Mr. Kenny stated, as far as cutting the median island back, they have already agreed to reduce its
length by 23 feet which would provide for cars to safely leave the site for a left turn. They could
consider cutting it down to be a little shorter.
Mr. Kenny stated the fire department should address the contamination issue.
Mr. Kenny stated there won't be any new wells dug.
Commissioner Veesart asked Mr. Kenny to address signalization at Las Praderas and pedestrian
access.
Mr. Kenny stated one of the reasons for the median was to provide for pedestrians in the event that
they decide to cross there. This department intends to provide for signing and some form of barrier
to be a little more proactive towards precluding pedestrians from crossing at this location.
Commissioner Veesart asked why pedestrians are discouraged from crossing at this location.
Mr. Kenny stated the discouragement is due to the amount of traffic at this location now and in the
future. It is an unsafe situation. It is felt that the signal at Suburban Rd. is more efficient.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if it would be feasible to have a pedestrian-only crossing.
Mr. Kenny doesn't feel this is a good idea. It could be creating a problem.
Commissioner Veesart feels that planning for pedestrians has been an after thought of a
neighborhood-serving market. It seems as though auto travel is being encouraged rather than
pedestrians. There are no pedestrian facilities in this area.
Commissioner Kourakis asked Mr. Kenny to look at and respond to specific General Plan
requirements 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 for the next meeting. She asked staff to respond to perhaps this project
needing a General Plan amendment.
Acting Chairman Senn stated a couple of years ago at a workshop there was the determination that
there is no definition of"neighborhood" because they all seem to be unique and have their own
identities.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if it would be possible to build a pedestrian overpass. .
Mr. Kenny stated this would not be feasible and would be expensive.
x-71
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 15
Commissioner Ready stated he would like to hear from the City Attorney regarding the ramifications
of the prior approvals that have been given to this project to date and the ramifications and .
qualifications and other concerns with respect to previous conditions and restrictions that have
already been imposed on the applicant and on the development, and whether or not those have any
bearing on what is now presented to the Commission and what latitude the Commission has.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated she would like to make sure that both during and after construction
that all materials that can be are recycled.
Acting Chairman Senn asked staff to present a synopsis of the issues and the latitude the Commission
has at the next meeting.
Commissioner Ready made a motion to continue this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of
May 8, 1996. The motion was seconded by Commission Whittlesey.
AYES: Commissioners Ready, Whittlesey, Veesart, Kourakis, Senn, and Jeffrey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Karleskint refrained from participating and voting due to a potential conflict of interest.
CO & DISCUSSION:
Chairman Karleskint rejoin the meeting.
2. Staff
Development Review Manager Whisenan esented the forecast for items on the agendas on the
meetings of April 24th, May 8th, and May 22n .
3. Commission
Commissioner Senn requested staff to forward all informatio elative to tonight's item to
Commissioners.
Commissioner Kourakis requested 1996 CEQA Guidelines be available to the C ission.
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 10
Chairman Karleskint felt the parking was inadequate. In addition, he believed that backing out onto
High St. was a challenge.
AYES: Commissioners Veesart, Jeffrey, Kourakis, Senn, Whittlesey, Ready, and Chairman
Karleskint.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed.
2. 154 Suburban Road: A 6-96: Request to allow a grocery store in the C-S Zone;
Timm-Kreutzkampf Development, applicant.
Chairman Karleskint refrained from participating due to a potential conflict of interest.
Commissioner Senn was designated as Acting Chairman.
Associate Planner McIlvaine presented the staff report, recommending approval of the use permit
based on the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens presented an overview, recommending discussion of the issues as
outlined in the staff report. After explaining that the grocery store use was included in the project
description for the previous mitigated declarations, she stated that environmental review was satisfied
and the issue before the Commission is General Plan consistency.
Both Commissioner Veesart and Jeffrey indicated they reviewed all of the previous information
relative to this item which was provided to them by staff.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if the way to reconcile conflicting General Plan policies is by choosing
the more specific policy over the general one.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated that although policies don't directly conflict, but provide the.
The more specific policies do prevail over more general policies.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the size of the proposed grocery store is up for discussion.
a -�3
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 11
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated if the Commission could find the grocery story use
consistent with the General Plan by conditioning it, then it would be appropriate. The condition has
to be related somehow to the general plan consistency issue or some other issue relating to the use
permit.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Victor Montgomery, representing the applicants, 3026 S. Higuera St., stated written testimony dated
May 7, 1996 from David St. John was submitted to the Commission by fax today, as well as a letter
from Mr. Montgomery dated May 3, 1996. Mr. Montgomery said in his letter of May 3, 1996 he
attempted to address the issues raised at the last hearing relative to circulation policies. The new staff
report offers some additional evaluations and lays out policies supportive of the project. Mr.
Montgomery stated Land Use Policy 3.5.3 in essence says there can't be a neighborhood center in a
C-S Zone. Land Use Element Policy 3.1.2 says there can't be a regional draw on this site. Zoning
Ordinance Section 17.30.030 sets a limit for what is defined as a neighborhood grocery store at 2,000
square feet or less. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a grocery store with a Director's use permit,
although it doesn't define what a local grocery store is or what is a regional grocery store. It appears
the dilemma is they can't make the definition for any options relative to the project, which has been
going on for two and one half years or more. Mr. Montgomery has looked in the definition section
of the Land Use Element. On page 89 there is a definition for "neighborhood commercial." They do
want to follow the definition of neighborhood commercial and be a super market. If the solution to
them not being a neighborhood center is having a drug store, they will accept a condition to delete
drug stores from the list of allowable uses. Mr. Montgomery cited findings #1, #2, #3 of the City
Resolution 84/85, 1996 series for the Vesting Tentative Tract TR 74-95, Tract 2202 and stated these
are findings which this Commission and City Council approved.
Mr.Montgomery stated,referring to Page 11 of the staff report, Conditions#1 and 42 are acceptable.
Regarding Condition#3, they would like to have the same hours of operation as Scolari's, which is
6:00 am. to midnight. Condition#4 is acceptable. Regarding Condition 45, they had a meeting with
the homeowners' association and had an understanding that the sound wall will not be constructed
if this project is not built. Conditions#6 and#7 are acceptable. Condition #8 is not acceptable. Mr.
Montgomery stated as a result of Condition #9, turns out of the center would be deleted from the
project. They do not believe this is an appropriate condition and there are no findings or evidence
presented in this staff report to support this recommendation. Regarding Condition #10, Mr.
Montgomery stated they are not proposing a stand alone grocery store.
Mr. Montgomery feels the statement after Condition #10 regarding a separate motion for a General
Plan amendment is disconcerting.
Mr. Montgomery stated Public Works Conditions#1-#11 are acceptable.
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 12
David St. John, attorney for the applicant, believes the Commission has discretion when it comes to
the determination of the consistency of this project with the General Plan. The Commission
determined at the point of annexation that the General Plan was consistent with a grocery store of
this size. None ofthe factors that are presently before the Commission is any different. He feels that
ifthere were a change in the approval,the change would have to be based on some new reason which
has not been presented. Mr. St. John submitted a letter today explaining the history of this project
and how, at each step of the way,the Commission and the public have been aware of the project. The
consistency on the part of the applicant has been very important in this project. Likewise, the
applicant would expect the Commission to act in a consistent manner. There has been a substantial
amount of reliance on the part of the Commission and the determination so far. He urged the
Planning Commission to continue in a consistent manner to find that there is consistency with the
General Plan and this proposed use and to approve the use permit as presented. Mr. St. John offered
to answer any questions.
Robert Strong, of 73149 Bel Aire Road, Palm Desert, CA, stated Mr. Strassbaugh has submitted a
letter which indicates he is no longer opposed to the T.K. Center. Mr. Strong stated he represents
neighbors from the residential area and other commercial interests. Mr. Strong stated the other
individuals he represents do not agree with Mr. Strassbaugh's compromise. The other individuals he
represents find this proposal to be clearly inconsistent with the General Plan, incompatible with the
land use, and a potential for significant adverse effects.
Mr. Strong stated approximately 16,500 to 18,000 cars use Hiiguera St. in front of this location.
Approximately 7,100 cars would be generated by a shopping center. Approval has not yet been
granted by the City. The information in front of the Commission indicates that approximately 7% of
the traffic would be coming from the immediate neighborhood and approximately 25% of the traffic
would be coming from the area south of South St. Mr. Strong stated 75% of the traffic from this
neighborhood center would be coming from outside the area. The traffic study indicates the
cumulative traffic would exceed 38,000 trips per day and 30,000 would be on Higuera St. This study
does deal with a potential four-lane facility being needed between the 101 interchange and Higuera
St. Mr. Strong feels these decisions are clearly cumulatively adverse. This project does not mitigate
any of the regional concerns. The consistency issue is a basic issue. Mr. Strong offered to answer
any questions.
Paul Erton, 33 Las Praderas, representing a major portion of the audience who arose for
identification, stated they are all concerned about this project and the adverse effects it will have in
their neighborhood. They are concerned about the regional draw this project will have.
Mr. Erton distributed a petition to the Conunission that has 85 signatures. He stated 61 are opposed
to any development at all. There are 9 who would agree to a very small neighborhood market. There
are 11 who have general concerns relative to traffic and other adverse environmental impacts. There
a2-7�
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 13
are 4 out of the 85 who are not opposed to this development. Mr. Erton asked the Commission to
protect the quality of their neighborhood and to follow the General Plan and deny the use permit.
Bruce Wiedner, resident of The Meadows, said his neighborhood is the only area in the City that has
no access to any parks or playgrounds for the children in the S. Higuera corridor. The tremendous
traffic which will be generated by this development will further isolate these children. They have a
recycling center, a waste water treatment plant, and a proposed homeless shelter in their backyard.
They are now faced with this proposed regional center in their front yard. The negative impacts of
this proposal will fiu-ther degrade their neighborhood.
Bernice Cardosa, 3860 S. Higuera St., Silver City Mobile Home Park, stated she is sorry there is not
more representation from her parr because there are approximately 300 homes in the park. The park
is a family park and the residents need a project like this. Ms. Cardosa is a senior citizen and does
not have a car. She would like to have the convenience of walking to a grocery store to get
provisions. It is very difficult to take the bus service because of the one-hour service. She feels this
project is a great proposal and it will beautify this part of town. She feels Higuera needs to be
widened. She asked the Commission to approve this project.
Bill Badon, 65 Chuparrosa, stated that he does not see this as a neighborhood grocery store. He sees
this as a large, high-volume store that sells groceries and imports cars. This would changed the
character of the neighborhood. Mr. Badon is a father and shares the concerns of safety. He feels the
history of car accidents in this area should be reviewed. He feels ingress and egress should be
reexamined. He feels this project will not enhance this neighborhood.
Diane Whitehouse, 38 Los Verdes Dr., stated she has contacted several contractors about
constructing a wall between the project and her neighborhood. One of the estimates she got was for
$44,000 for a six-foot wall approximately 1,000 feet long. The footing for the wall would cost an
additional$30,000. In addition, she contacted landscapers and received estimates from $90041,800.
Ms. Whitehouse also spoke with a contractor regarding removing the root systems. He estimated
the cost for root removal between$5,000 and $6,000. Ms. Whitehouse doesn't feel the homeowners
should assume the responsibility or the additional cost for these site improvements.
Chris Greenal, 16 Villa Ct., Los Verdes 1, said that the previous approvals and finalization of the
environmental review were based on a concept for a grocery store center, and generally it was based
on a neighborhood center. She is supportive of this project in that it's consistent with the portrayal
that it has received as a neighborhood center. She sees a difficulty in the definitions. She is not
amenable to a warehouse-type store and doesn't feel it fits into the definition of a neighborhood
center. She feels the condition limiting the size of the store is a good solution. She feels there is a
big gap between the City's policies and the ability for the average citizen to get information and this
�7So
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 14
has resulted in the controversies which exist. She is supportive of this project as long as it is
consistent with the concept of a neighborhood grocery store.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked staff if this project has always been portrayed as a 51,000 square foot
grocery store.
Manager ANsenand replied that it had.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if Ms. Greenal would be more supportive of a center with a community
draw than a regional draw.
Ms. Greenal answered that she would. She wants to see something comparable to the other stores
in town.
Aleena Olachea, 3860 S. Higuera, stated it is impressive that all the people stood up as a group to
say that this would not be appropriate, but there are more than 600 mobile homes in the
neighborhood whose residents do not have access to transportation. These residents are elderly or
cannot afford transportation. This neighborhood needs a store within walking distance for local
residents. She would love a store located in this neighborhood because she has to go a long way to
get groceries. She is supportive of this development and hopes the Commission will approve this
permit.
Dean Mortin, 74 Dei Oro Ct., stated he is not necessarily opposed to a neighborhood grocery store,
but it appears that this is going to be a large store. He feels this project as it stands is going to have
a regional draw. He doesn't feel the homeowners should have to pay for a wall. He would like the
City to work with the developer in building a wall to protect the neighborhood from the noise,
exhaust, and the traffic which will be generated.
The public comment session was closed.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Ready made a motion that the proposal should be determined to be consistent with
the General Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Veesart.
Commissioner Veesart asked if Commissioner Ready feels a 51,635 square foot grocery store is
consistent with the General Plan or that a grocery store at this location without a specified number
of square feet is consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Ready replied his motion would be supportive of the store as proposed.
�77
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 15
Commissioner Ready stated he noticed that a lot of this, when it was going through some of the
earlier phases and up to at least '94, when the existing LUE was adopted, the LUE at the time this
project started out did not have all these conflicting policies.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens said when the'93 environmental determination was made, they were
basing it on both the'77 LUE and the '92 draft LUE.
Acting Chairman Senn stated that he surmised that these applicants have from the start said that they
want to put a market here,but there has never been a formal application. He said that City staff never
told the applicant that they could not put a market here, however, the applicant never formally stated
that they wanted to put a market at this location.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens added in looking back at the minutes of the previous meetings of
both the Planning Commission and the Council, the issue of specific uses was never before either
body. Infact, comments in the minutes make it clear that the decision on particular uses would be
deferred until applications for those uses were filed by the developer.
Commissioner Ready stated there has not been a formal application, but this shouldn't be a surprise
to anybody. He has analyzed this from the aspects of the work provided by staff and concluded that
this is consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Veesart complimented the applicants for being up front with their intentions from day
one. The process is such that now the application has come before the Commission and now the
public has been told that this is the time to express their concerns regarding a specific use for this site.
The Commission will take these concerns into consideration when a decision is made. He feels the
public's concerns should be addressed. Commissioner Veesart expressed concern about the size of
the market and feels it should be conditioned. In order to be consistent with the General Plan, the
Commission must condition the size of this market. He does not feel this is a neighborhood-serving
market and the General Plan does not allow a regional draw in this zone.
Assistant City Attorney stated she is grappling with how reducing the size of the market helps to
satisfy Policy 3.5.3 of the LUE which prohibits new neighborhood commercial centers in the servicing
and manufacturing areas. In the neighborhood commercial section of the LUE, Policy 3.2.1 does
seem to indicate neighborhood commercial centers include grocery stores, drug, and hardware stores.
Manager Whisenand added if the Commission feels strongly as a group that this area should be a
neighborhood center, the most appropriate action would be to direct a General Plan amendment.
A;2-79
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 16
Commissioner Jeffrey is concerned with the conclusion of staff. He is also concerned that the
Commission does the best for the community. In looking at the conclusion,Page 7 of the staff report,
it says the policy which best supports a grocery store at this location is LUE 3.6.2, which promotes
small grocery stores and other convenience facilities in all commercial zones to serve both nearby
residents and employment centers. LUE Policy 3.5 specifically discourages new neighborhood
commercial centers in the C-S Zone and LUE Policy 3.1.2 states regional-draw stores should be
located downtown or in the Madonna Rd. malls or in the area designated for General Retail along Los
Osos Valley Rd. Based on the information, he does not see this being consistent with the General
Plan in terms of the size of the proposed market.
Commissioner Kourakis concurred with Commissioner Jeffrey. She cannot find consistency. Her
understanding is, by State law, the General Plan requires internal consistency. It seems this may
require a General Plan amendment.
Commissioner Whittlesey concurred with Commissioners Jeffrey and Kourakis. She feels all along
this process,the Commission was given cautions that square footage would be dealt with later. She
feels the Commission needs to be looking at limiting the size because a 51,635 square foot grocery
is larger than what the neighborhood needs. She expressed a concern relative to the General Plan
being amended.
Acting Chairman Senn stated he is having a lot of trouble with this item. He is extremely sensitive
to the fact of the time and effort these applicants have put into this project. He can find consistency
on either side in this instance. The applicants have been straight forward from the beginning. This
may be one of those unfortunate circumstances where there has been some miscommunication or
maybe an application should have been filed before.
AYES: Commissioners Ready and Senn
NOES: Commissioners Veesart, Kourakis, Whittlesey, and Jeffrey
ABSTAIN: None
The motion failed.
Chairman Karleskint refrained from participating and voting due to a potential conflict of interest.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked, if by placing a parameter on the size, could the Commission then
proceed with a motion that it then could be construed to be consistent with the General Plan.
Acting Chairman Senn noted the applicants are not amenable to a condition which lessens the size
of the market. He asked that the public comment session be reopened to hear from Mr. Montgomery.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
.?'77y
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 17
Mr. Montgomery stated a smaller sized market is not feasible. They have indications that no tenant
would want a market of a smaller size.
The public comment session was closed.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Jeffrey made a motion to find that this is inconsistent with the General Plan in its
present proposal. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis.
AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Kourakis, Veesart, Senn, Whittlesey
NOES: Commissioner Ready
ABSENT: None
Chairman Karleskint refrained from participating and voting due to a potential conflict of interest.
Manager Whisenand asked Commissioner Jeffrey if his motion was referring to the information
outlined in the staff report, specifically Policies 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 being inconsistent with the General
Plan.
Commissioner Jeffrey replied yes.
Commissioner Veesart made a motion to deny the use permit based on Policy 3.5.3 in that it is
inconsistent with the General Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis.
Commissioner Kourakis asked why the inconsistency is being limited to one policy when several have
been delineated.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated this is not a neighborhood commercial designation under the
General Plan. This is a service and manufacturing designation. The Commission would have to find
it consistent with the General Plan designation it falls under, which is service and manufacturing.
AYES: Commissioners Veesart, Kourakis, Whittlesey, and Jeffrey
NOES: Commissioners Senn and Ready
ABSENT: Commissioner Karleskint
Acting Chairman Senn asked each Commissioner to comment on whether they would be supportive
of this land use assuming that there were a General Plan amendment and a rezoning of this property.
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 18
Commissioner Jeffrey stated the zoning isn't the only issue for him. His concerns are relative to the
size of the project and the impact on the neighborhood. He feels that presenting the same project
zoned differently would not be in the best interest of the community.
Commissioner Ready stated he understands how people in an area have concerns. But, there has been
analysis relative to traffic and this is a major street. He would support this project if the zoning
change was made. He is concerned about the Commission drawing conclusions on the potential
impacts of the size of a market, whether it is 30,000 square feet or 50,000 square feet
Commissioner Whittlesey made no further comments.
Commissioner Kourakis feels this may be opening up another problem by limiting all neighborhood
grocery stores to a particular number of square feet.
Commissioner Veesart concurred with Commissioner Jeffrey. He is supportive of neighborhood
grocery stores and perhaps having a neighborhood market at this location would be beneficial. It has
the potential to reduce trips in the City and the potential for easy access for pedestrians. He is
concerned about the size of this market as proposed. The Commission may want to work on defining
"neighborhood serving." He would be supportive of a neighborhood-serving market at this location.
He would also be looking forward to better pedestrian access.
Acting Chairman Senn stated he would like to hear from the residents of the mobile home parks with
the same degree of intensity that the Commission heard from the Meadows group. He would be
support of the project conditioned on the fact that he was persuaded that the neighbors were
supportive of it.
Commissioner Kourakis stated this proposal is in conflict with several policies which deal with
residential conservation and residential neighborhoods.
�-kl
a
/ Y
mfi�
UNCIL TCDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
O ❑ FIRE CHIEF
33 Las Praderas Drive RNEY ❑ PW DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �LERwoRIC" ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM O REC DIR
June 5, 1996 _ ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
Retain this document for { '� ❑ PERS DIR
future Council meeting ' 0�'"-` Tom '
?-z-g�
Honorable Mayor Allen Settle Date, if a erdized
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: T.K. Center Use Permit
As a homeowners of nine years in the South Higuera neighborhood directly adjacent to the
proposed T.K. Center, we were extremely pleased and relieved by the May 8 Planning
Commission decision to deny the use permit requested by T.K Development.
When we purchased our home, we did so with our eyes wide open, knowing that we were
accepting as neighbors the 101 Freeway, the sewage treatment plant,and the existing
recycling facility on Prado Road. We also knew the land east of Higuera and south of
Tank Farm would be developed one day,and that development would be of a light
industrial nature,according to the county zoning plans in existence at the time. Realizing
that the County has historically been less concerned with the aesthetics and impacts of the
development it allows,we were most eager to have the City annex this piece of property.
When we first received notification of this proposed development,we attended meetings
with the developers at the Bear Valley Shopping Center and at the Planning Commission
hearing last spring. Despite our objections to this project,and our active interest in it, we
were never notified of the City Council meeting in which subdivision occurred and,
according to the developers, some type of implicit approval for a 52,000 square foot
grocery store was given to the developers by the City. In fact, the South Higuera
neighborhoods have been overwhelmingly ignored regarding notification because of the
City's policy to notify only those residents within 300 feet of the property line of the
development.
Now that the residents of this area are beginning to fully understand the adverse impact a
development of this size and nature will have on the quality of their lives and on the value
of their homes, the developers would like the City government to believe that our
opposition is too late and that the City should allow their proposal based on the length of
time and the amount of money they have invested in this project.
The developers,working with both an attorney and a highly qualified and experienced local
architect, have undoubtedly known from the start that their proposal had numerous
inconsistencies with the General Plan. They chose to pursue this very lucrative line of
development,gambling that the residents of the South Higuera neighborhoods would not
fully understand the consequences of the proposed project.
RECEIVED
JUN Q 1"6
CITYCOUNgp
SAN t 081S, CA
.F
4
J
We urge you to view with skepticism any increased support for this project which the
developers may now attempt to create by misleading area residents about the true scope and
nature of this project. Realize that only two people spoke without reservation in favor of
this project at the Planning Commission meeting,while a sizable crowd came in support of
those who spoke against this project.
The problems that would be created by a development of this magnitude and type are
insurmountable. It is imperative that the City of San Luis Obispo protect the quality of its
residential neighborhoods as opposed to the financial interests of out of town developers.
The residents of any city put a high level of trust into a city's General Plan and its elected
and appointed officials. We expect the City of San Luis Obispo to uphold its own policies
and planning commitments. Therefore, we ask that you uphold the Planning
ission
Comm 's decision to deny the use permit on the grounds that the intended use of the
property is inconsistent with the General Plan.
,,-Pespec ull
Paul and Catherine Orton
Cc: San Luis Obispo City Council (individual copies provided to each member)
Community Development Department
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
Tom & Margaret Wallace
52 Mariposa Drive
Retain this document for San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
future council rnee .rog (805)594-023'r
Cate,it agerdized
- June 21 199
FED .
DD DIR
San Luis Obispo City Council ❑ FIH DIR
990 Palm Street O FIRE CHIEF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ PWDIR
❑ POUCE CHF
❑ REC DIR
RE: TK Development ❑ 11TIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
Ten months ago we moved to the Meadows Development from Rancho Palos
Verdes, California. We traveled throughout the western United States before
deciding to settle in this lovely city. We chose San Luis because it offered us
the ambiance of a small town, but also offered the beauty and cultural
amenities we sought. We chose the Meadows because it is a lovely, quiet
community with a real neighborhood feeling.
It now appears we've made a grave mistake. We were lead to believe that
the area on Higuera Street between Tank Farm Road and Suburban Street
was part of the Airport Land Use Plan for service and light manufacturing.
TK development plans to build a 51,000 sq. ft. grocery store and lease it to
F6od-4-Less. We attended a Planning Commission hearing on May 8 which
denied TK the permit to build this store. TK's representative stated at that
meeting that there were no plans for a Food-4-Less, or a regional shopping
center. Now they tell us they have a signed lease from Food-4-Less. The
Proposed shopping center would cause unnecessary noise, pollution,
congestion and safety problems.
The TK project should be denied because:
a. The 1994 City General Plan doesn't allow this type of development
in Service and Management areas.
b. The General Plan provides for retailing with a regional draw to be
located downtown, the area around Madonna Road, Central Coast
Plaza, and Los Osos Valley Road west of Hwy. 101.
C. The proposed store would add 7000 average daily trips to our area,
an area with a Montessori School and many children riding bikes,
skating, etc. There would be a 40% increase in traffic on Los Osos
Valley Road and South Higuera. The congestion would be
dangerous, unbearable, and a real turn-off for people entering the
city from this route.
This property is appropriate for a business park and light manufacturing. It
is not appropriate for a regional shopping center which plans to be open from
6 a.m.. to midnight, as proposed by TK. We haven't even touched on the
additional crime, graffiti, and police problems this development would attract
to an otherwise lovely area.
We urge you to consider these things, and to make a decision to uphold the
Planning Commission's decision to deny TK Development a permit to build
this development.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Wallace,
Margaret A. Wallace
June 10, 1996
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CR 93401
Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members,
On May 81 1996, the Planning Commission denied the proposal for a
grocery store to be located at the T.K. Deuelopment between Tank
Farm Road and Suburban Road.
Because Mr. Rthon was present at that meeting we are well aware of
the aguments for and against the proposal. We agree with the
Planning Commission's decisions that the proposal was not consistent
with the General Plan and the request should be denied.
We urge you to deny the applicant's appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision. We belieue that a grocery store and shopping
center are not appropriate at this location. R business park would be
a far better use, and could create new jobs and income for the city
rather than merely redistributing money now spent on groceries in
stores nearby.
Si cerely,
,,,,
Hal Rthon
Stella Rthon
15 Mariposa Driue
San Luis Obispo CR 93401
RECE1VEp
JUN _i iyyo
CITY COR NCi C9
June 10, 1996
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
We believe that the best uses for the proposed T.K. Commercial Project are service and business park uses
such as those established just north of us. We do not believe that a grocery store is appropriate in this
location.
Therefore, we ask that you affirm the Planning Commission's decision by denying the developer's request
to build a grocery store at 134 Suburban Road.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Bruce ercier
c-
Jo e
11 ariposa Drive, SLO 93401
RECEIVED
JUN 1 3 1110
MM
�CM O°"°ems°'c,�
Mary Ellen Gibson
1251 Buchon St. Retain this document for
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 future Council meetiN
Date, A ag_endzed
June 19, 1996
Allen Settle
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Dear Mayor Settle:
I am writing to you in support of the FOOD 4 LESS application for a store location
within the city of San Luis Obispo.
As you may know the Special Olympics program has been benefiting athletes
throughout San Luis Obispo County for over twenty years. We rely solely on local
businesses and individuals to fund our programs and FOOD 4 LESS has been a
generous contributor and enthusiastic supporter for some time. They are presently
the Title Sponsor for a major fund raising event scheduled for July 14"'which is a golf
social. We expect that with their support we will raise nearly $10,000, so you can see
how important they are to Special Olympics and the community.
FOOD 4 LESS is locally owned by Milt and Frances Souza and both have not only
contributed substantial funds but a great deal of their time and enthusiasm as well.
San Luis Obispo is fortunate to have folks like the Souza s work within the City and I
urge you to support their efforts to open a store in San Luis Obispo so that they might
be able to continue their support of our program and others like it.
Sincerely,
Mary Ellen Gibson
YCIL DD DIR
❑ FiN DIR
O FIRE CHIEF
,
A
EY ❑ PW DIR
"l ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MG TEAM O REC DIR
❑ C FILE O UTIL DIR
O PERS DIR
RECEIVED
JUN 2 1 Ift
CITY COUNCIL
SAN L c OBISP0. CA
i
i
Retain this document for 83 Chuparrosa
future Council meeting San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
7'Z"
Gate.i{ agerdzed
June 14, 1996
Honorable Mayor Allen Settle
and City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
1 am writing to you to express my opposition to the proposed
development on the TK property. My backyard is on Higuera Street. I have
already had to add sound proofing improvements to my home in order to live on
this busy street and to shut out the noise of the cement processing plant on
Suburban Road.
At the present time, certain hours of the day are quite dangerous to enter
and exit this neighborhood. If a large grocery store plus another drug or
hardware store were built across the street, the traffic, noise and pollution levels
would become intolerable.
My understanding was that the TK property would be developed in a
similar manner as the property north of Tank Farm Road. By keeping
development consistent with the light industrial nature, noise, traffic, and
pollution can be held at a level this neighborhood can live with.
I was born and raised in San Luis Obispo, having lived most of my life on
the Bonetti Ranch. I have lived in my home on Chuparrosa for 15 years. Please
do not allow a development on the TK property that will ruin the neighborhoods
that exist along South Higuera Street.
Sincerely,
PUNCIL CDD DIR
Bina Bonetti
ECAo ❑ FIN DIR
11 �t"o ❑ FIRE CHIEF
I W.. RN1f ❑ PWDIR
CLER!WORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
t�❑ N[TTEA%4 13REC DIR
1 FI;� ❑ UTILDIR .� RECEIVED
❑ P S';;A JUN 17 IM
Cmr CouwCIL
Retain this document for
future Council meeting
Date,it agerd zed
June 11,1996
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Dear Council Members,
TK Developers have proposed a shopping center and large grocery store along South Higuera
Street south of Tank Farm Road. That development would bring undesireable traffic, noise and
pollution to our neighborhood. Safety would be a problem as we try to enteror leave our housing
area. Home values would probably decline because of those factors.
In addition, the proposal is contrary to the General Plan which does not provide for a shopping
center on that property. The zoning and General Plan only allow for a small,convenience-type
food store to serve persons who would be working in a services and business park project,a more
appropriate use for the property in this neighborhood.
For all of the reasons stated above, please deny the developers' request for a grocery store on the
TK property.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thomas Walker& Patricia Walker
19 Mariposa Drive
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
V UNCILCid' D�UIR
❑. FIN DIR
I„ O ❑ FIRE CHIEF
1VA RNEY ❑ MV DIR
i; CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF'
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIA
0C RE FILE O UTIL DIR
0 Pers DIR
M.A.Y. is not an organization with fancy offices and a paid staff. It operates on a
Retain this document for
future Councdyw.t'ng UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
Q
— — 6 ❑ FIN DIR
Gate,it agerd;7.0 o FIRE CHIEF o PIN DIM June 14, 1996
Mayor Allen Settlef❑ POLICE CHF r;
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
City of San Luis Obispo a 0 READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
City Hall, 990 Palm Street Wp PERS DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405 -�+
Dear Mayor Settle,
I attended a city council meeting on June 4, 1996, and submitted a request to speak to
agenda item number three, the Promotional Coordinating Committee Grants-in-Aid.
However, the public input portion of this item was omitted, and I believe that the council's
votes regarding the distribution of PCC funds were improper and illegal.
My'understanding is that city council will hold another public meeting regarding the PCC
tests•
I am writing to you today to let you know that I am interested in having my opinion heard
regarding the distribution of PCC funds. Please allow me to share my thoughts on this
matter now in written form, and I hope that I will be able to attend the meeting when this
matter is taken up again in a public forum.
Five years ago, I took my daughter, Cordelia, to a concert sponsored by Music and Arts
for Youth. Cordelia was seven years old. The artist was Maria Bachmann, a violinist of
international reputation. It was a special morning concert provided for elementary school
`i
students. My daughter's class was not scheduled to go, but I took her out of school for a
couple of hours because I thought it was too good an opportunity to pass up.
The following fall, the San Luis Obispo County Symphony offered group violin lessons
after school. Cordelia brought the flier home, and when I inquired as to her interest in
trying it, she said, "Oh, Mom, I've always wanted to play the violin!"
Cordelia did pursue the violin, and five years later she is enjoying it immensely. It has
enriched her life considerably, and this happened because she heard Maria Bachmann in
concert.
I can only wonder how many more children have been similarly influenced through the
efforts of M.A.Y. How can a child aspire to play the violin if she has never heard one?
As anyone who has been to a play or a concert knows, there is no comparison to the
experience of seeing and hearing a live performance. Many children never get this
experience. It is incredible that in a community the size of San Luis Obispo we have
access to performers like Maria Bachmann and Leon Bates. And it is even more incredible
that someone has made the effort to have these artists accessible to children.
M.A.Y.'s stated goals are "to discover and support our local talent, and to expose our
youth to the beauty of the world of arts through public and school presentations,
workshops and concerts for children by renowned visiting and local artists." With over
20,000 children served through this excellent program, M.A.Y. is eminently qualified for a
grant as outlined by PCC's own criteria.
Children are our future. They must have a chance to dream and plan. They rp4st be able
to see a violinist and imagine themselves playing the violin. 'We trust give them a world
that values artistry and beauty and helps tttem to se the�artistry and beauty, within'
themselves. .
M.A.Y. is not an organization with fancy offices and a paid staff. It operates on a
shoestring and largely through the dreams, compassion, vision and ongoing efforts of its
founder, Frederic Balazs. Every dollar that the city grants to M.A.Y. goes directly to
benefit thousands of.children annually. I urge you and the council to support the efforts of
M.A.Y.
iT.
Diane Hunt Roberts
869 Center Street
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405
543-7602
MEETING AGENDA
p"OWNCIL DD DIR DATE ITEM #
CAO O FIN DIR
ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF `I
n EY. O PW DIR i
Ea ❑ POLICE CHF i
O MGW TEAM ❑ REC DIR -
❑ CREAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR TO ,�A
❑ PERS DIR Oate �l / Time ��%�s l PM
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
-
of
Phone
Area Code Number Extension^
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILLCALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message
RECEIVE ®
a
t . 1 1996 reorder 27.700 Operator
CITY CLERK 0 0 v?GreenC:VcI&'
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA ^""��' FIECYCL.EOPAPER
MEETING AGENDA
COUNCIL CDD DIR DATE�ITEM #=
CAO ❑ N DIR
fit ACAO ❑. FIRE CHIEF
A ATTORNEY, O PW DIR
C3 POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR TOD
❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR Date Time C] PM
li`I LE Y® We E OUT
qz-
00
�rCeIVE ® Phone
Area Code
Number
Extension
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
1996 CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
CITY CLERK WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA RETURNED YOUR CALL
k
M ssage
reorder 23-700 Operator
n
®wo' C�Green G�CIe'"
RECYCL.Ec pApER
06-26-1996 11:21AM FROM ATASCADERO GREYHOUNDS TO rGirie7 r.nl
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 79 ITEM
ATASCADERO HIGH SCHOOL
AtMZnC DEPARTMENT RECEIVED
One High School Hill .Atascadero, California 93422 ,SIV 1`1`10
Telephone(SQ5) 462-4311, Fax 1805) 466-3577
SAN ,TM_COqNCIL
SPO. Co'
June 28, 1996
I
UNCIL CDD DIR
yd CAO ❑ FIN DIR
Allen Settle, Mayor ACAO ❑ FIRECHIEF
City of San Luis ObispoAATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
City Council 111'CLERWMG ❑ POLICE CHF
990 Palm Street ❑ TEAM ❑ REC DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ c RSAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
FAX 781-7109 �— O PERS DIR
I
DearMayor Settle:
i
I am writing this letter of recommendation for Mr. Milt Souza and the
staff of F6od-4-Less because they have been outstanding members of the
Atascadero community since 1989.
The staff and students of Atascadero High School have benefited from
our association with the Food-4-Less company in many ways. As the
Athletic Director I have never been refused support from Mr. Souza. The
store purchases a large ad in our football program, they sponsor a
stadium sign and always are available when we need support for any type
of special event
Food-4-;Less is a Century Booster member, they contribute to the
yearbook, school newspaper, F.F.A., and to the performing arts. There is
no otheir':si�agle organization in our community that does more for the
students;at Atascadero High School.
i
I am posittve that Food 4 Less will be the same active partner to the
schools'in San Luis Obispo. You cannot have a better addition to your
community than Mr. Milt Souza and Food-4-Less.
i
Sincerely,
�o
Donn C;lickard
1 Athietic Director
DC:cros
i
i
SOUTH HIGUERA STREET NEIGHBORHOODS
Dear Neighbor:
On Tuesday, July 2, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. the San Luis Obispo City
Council will decide whether to approve a 51,635 square-foot grocery
store with hours from 6:00 a.m. to midnight as part .of a proposed
100,000 square-foot shopping center on the east side of Higuera
Street between Tank Farm Road and Suburban Road, across the
street from many of our homes. We need your help on or before July 2
to be effective with the City Council's ultimate decision....
Why? Read more about the history of this project:
The Proiect
The 22-acre "T.K." Property has already been annexed to the city and
subdivided into 21 . commercial lots of various sizes, the largest along Higuera
Street proposed by the developers as a "small neighborhood shopping center."
The size and character of the potential new grocery store (implied to be Food 4
Less and considerably larger than any other existing grocery store in San Luis
Obispo), is neither "small" nor "neighborhood" in our opinion.
The History
in April and May %:,e organized and opposed the use permit and have
succeeded in getting the Planning Commission to deny the use permit. But we
need your help on or before the July 2 City Council meeting to be effective in
our opposition.
How you can help
The many reasons we feel the appeal should be denied are attached. If you
are concerned about the future of our neighborhood, we ask that you comment
to one of the following representatives before July 2 and/or attend the City
Council meeting to speak out.
Sincerely,
Bill Bates, President of Los Verdes Park 1
28 Los Verdes Drive
John Van Etten, President of Los Verdes Park 2
63 Contents Court
Barry Kaufman, President of Creekside M H Community
Space 95 I Aucr a lrrrallesj!-oeesy rfre.
Bob Mott, Member of Meows Neiffftborpood Action Committee
14 Mariposa Drive
Retain this do ent for
future Courvi►meefirr9
—71=,2,1'7� 2*1WUNCIL 120rIDD DIR
0 FIN DIR
Date,ii agend,zed 3-CCA0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
C]?1TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
38 Las Praderas Drive .mow O 0 ❑ POLICE CHF
j'
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
June 19, 1996 ' ❑ ❑ PERS DIR
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San LUs Obispo, CA 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Re: TK Center Development
We are writing to ask you to uphold the Planning Commission decision to
deny the use permit for the proposed TK Center.
A development of this size and nature is inappropriate for our
neighborhood. Any grocery store planned for this area should be small in
size and designed to serve primarily the South Higuera neighborhoods.
We feel the development as proposed would create dangerous traffic and
safety problems for this area. The congestion, noise and pollution will
decrease property values.
The Planning Commissioners correctly decided that the proposed
development was not consistent with the General Plan. The acceptable
type of development for this area would be similar to the development
done where we now have the Telegram-Tribune, Spice Hunter, and San Luis
Sourdough. This type of development would have far less negative impact
on this area of town.
Sincerely,
Don and Kathy Hannula
RECEIVED
JUN Z 1 1996
CITY COUNCIL
SAN * ORISPO. CA
Retain this document`or
future Council meeting
Date,if agerdzed__._ OCOUNCIL
-- �� CDD 061—R
B ACAO ❑ FlN DIR
GrA ❑ FIRE CHIEF .�
June 19, 1996
!V�TrOPINEY 0. ❑ PW DIR
CLBWAMVG' ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MOMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE ❑ UML DIR .
❑ ------- ❑ PERS DIR..
63 Las Praderas Driue
San Luis Obispo, CR 93401 -:
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CR 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
We are opposed to the deuelopment of a large supermarket
complem on the TK Property for the following reasons:
1. The deuelopment as proposed would likely include a store with a
regional draw creating unmanageable traffic and safety problems,
escessiue noise for those liuing nearest to Higuera, and an
unacceptable increase in pollution in this area.
2. The proposed deuelopment Includes the destruction of too many
healthy cypress trees. Rng future deuelopment on the TK Property
should haue access from Tank Farm Road and Suburban. No trees need
to be sacrificed when an adequate bus stop already exists on the
southeast corner of Higuera and Suburban.
3. Deuelopment of this property should be consistent with the General
Plan and be deueloped as the property north of Tank Farm Road was
deueloped. If at any time a grocery store is allowed, it should be a
small one whose purpose is to serue primarily the neighborhoods along
South Higuera, not a store designed to attract business from all ouer
the city or surrounding communities.
Sincerely,
z �9 C_X��
Timothy an4 Tammy Rrlen
RECEIVED
JUN 1 1 1996
sANCITr COUNCIL
C
o• CA
Retain this document for i
future Council meeting
-2--91v
Date,it agerdized FIR5TBANK
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
June 18, 1996
2N❑L CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
A ❑ FIRE CHIEF j
Honorable Mayor Settle PNEy ❑ PW DIR
City Hall CLEIWAMG� 4 POLICE CHF
990 Palm Street ❑ MGW TEAM ❑ REC DIR
S 13 c READ FILE C3 urlL DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
❑ ❑ PERS DIA
near iJisier Mayor:
I would like to ask for your support of the renovation of the Dart House proposed by
Andre, Monis, & Buttery for the expansion of their law firm downtown. This project,
before the City Council on July 2nd, would allow this prestigious firm to remain a vital
part of the downtown.business district while meeting their needs for additional office
space.
After considering the project,.it is obvious that the.firm has taken into consideration the
impact of the neighborhood and parking requirements with great sensitivity. The
proposed project is keeping with all the current City policies and provides a model for
mixed use development in our community.
I would ask that you approve this project based on the comprehensive planning that
the law firm has put into development.
In addition to the sound planning and development, this project also serves the City by
maintaining the downtown as the focal point of the community. It is of the utmost
priority that our downtown retain as many jobs as possible and this project would be a
means to this end.
Please grant approval to this project at the July 2nd City Council meeting. Thank you
for your consideration.
Since ,
Lynn . L n
P id , CEO, Chairman of the Board
cc: City Council RECEIVED
CITY COa�cwnL� .CP
995 HIGUERA ST►iEET, p.0 BOX 1249, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406:1249 :: (805) 541-6100 FAX: (805) 544-2417
�:
Retain this document for
future C000uncca rneetirg
tie3t?,if g},rd'ze�
June 18, 1996
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
This letter is to affirm the position we stated in our letter of April 19 to the
Planning Commission regarding the proposed TK Commercial Park, and to
request that the Council change the zoning from C-S to C-S-S.
We believe that the proposed Commercial Park is inappropriate for our
neighborhood. The noise, pollution, and safety hazards that would be brought
by the development are unnecessary in view of the proximity of existing
supermarkets. Since the General Plan provides for large stores west of
Highway 101 in the Froom Ranch and Dalidio areas, a large store in our area
east of the highway would result in excessive traffic shuttling back and forth
between the areas. There is a distinct probability that property values in our
living area would plummet. Please deny the Developer's appeal.
Because the Developer has presented a proposal that is inconsistent with the
General Plan, and because of the very great concerns expressed by so many
residents in our neighborhoods it is important that all proposed uses of that
property be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and appropriate-
ness to the neighborhoods. Therefore, we ask the Council to add a second "S"
(special) to the C-S zoning to ensure that all proposed uses are reviewed and
approved before implementation.
Sincerely,
pariposa
S'iCIIJNCIL CDD DIA
p� ❑ FIN DIR
CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
'0/
N j; CI ATTORNEY O PW DIR
I�CLERKl0at3 ❑ POLICE CHF .
0 MOW TEAM ❑ DIR
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 oa CgFILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERs�DIR
RECEIVED
JUIV 1 y tyro
CITY COUNCIL
SAN I 081SP .CA
Retain this document for
future Couixil meetiN 93 Chuparrosa
7.2-,f6 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Uate, it agsrd;zed
June 17, 1996
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
I live on the corner of Higuera and Las Praderas and I am very much
opposed to the development planned on the TK property. The reasons are as
follows:
•The traffic on Higuera is so heavy now that it is difficult and unsafe
at times to exit this neighborhood
*If a shopping center is built across the street, the traffic, noise and
air pollution will become intolerable
-Too many cypress trees are being destroyed to accommodate this
development
This development is a very bad idea which will decrease property values
and make ours an undesirable neighborhood. Please develop this property
for light industrial use as was originally planned.
Sincerely,
Emma Romero �NCIL CDD DIR
�AO ❑ FIN DIR
[�� ❑ FIRE CHIEF t
I EY ❑ PW DIR r
CLERMMG ❑ POLICE CHFI
❑ MGWr TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ Q RgAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
RECEIVED
JUN 19 19%
CITY COUKIL
SAN I Xcusen. cn
STRONG PLANNING SERVICES RollsrRON� A.,,c,P.
f ,
I. .
R;aln this document for '
i = .
i .
fu ure Council meeting
a -z RECEIVED
ate, it .q Wized June 24, 1996 JUN 2 4 199b
f Mayor Settle and City CouMl.;vlembers
I CITY OF;:SAN LUIS OBISP CITY counca
: City:HaIl,'.990 Palm Street. ' SnN a a oeisPo. CA
$an LWS Obispo,'CA 93401 ? NCIL D l)IR
CAO CAO
=FIN
DIR
Sub'et t T K Slio in Cente Use P ` t and Environrne>tel Deteliriinat, A E IP CHIEF
. . 1 • PP g �' ❑'Pwnla I
' �a D POLICj
dear MayorSettle and Couti�il. embor : o ~-TEAM o REc DIA t7 C READ FILE ❑ UTII DOn March 1,1994, the City(otlncil:¢e : ::GP/R 54 93 wrhich pro osed a� PERs
dmendment and neighhorhoo comrnerc prezaning for part of the T..K. Annexation. -
Subsequeptly,ut 1995, the Ci and L Q approved Aiimexahon 0o. 40 involvinS the.
U.acre T•1EC property at ihe' tlthea t ar of`)lii ;
gei ,Sreet and Tank Far4ri Road,
prezoned C-S,Service Co clal :In 3, uary 1996he pity alsoconditionally approved
Tract No. 2202,providing fo;t'subdiviSt. of the:22 acres ihto 1 #ors;the largesf of which
alre'on the;`east S1 .0 Street b een Subufl�ainQad:and Tank Faun Road:
: . .
These actions were taken u•' ng.fwo tigated-nogative$eolaraiigns sapportbd by initial
Studies ER 54-93 and ER.74� 5; inclu. a 1993 tra13ic study"which evaluated potentia]
4evaldpment ofup-to 100.0 ft.of nei borhobd commercial"shopping center,the
gh
# -project which.t6 aty Counc rejected.
' ]'ajanuary, I996,.im permit lication 6d related develo invent plans were filed with the
f dPl?
�ity to enable the;developme t:.of a larg grocery store:as 'art-6 a'• ro osed-sho
P P Ppu�B .
.Oester in;this C-S zone:.The tinning Co . fission held:tw6 public borings to consider
e prpposals,the first on 0 and t
' I
fi qal oa'May$ 1996e Pl�orriniissipn voted.4-2-to dthe use. Miit;as inconsistent wrth hq policies.of tt}e'1994:
11 ene;al plea;particularly.3:1 .3.2.2 atTd 3:531iede elo . . has.a .
Y , er pealled this Paaiiluii ;Commissipn riecision, appary _. that:the'andezet on and s ib ivlsion actions in
some way commit'the City to sliopping:c nter approval;d�spite tha.'.general plan policies:
I `
p
! the first sentence ofpolicy 3: :3 is a.C1.. reason forderiia4l;alone: "l�eye.specialty stores;
i clepartmerit stores of nelghboioo¢co ercial centers Should Ilgt be develq .
Ped in:
ervice grid 1Vlanufactunng Pq]i 13:1:2 44 ther veil oroes:t�te°roasons,that this
r oral or comfit'ni
y. ty sued ter is dot appopriate::at this servica�commerctal and'
riianucturiiig destgnated:lo on `Arid olicy 3 2 2 prOvrtles t#i8t
eighborhood
f commercial centers should m the treq' .,nt':shoppi i$'don Afids of people living tlearb
i `Snot a major cityviwide attraction:"Thep posed project>Ys Cont ' ' Y...
j raly to'all of these policies
I represent a lar$e group of si ighborhoo residents from I;os.Verdcs Parks I &2,'the -
Meadows:subdivision acid Cre lcgide.. a Home Park; w o are.o used to th
abo in !P e
pp ,g center.at.tliis iocatto whether ped fie boyhood Comtfitinity or regional. A
Shopping center at this,busines . ark iota on , : .„ F
P ,Particplarl One con `
Y�:. tldntng a large discount
sdPnai ket`servigg the:entire mtnuni or central Gto`•n re on,;is clearly NOT ivhsf
the general plan Igtetided at s im rant at �.
Po. 8 evyay to'the.girport aha. It would generate
bstatitial ltraffi0,noise,ettiiss ons.and.o, rim acts . .
cOnsiddrin ctuituletiva elo p Which are uot:iQuttgated,Partioiarly
$ dev - merit pate, tial. T1s evic�bnit Stpm the zrecprds;the following
#its melte Ell 74�S iiiedequ e>for use 'tapprovitl an{1 justifyeniat of the use
p�►rinit 6s requested. 3 ' '
i .
1}"Shopping Centers"are prohibi ed st thsaocation•b the
t `U . y 4dopted o „
� se Plan,;.. . . '�'P`.rt L'attd
:2)xhere is.iao discussi n nor rr►l, tion of m
policies.re d� ` C0n¢istency,wit) general plan land use
5 ., n$not b¢rhood, 'ce 001*60 ia(.and manufacturing lir.genial
! :retail commercial uses; s Part of 8R'74=95. `
. '3) The initial study db� clot addre s the.cumulative impact o€this entire prop
not:other oorineraal.'` d m P. Petty
Ai ort Ar ng'zonad properties in the vicinity,"e.g:"the
ea.Specific an, if'thts a of oomirieri~ia1 is.pmiltted.
4)The tialixG st[Idy Hawed;i oris ooiJam '
. 8 udity wide ori c9onal ttade.4m
.9ittiott of the`cenF: but even: ,it shpws�ei t e rQ o�ed cominercial uses '
ere predoatinttly int pd t eas of. t " P. P ¢
o the City' beyond flip South
street ri .Higuera
e�ghborood ole than to of the:trc i�from other parts of ilie;City};
L / 1 .
$)There is iio'cPP.onsirder dbn in t1Re: nitiat:study:for treio iiitpots or mitigation .
a1on8 Los t)sos 'Valley aad betw Freeway lQl iid Sout .,Higuera Street due,
''to $tonal or Unl t'A r
... lnnt al draw (1'he tr c sta y -
,.. .. page 37, ;
concludes that.the proj t s shale.. total:unpr4vemnt costs;:iticludin wid '
g "
and revisIgn of the I.os los VaU Road end pcedoioakl interchanges'with
freeway 101, " should ;deferreii rift!:such d4velo fnorit.v►i iiridet discretio
' review by the'city::.an estinlated the City? -- �'
Y using rhe tratl�o nodal based on a
more finite develo ;ries ' aa."
6)Traffic impacts were ice of the actors which; r'
areas NOT..to. irtciu as act o the`:t994site ative cortimsrc al
r P od on.supploafental
i General Plau ElR traff studies. '
! 7)The project trai�c dy project a 43%increase over
ex.lt ft average daily
traffic even tiyithout re tial or - ulatiye character and
commerci mV. Atude of potential ;
3 aI deyelopm r;but the dy did not,addrrrss :the '1o.project or tmaIler:
pp projoct alternatives wilt h would.b required ooptpci ts,ofali E1R.
8)There are several eu tiAg shop cerifers and, . .
sites provided tri the] 4(toners! len forthis a bfZ . dmonal alternative
This project would dis . • .• tr sal development. .
P oe,and er a the;vital►tY of tYiese other centers, contrary
! to the stated Purposes . d.,policies f the.lieriersi Plah:
1 j
'he ty deeds to.protQcf.inc enhance t :Higuern artd k'a#k Farm toad Business hark
Rnd a hployment center envu ntnent, rat er.tw allow An incompajble commercial
i
'hopping carter ip erode and 'croach o this and the res&ntial n�igbborliood to the
',West. Ad�!orse traffic alone is &giiig't the,e�ustin ap. teiit.4 plaaned develppinerits
iii thq'Vicituty Weare plea that the. and ComtkiiBsin have
J the propoaal as
ulrbrritted;findigg
It too larg and.irico 'sten . vithdoptd general plan policies. lWe.
;.liope.thattheCity:Counctl do•tlie ' eby:danyingtlies
'Phis s ass nt aliy:the'sAinepi jgct that t Ci Corm fl ecEed in„ ch 1994 [n. art
h!. M4 ,, p
;becaiie the proposed iiss Auld tend raw fro a City wide dr evon a regional ;
:sbrvice area rather-than,cat ' S primarU to nearby:naigl►bprhoods,!''itte most substantial
dt ange sifft that 4hla' the tbe.genot. .plan.was adopte ,sn lu�S Policres specaf'*Y
itendgd to prevent this type "soot zo g"and incotcpatible de�eloptnent
We believe that the amentip. gives the itymore op ortynity and';c. ntrol to insist that
this propCrty be a:quauty•addi •qn tg the' proving netghborhogd.rutherthan an Intiusion .
altd detrirgent lofts deVelopih The tion,,pro
wnrg at}d appro4al`o#'the
sebdrvision already sub3tarrtt y Onhanc@ a value 0'.
f flus ptopaity dothpared to Its
P�eviops Ct nditrons AAd.00l.w "hts.
'I a City Council should kli . t.this use: 't-applica'tton I" argil reconsider the
ditiopal recaution of ap"5 s err y p
p � ,. pecral "• nsidaiitions;ov a zbrie�o, t'event •.
pprppriate neighborhood, . ` rmunity; .egional or other general retail uses from
ausittg flus service coignerci end maa designat"ed location.
S
Rob Strong
Q6: Neighborhood Action Committee
i ` ' : •
a n c h
MEIN AGENDA
KATHY Lolms DATE ITEM # a�
P.O. BOX 200
SANTA MARGARITA RANCH
,.SANTA MARGARITA, CA 93453
JULY 21 1996
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SAN. LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
HAS ON ITS AGENDA, A PROPSAL TO OPEN A WAREHOUSE GROCERY STORE By
MILT SOUZA, WHO OWNS ATASCADERO'S FOOD 4 LESS.
HAVING LIVED IN THIS COUNTY ALL My LIFE, I'VE SEEN MANY
CHANGES,' THIS INCLUDE'S GROCERY STORES. I HAVE SEEN THE CYCLE
FROM SMALL, MOH AND Pop TO LARGE CHANGES, IN WHICH SOME HAV$ COME
`ND GONE. WHILE O'T'HERS HAVE STAYED.
THERE ARE MANY ADVANTAGES TO HAVING A WAREHOUSE STORE, SUCH
AS FOOD 4 LESS LOCALLY IN YOUR COMMUNITY. MANY LOCALS WILL FIND
FOOD 4 LESS HAS BETTER PRICES ON MANY ITEMS THAN LOCALS
PRICEWILL IN
SANTA MARIA, THIS KEEPING SHOPPERS LOCALLY, THEY HAVE NOT RUN
OTHER STORES OUT OF TOWN, AS SOME PREDICTED WHEN THEY FIRST CAME .
TO ATASCADERO. I CONTINUE TO SHOP AT ALL THREE MAJOR GROCERY
STORES IN ATASCADERO. I WILL ALSO GO TO SAN LUIS OBISPO TO
SCOLARIS FOR CERTAIN PRODUCTS.
FOOD 4 LESS WILL GENERATE MANY JOBS LOCALLY. MILT HAS BEEN
VERY VERY SUPPORTIVE OF OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY. THIS BEING
ESPECIALLY TRUE WITH THE PURCHASE OF LIVESTOCK AT THE MID STATE
FAIR, BENEFITTING OUR LOCAL YOUTH. FOOD 4 LESS ALSO SPONSORS
NUMEROUS LOCAL, ACTIVITIES.
A VOTE IN FAVOR OF FOOD 4 LESS IN SAN LUIS OBISPO WILL
BENEFIT YOUR WHOLE COMMUNITY IN MANY WAYS.
S �N(C�ERELY
COUNCIL WrCDD DIR 1 KATHY OFTUS
-CAO ❑ FIN DIR I'
CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
IR
O CLERK/ORIG p POLICE CHO RECEIVE12
ElMGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR (
❑ Q l+��I9
D FILE ❑. U PL DIR 4 JUL
❑ PERS DIR ` CITY COUNCIL
tg�r� t�zd►
07/01/1996 22:56 6054661466 BOW VALLEY AGRI-LAND PAGE 04
MEETING AGENDA
DATE -P ITEM #
Bow Valley Agri-Land . Services
14500 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, Califomia 93422 • (805) 466-1468 • 466-1468`51 (fax)
July 2, 1996
Mr. Allen Settle, Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Dear Mayor Settle,
This letter is in support of the FOOD 4 LESS store that is
asking for approval to open in your city. we have known the
owner, Mr. Souza, for a number of years now, and have nothing but
. good words to say about him. He is a highly active. member of the
community who strongly supports many organizations and groups in
the area. His store is very well run and is very popular in the
area. It is a locally owned, franchise store, not a store owned
and operated by .outside interests. Being a warehouse store, its
size and should easily fit into the criteria for the zoning in
question.
If you should have any questions please call me, but please
vote in support of this store opening at this site.
Sincerely Yours,
UNCIL CDD DIR
AO ❑ FIN DIR
F i pJ AGAO 13 FIRE CHIEF
E( RNEY ❑ PW DIR
CLERKIORIG
❑ POUCECHF John H. Jamrog, owner
E3MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ;
❑ C R FILE ❑ UT'.L DIR l
❑ PERS DIR ,
RECEIVE®
J U.I. 0 tyyn
CITY COUNCIL
. CAN i - ncligPn. CA
19 001
ME JG AGENDA
_ff COUNCIL CDD.DIR l; DATE�ITEM # g
RrCAO" ❑ FIN DIR 0
f�ACAO 13 FIRE CHIEF I' RECEIVED
GOJ EY ❑ PW DIR _13ap j ly9G
Q CLERI40RIG ❑ POUCE CHF g JUL
r ❑•MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR v
CITY COUNCIL
❑ FILE ❑ UT1L DIR i �_� 9AN - Harem_CA
ra ❑ PER$DIR ,
Accountmcy C
FACSIMILE rEMORANDUM
TO: City Council of San Luis Obispo
FROM: Eric Schwefler, CPA, Barbich Longcrier Hooper and King
DATE: July 2, 1996
RE: Support for the TK Project on South Higuera Street
PAGES: 1
1 am writing to express my support for the proposed TK Project on South Higuera Street and,
specifically, for Milt Souza and Food 4 Less.
Regarding the zoning concerns, I believe that the project is appropriate for the proposed site
given the retail and light industrial centers on both sides of the proposed site along South
Higuera. Further, I believe that a grocery store is needed in the area, I recently lived in the
South Iiiguera area and would have welcomed the convenience of a grocery store such d Food
4 Less.
Specifically concerning Milt Souza and Food 4 Less, I can not speak highly enough about Milt.
Milt is a local businessman (resides in Templeton) who supports local business and the local
communities. Milt makes a conscientious effort to buy local services.and goods. He also
contributes significantly to local causes and routinely donates excess food roducts to the hungry.
Further, Milt support local job retraining programs by soliciting both the Private Industry
Council and the local office of the Employment Development Department ri provide job
Opportunities to the local residents participating in the retraining programs Milt is a person of
high character that the community is fortunate to have. In addition, the local economic stimulus
in terms of jobs for local residents and revenues for local vendors and service businesses make
the proposed Food 4 Less store a positive addition to the community.
I support the proposed TK Project and I ask you to do the same.
5001 E.Cnmmermter Drh-c,Suite 350 P.O.Box 11171 <. Bakersfield,Califomia 93389 r Fax(805)631-0244 + ,(805)631-1171
1319 Marsh Street 4 San Luis Obispo,Callfomu 93401 FU(805)541.4024 a (805)541.2500
MEEAGENDA
DATE ITEM #
CITY OF ATASCADERO
1918 r 1978
i
June 27, 1996
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Council Members
I am writing this letter on behalf of Milton and Frances Souza, owners of the
Food 4 Less store in Atascadero. It is my understanding that the Souza's are
planning to open a second store in San Luis Obispo at the corner of Tank Farm
and S. Higuera. It is also my understanding that there-is some opposition to
these plans.
I feel Food 4 Less has been a great asset to Atascadero and has actively
participated in a number of community programs. Unlike the Food 4 Less stores
in Southern California, the Atascadero store is independently owned and
operated. As a local business, they frequently contribute to local projects.
The Charles Paddock Zoo has received tremendous support from Food 4 Less. Not
only do they donate most of the produce we use for our animal diets at the
zoo, but they have also contributed to a number of zoo programs.
In 1995, Food 4 Less sponsored the Birthday Party program conducted by the
Zoological Society of San Luis Obispo County. They provided all the paper
goods as well as the cake, ice cream and punch for these events.
Last July Food 4 Less volunteered to sell watermelon during the July 4th
celebration in Atascadero Lake Park as a benefit for the zoo.
Whenever we ask for help, Food 4 Less responds. Sometimes we don't even have
to ask; they come to us with an idea to help. I can't imagine why the City of
San Luis Obispo would not welcome a good neighbor like the Souza's and Food 4
Less in their community. I think you would not be sorry to have Food 4 Less
join your' city.
Warmest Regards,
2COUNCIL 21tDD OIR
l ��AO ❑ FIN DIR
Claudia E. Collier I AACARO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
General EY 0 PW DIR
Charles Paddock/Zoo
ector RECEIVED C "BRIG ❑ POLICE CHF
00�MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
JUL 2 1996 ❑ gRfAD FILE ❑ LIM DIR
• � ❑ PERS DIR I
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS 083S?0,CA
M. AGENDA
r L'ALfITEM
p; 2411O STATE FAIR
POST OFFICE BOX 8 * PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93447
(805) 239-0655 * FAX(805)238-5308
June 26, 1996
__ l'La17.q
tel,
To Whom It May Concern:
The Sixteenth District
Agricultural Association
A California Stare Agency San Luis Obispo County is very fortunate to have as a
member of its community, Mr. Milt Souza. Through his
store, Food 4 Less, which is located in Atascadero, Mr. Souza
has been exemplary in his support of the California Mid-
State Fair Junior Livestock Auction each year. Food 4 Less
DIRECTORS' contributes over $10,000 each year to purchase 4-H and FFA
KHATCHIKACHADJIAN ) livestock projects. Not only is Mr. Souza providing monetary
San Luis Obispo I support to these young people b
p y purchasing their enterprise
PETER G.CLARK projects, he is encouraging achievement in a business
Shandon , venture for these individuals.
J DAVIS
Awc°d"° More recently, Food 4 Less has joined the roster of corporate
GEORGE I—GALVAN sponsors at the California Mid-State Fair. Mr. Souza's
A`ascadGm support and commitment to the sponsorship program is
R.MARINA GARCIA invaluable. It is apparent that he believes in community
aesr°" involvement and the support of local events, and that he is
STEVE MACELVAINE willing to invest in the community.
Morro Bay
JESSE NORRIS Sincer ly,
San Ws Obispo " -
COUNCIL CDD DIR I'
SARO RIZZO � ; rY O ❑ FIN DIR �
San Luis Obispo 9 CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
DIANE TAYLOR Judy King 1 RNEY ❑ PW DIR
Arroyo Grande General Manager/CEO ;'YCLERKICIRIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
JUDY KING ; ❑ R FILE ❑ UTIL DIR ;
JK:vs I
GENERAL MANAGER ❑ PERS DIR
! r -
Imo\\ CITY CLERK I'
SAN LUIS OBISPO,.CA
��0iggeit tittle 3a anywItere "
MEETING AGENDAL. mice D Cardoza
DATE -d ITEM # 01� U"c'L CDD DIR 0 S Higuera St., #B20
' AO ❑ FIN DIR S Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Le 2 7, 1996
TTORNp ❑ PW DIR
CER"% J0 ❑ POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo City Council ❑ MaMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
990 Palm Street ❑ EIVED
C FILE 11V LIMDIR V
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 I Z ❑ PERS DIR
JUN 2 b 1996
Dear Members of the City Council:
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Regarding Meeting, July 2, 1996, 7 PM--TK PROJECT--GROCERY STORE USE PERMIT
Although I plan to attend the meeting if possible, I am writing this letter to
inform you that I am in favor of the grocery store at 154 Tank Farm Road.
I was very disappointed that the City Planning Commission denied the permit on
May 8th and I believe the vote should have been postponed because the one man and
two women who voted against the permit were so confussed by the issue that they
should have waited until they obtained more information.
The majority of people in this area thought all permits had been granted and we
were waiting for the construction to begin. We were surprised to see the people
from The Meadows Housing project stand up in numbers and oppose the size of the store,
the widening of South Higuera Street, and the Bus Stop.
At the July 2nd meeting we will be more prepared. Petitions have been circulated
and many signatures in favor of the store have been obtained. We are much better
informed now and instead of only two people in favor of the project attending the
May 8th meeting there will be many more in favor attending on July 2nd.
I have lived in Silver City Mobile Lodge since September 1962 and in those 34 years
I have seen many changes on South Higuera Street--most for the better. For safety
reasons--even without the TK Project--it is absolutely necessary to widen South
Higuera Street to four lanes with turning lanes and bicycle lanes. Turning from the
two left lanes at Los Osos Valley Road onto South Higuera Street there are four lanes
on South Higuera which narrow down when you cross Suburban Road.
The existing Bus Stop is at the corner of Suburban Road and South Higuera and that
certainly is unsafe because the bus stops at the four lane road and has to cross
Suburban Road and immediately merge into the narrow part of South Higuera Street.
There are many Senior Citizens in this area with fixed incomes who need the Food 4 Less
Store with prices suitable for our income. Many like myself do not have a car and
find it very difficult to do all our grocery shopping using the bus and need a store
within walking distance.
The plans for the TK Project have been approved for a long time. They are well
drawn and will beautify the area. I certainly would not like to see a development
project on that site like the one on Zaka Way.
Please give the TK Project your approval for the use permit for the grocery store.
Sincerely,
Bernice D Cardoza
C 0 P Y
�FEETINU AGENDA Bernice D Cardoza
DATE — /ITEM # � 3860 S Higuera St. , #azo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CY-WUNCIL DD DIR
I3__0A0 ❑ FIN DIR I
y
131ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
San Luis Obispo City Council I0TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR f
990 Palm Street ❑ALERWORIG ❑ POLICECHFf
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C RW FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
Dear Members of the City Council: ry' ❑ PERS DIR
Regarding Meeting, July 2, 1996, 7 PM--TK PROJECT--GROCERY STORE USE PERMIT
Although I plan to attend the meeting if possible, I am writing this letter to
inform•you that I am in favor of the grocery store at 154 Tank Farm Road.
I was very disappointed that the City Planning Commission denied the permit on
May 8th and I believe the ;rote should have been postponed because the one man and
two women who voted against the permit were so confussed by the issue that they
should have waited until they obtained more information.
The majority of people in this area thought all permits had been granted and we
were waiting for the construction to begin. We were surprised to see the people
from The Meadows Housing Project stand up in numbers and oppose the size of the store,
the widening of South Higuera Street, and the Bus Stop.
At the July 2nd meeting we will be more prepared. Petitions have been circulated
and many signatures in favor of the store have been obtained. We are much better
informed now and instead of only two people in favor of the project attending the
May 8th meeting there will be many more in favor attending on July 2nd.
I have lived in Silver City Mobile Lodge since September 1962 and in those 34 years
I have seen many changes on South Higuera Street--most for the better. For safety
reasons--even without the TK Project--it is absolutely necessary to widen South
Higuera Street to four lanes with turning lanes and bicycle lanes. Turning from the
two left lanes at Los Osos Valley Road onto South Higuera Street there are four lanes
on South Higuera which narrow down when you cross Suburban Road.
The existing Bus Stop is at the corner of Suburban Road and South Higuera and that
certainly is unsafe because the bus stops at the four lane road and has to cross
Suburban Road and immediately merge into the narrow part of South Higuera Street.
There are many Senior Citizens in this area with fixed incomes who need the Food 4 Less .
Store with prices suitable for our income. Many like myself do not have a car and
find it very difficult to do all our grocery shopping using the bus and need a store
within walking distance.
The plans for the TK Project have been approved for a long time. They are well
drawn and will beautify the area. I certainly would not like to see a development
project on that site like the one on Zaka way.
Please give the TK Project your approval for the use permit for the grocery store.
Sincerely, , n
Bernice D Cardoza
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
COUNCIL D DIR
a U-CAO ❑ FIN DIR
❑SAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
i ❑�oTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
1-1-6LERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF?, Bernice D Cardoza
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR 3860 S Higuera St. , #B20
❑ CR FILE ❑ UTILDIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
❑ PERS DIR June 28, 1996
Mayor Allen K. Settle
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Dear Mayor Settle:
This morning I picked up a copy of the Council Agenda Report and a copy
of the Council Agenda. At the same time 2 dropped off my letter to the
City Council Members of which a copy is enclosed.
I am appealing to you because I have known you to make fair decisions in
the past. I believe the denial of the use permit for the TK PROJECT--
GROCERY STORE on May 8th by the City Planning Commission was very unfair
to the majority of the residents in this area.
Many of us are Senior Citizens on fixed incomes. Many like myself do not
have a car and find it very difficult to grocery shop on the bus; therefore,
we need this grocery store which would be within walking distance.
The plans for the TK PROJECT have been drawn so as to protect the residents
of The Meadows Housing Project and Los Verdes Park. South Higuera Street's .
three lanes from Tank Farm Road to Suburban Road would be widened making it
safer for drivers and pedestrians. Traffic would flow smoother also. The
.traffic was much improved for Silver City Mobile Lodge when Telegram Tribune
widened our portion of South Higuera.
Before the Freeway was built South Higuera was the main Highway between San
Francisco and Los Angeles and is still a main thoroughfare and also a truck
route into San Luis Obispo so I fail to see their objections to the traffic.
Please consider changing the zoning or whatever it takes that is necessary to
grant the use permit so that we can have good shopping and accommodations in
this area because it really is needed by the majority of the residents in this area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
CAAL
Bernice D Cardoza
RECEIVED
JUL 01195`6
CITY COUNCIL
SAN I ngISPO, CA
16001
MEETING AGENDA Z
DATE ITEM #
July 2, 1996
San Luis Obispo City Council Members:
I am writing this letter in support of the proposed Food 4 Less grocery store on Tank Farm
Road and South Higuera Street.
I feel that the area around South Higuera would benefit from this type of grocery store. The
residents in the area have had to commute to Madonna Shopping Center, Laguna Shopping
Center or Broad Street in order to do their shopping for quite some time. It would be beneficial
to have something closer. This type of store would fit in with the "warehouse" type zoning in
that area perfectly.
Also, the working population leaving San Luis to commute to south county would also benefit
from such a store. The working people in that area would benefit from having access to such
a store at lunch time and to grab those last minute items for dinner also.
I have known Milt Souza for quite sometime and he is a very respectable and knowledgable
businessman, San Luis would only benefit from having such a businessman in it's,city. He has
been active with the North County community and would not be willing to open such a store if
it wasn't going to benefit this community also.
I urge you to approve the proposed store for this area, San Luis is very limited in it's shopping
options and it would only benefit the City and its residents.
-NOUNCIL O�CbD DI®R
Co
1 ACCI FIN DIR
AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
p:KffORNEY ❑ PW DIR
D"CLERWORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
❑„MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C READPLE ❑ UTIL DIR
I
o�
0 PERS DIR
bUW VALLEY AGRI-LAND PAGE 01
MEETIN AGENDA
DATE � ` ITEM # �
Lynda A. Jamrog
14500 E1 Camino Real.Aa dem Califomia 93422•(805)461-1468.466.1468(machine)
July 2, 1996
San Luis City Council Members
San Luis Obispo, CA
Dear Council Members,
I am writing this letter in support of allowing FOOD 4 LESS to open a store in
San Luis Obispo. It is locally owned and operated franchise, not a large regional
operation and will fit into the zoning of the area in question. It is well run and
maintained, and has truely proved to be an asset to our area. Its owner is highly
supportive of our community, especially to the youth of our area. Please vote in
favor of this store as it will be a benefit to your city.
Sincerely,
UNCILlla
9�(p CDD DIR /
❑ FIN DIR
FIRE CHIEF -'i
Lynda Jamrog
CLER O Q PW DIR
❑ IbiG TEq�q O POLICE CHF
O I 0 REC DIR
nV f*� 0 UT1L DIR
O PERS DIR
r
- - -- ...:ouocspasfOC PAGE 2/2.
} ,
14I1112STATZ FAIR
POST OFFICE BOX 8 : PASO ROBLES, CALIFURTIIA 93447
(805)239-0655 : FAX(805)238.5308
r
June 26, 1996
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
To Whom It May Concern:
the 5}2sasnrh D$aia -�
J�'�tOn San Luis Obispo County is very fortunate to have as a
Acau�.>ios�raagr„�s ti member of its community, Mr_ Milt Souza. Through his
store, Food 4 Less, which is located in Atascadero, Mr- Souza
'I has been exemplary in his support of the California Mid_
DIRWTORS: J State Fair Junior Livestock Auction each year. Food 4 Less
contributes over $10,000 each year to purchase 4-H and FFA
KHATCKIXACSADJIAN r� livestock projects. Not only is Mr. Souza providing monetary
S"Lois O&W •1 supportto these g people by purchasing their enterprise
pmERG � young
projects, he is encouraging achievement in a business
show" venture for these individuals.
'4N DAVIS
"=U&MI More recently, Food 4 Less has joined the roster of corporate
GEORGE E GALVAN sponsors at the California. Mid-State 'Fair. Mr. Souza's.
Araidsno support and commitment to the
is
R.MARINA GARCIA , invaluable. It is apparent that he believestep
in community
CM= involvement and the support of local events, and that he is
STEVE M"cELVAINE I willing to invest in the community_
Moro Bay
r
JESSE NOME Sincer ly, -
saelMiaOhL" i. Q-COUNCIL DDMR Ii
O-CAO ❑ RN DIA r
SARO RIM O-KCAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
s�Lau oelam �v�" `" ❑-AT fORNEY C3 PW
DIR
DIANE TAYLOR ! Judy King V ❑'CCERK/ORIO ❑ POLICE CHF
ArroyoCo"de f General Manager/CEO ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C R ❑ UTIL DIR
JUDY KING 'I JX:vS ❑/ ❑ PERS DIR
GEMALMANAGFx
CITY CLERK'••11
RAN LUIS OBISPO.CA •.A. ..04.•.. .S .. w; i �f y:.:_
�..e
cc
aiggeift ,i;Jittle lair. . . 4ag w`aere "
TK S He O I ►v 6 Cu--Nj-R-o- h,, ING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
1. Traffic-It will increase significantly and the current.study did not
include future buildout on Broad St or Los Osos Valley Road.During business
hours it will be extremely difficult for residents of the Meadows to exit their neighborhood.
2. Noise-Comes with the traffic. Right now the neighborhood and Higuera
are quiet after 6:00pm or so. With this proposed store open until midnight the neighborhood will be profoundly
changed
3. Cypress tree removal_Removing any trees other than dead tress or those
that are presently a safety hazard is not in keeping with standards set by
the city. On this point alone it would be a hypocritcal move,on the citys part,for this proposal to be approved
4. Potential decline in proprty values of homes in the immediate vicinity of the store.
5. Reduction in neighborhood safety and crime rates-Increase the number of
people moving through a given area and the crime rate will change,usually in
the wrong direction. Ask your police Chief. 't3 CAUNCIL O-CBD DIR
6. No well paying jobs provided by this development-Sure,there will be ❑_ ❑ FIN DIR
short term contruction jobs,and maybe one or two store managers will be paid ICAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
reasonably well,but the long term jobs provided by the store dont provide a ❑-AFrMEY ❑ PW DIR i
significant economic input to the local economy. Can you buy a car,much 13CLERKCRIO ❑ POLICE CHF
less a home,on$7-8 per hour? And,most employees will not be full time. ❑ MGMr TEAM ❑ REC DIR
This property could be the home of a small manufacturer or professional ❑ ;MILE
1J UTIL DIR
office,paying decent wages,and contributing tremendously to the city's economic health. r) [3PERS DIR
7. Placing a store of this size(this certainly qualifies as a"big box"
store),in a small nook and cranny of the city is way out of character for this town.
8. Your Planning Commission voted it down and advises against it-
9. What happens if the store closes due to too much competition,as Smiths
did in Grover Beach? Food-4-Less is a small margin store. The Marigold
Center,new Albertson next door to the new fire station,and Alex Madonna's
proposed big box will certainly cause problems. What happen to the city
character with a huge vacant building?
10.Deceiving publicity by the developer-This one bothers me the most. How
can TK honesty call a 52,000 sq ft store a"neighborhood grocery store"?
They're relying on the phrase"neighborhood store"to mask this regional
center. A neighborhood store is one you can safely walk to that,in my
opinion,takes up less that 10,000 sq R TK has also been collecting
signatures from all over town lately in a effort to make it appear the local
residents are in favor of the store. Silver City residents are in favor of a
grocery store in that location,but Pve become convinced that they've been
tricked by TK on what will really be built.I've lost all respect for the
planning group at RRM because of their underhanded maneuvering in this case,
rve been to many of the Food4-Less stores in this area and the central
valley and,if this one is typical of the others,it will not be a good
neighbor-dirty parking lots with trash scattered everywhere,loose shopping
carts left unretrieved,poorly kept landscaping. And,rve never seen a Food-
4-Less this close to a residential neighborhood. They're not"good
neighbors"as TK and RRM will lead one to believe. ®
Please decline IWs appeal.Also,please call me if you have any question. F r 4 `j
E
My home phone is 542-0240,work phone is 542-0240,and Pd be happy to talk with you.
Pd appreciate it if you could share this e-mail with your fellow council J Il I ? 1996
members. Have a great day! CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
M ARA-e- FR A u L -0 Z 4-0
13
$ Z
m x o m O T m a
�h r> m I 7" Fn C)
m
� im I :
a I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
D m am $ 9 9 -
. i 0 zt - nC aZ0
m IA O O O n $ .
a �o '" a c
•: b °1 I -1
m:':
r I m _
z
oD off'c ro <� i i� m
Om
mF" mm zo, D cxC n
mtnm n m Z v
O O r, b r-m OZ fD'
C. c �° m f—
o
rn
�v 1 MM
rnm .
Z
1� .�)y'�, Fa; if.•'y. d:.: �E.�: .':e. 'd1S-' �''• ''e?5• ':its: .j��'' •• _u .'ice_"-'.;.fir. .`,�.�� '.r
G.tE'►: �._.a; •� _.. `_�,,. .;'..a.:_'.i�-�� •� :i'G:e.3:.•',:��:... :r�i�4�C.�V• • :�.�':4`,:� , =.�_t.�3i':� �.. -..'.P%':"_''' ti
. .., � �is > .:i j r cyr•.. .r r_n}:£•s:• 4� 'C{+:��� � d � u. �`.,r +4 • A :.� �t r
p 3. r. � stai1�:` r s . n3 'a J'.Y-c':r` ' /� s��yik 1. �.n�. fT �` Y5'v�'r. A �+. •t:_. ' n
��, ,,"' �'�'ATL. 3'•a ',s'�.`�'t f:�s".%-Jt ,,4`�"'",x :•��� r—v ;�4-a`AeF p� .t p.�J �se' eitti� Jp'
•�` J�' �i �,�,'��2 ��,s�r f �+r.�a��'� � �w','L�s-����l l.0 ilp :.� -a8�j'ti.•--• �1�� r �
.i � �rY.�11..n��.�^1•„c •t�� :"�vri�w^., .HFi. ?i i'{'!S'-..rv«,'�, F:si"' s ••�W ,•+l
STRONG PLANNING SERVICES ROB STRONG,A.I.C.P.
MEET IN AGENDA
DATE. ITEM # RECEIVED
_ JUN 2 6 1996
Mayor Settle and City Council Members In-EOUNCIL O-eonm
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO r3-e�O ❑ RN DIA RgryCITMCOUNCIL
CA
9-ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
City Hall, 990 Palm Street ;i O-AfrORNEY ❑ PW DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑-Cid MFUG D POLICE CHF
❑ MGMiTEAM 13RECDIR
Subject: T K Shopping Center Use Permit and E ffi L1A J1kterfiih0icWR
❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members:
On March 1, 1994, the City Council denied GP/R 54-93 which proposed a general plan
amendment and neighborhood commercial prezoning for part of the T. K. Annexation.
Subsequently, in 1995, the City and LAFCO approved Annexation No. 40 involving the
22 acre T.K. property at the southeast corner of lEguera Street and Tank Farm Road,
prezoned C-S, Service Commercial. In January 1996,the City also conditionally approved
Tract No. 2202, providing for subdivision of the 22 acres into 21 lots,the largest of which
are on the east side of Higuera Street between Suburban Road and Tank Farm Road.
These actions were taken utilizing two mitigated negative declarations supported by initial
studies ER 54-93 and ER 74-95, including a 1993 traffic study which evaluated potential
development of up to 100,000 sq. ft. of "neighborhood commercial'shopping center, the
project which the City Council rejected.
In January, 1996, use permit application and related development plans were filed with the
City to enable the development of a large grocery store as part of a proposed shopping
center in this C-S zone. The Planning Commission held two public hearings to consider
the proposals, the first on April 10 and the final on May 8, 1996. The Planning
Commission voted 4-2 to deny the use permit as inconsistent with the policies of the 1994
general plan, particularly 3.1.2, 3.2.2 and 3.5. The developer has appealled this Planning
Commission decision, apparently thinking that the annexation and subdivision actions in
some way commit the City to shopping center approval, despite the general plan policies.
The first sentence of policy 3.5.3 is a clear reason for denial alone: "New specialty stores,
department stores or neighborhood commercial centers should not be developed in
Service and Manufacturing areas."Policy 3.1.2 further reinforces the reasons that this
regional or community sized center is not appropriate at this service commercial and
manufacturing designated location. And policy 3.2.2 provides that neighborhood
commercial centers should meet the frequent shopping demands of people living nearby...
"not a major citywide attraction."The proposed project is contrary to all of these policies
73149 BEL AIR ROAD, PALM DESERT,CA 92260 PHONE/FAX(619)341-2798
41
I represent a large group of neighborhood residents from Los Verdes Parks 1 & 2, the
Meadows subdivision and Creekside Mobile Home Park, who are opposed to the
shopping center at this location, whether called neighborhood, community or regional. A
shopping center at this business park location , particularly one containing a large discount
supermarket serving the entire community or central County region, is clearly NOT what
the general plan intended at this imporant gateway to the Airport area. It would generate
substantial traffic,noise, emissions and other impacts which are not mitigated, particularly
considering cumulative development potential. As evident from the records, the following
facts make ER 74-95 inadequate for use permit approval and justify denial of the use
permit as requested:
1) "Shopping Centers"are prohibited at this location by the adopted Airport Land
Use Plan.
2) There is no discussion nor mitigation of inconsistency with general plan land use
policies regarding neighborhood, service commercial and manufacturing or general
retail commercial uses as part of the ER 74-95.
3)The initial study does not address the cumulative impact of this entire property
nor other commercial and manufacturing zoned properties in the vicinity, e.g. the
Airport Area Specific Plan, if this type of commercial is permitted.
4)The traffic study was flawed, ignoring community wide or regional trade area
generation of the center,but even so, it shows that the proposed commercial uses
are predominantly intended to serve areas of the City beyond the South Higuera
Street neighborhood (More than 90%of the traffic is from other parts of the City).
5) There is no consideration in the initial study for traffic impacts or mitigation
along Los Osos Valley Road between Freeway 101 and South Higuera Street due
to regional or community commercial draw. ( The traffic study, page 57,
concludes that the project's share of total improvement costs,including widening
and revision of the Los Osos Valley Road and Prado Road interchanges with
Freeway 101, " should be deferred until such development was under discretionary
review by the City... and estimated by the City, using the traffic model based on a
more finite development plan.")
6) Traffic impacts were one of the factors which caused alternative commercial
areas NOT to be included as part of the 1994 General Plan,based on supplemental
General Plan EIR traffic studies.
7) The project traffic study projected a 43%increase over existing average daily
traffic even without regional or cumulative character and magnitude of potential
commercial development , but the study did not address the no project or smaller
project alternatives which would be required components of an E1R
8)There are several existing shopping centers and potential additional alternative
sites provided in the 1994 General Plan for this type of commercial development.
This project would displace and erode the vitality of these other centers, contrary
to the stated purposes and policies of the General Plan.
The City needs to protect and enhance the Higuera and Tank Farm Road Business Park
and employment center environment, rather than allow an incompatible commercial .
shopping center to erode and encroach on this and the residential neighborhood to the
west. Adverse traffic alone is damaging to the existing and potential planned developments
in the vicinity. We are pleased that the staff and Commission have rejected the proposal as
submitted, finding it too large and inconsistent with adopted general plan policies. We
hope that the City Council will do the same by denying the appeal.
This is essentially the same project that the City Council rejected in March 1994, in part
because the proposed uses" would tend to draw from a City-wide or even a regional
service area rather than catering primarily to nearby neighborhoods." The most substantial
change since that denial is that the general plan was adopted, including policies specifically
intended to prevent this type of"spot zoning"and incompatible development.
We believe that the annexation gives the City more opportunity and control to insist that
this property be a quality addition to the improving neighborhood rather than an intrusion
and detriment to its development. The annexation, prezoning and approval of the
subdivision already substantially enhance the value of this property compared to its
previous conditions and constraints.
The City Council should reject this use permit application appeal and reconsider the
additional precaution of an"S", special considerations overlay zone to prevent
inappropriate neighborhood, community, regional or other general retail uses from
abusing this service commercial and manufacturing designated location.
Z
re
Nt I
Rob Strong, A.I.C.P.
cc: Neighborhood Action Committee
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM # UNCIL
❑ GA0 In
❑ FIN DIR
❑ ❑ FIRE CHIEF
RI ❑ PW DIR
❑ MG TEAM ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ REC DIR
❑ C D IL E ❑ UTIL DIR
June 24, 1996
(3 PERS DIR
The Honorable Mayor Allen Settle
William Roalman )Members of SLO City Council
David Romero }
Kathy Smith }
Dodie Williams }
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
RE: 22 Acre TK Property, So. Higuera St. &Tank Farm Rd.
Dear Mayor Settle and San Luis Obispo City Council Members:
I am an eighteen year owner/resident of a home in Los Verdes Park Two, and I wrote you
in July 1994, urging your support of annexation of this 22 acre parcel to the City of San Luis
Obispo. At that time I understood that a grocery store similar to Scolari's on Johnson Avenue or
Albertson's on Los Osos Valley Road was the developer's intent. I also understood that major
ingress and egress to this parcel would be from Suburban Road and Tank Farm Road.
I urge your denial of the current TK Development request for a 51,000 square foot store
with major access from/to South Higuera Street. This is totally inconsistent with the needs of this
area, nearby road capacity and the city's general plan.Thanks for listening.
Sincerely,
Anne Sinsheimer
47 Los Palos Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RECEIVED
Q. JUN 2 6 Wt)
CITY COUNCIL
SflN
11"C OBISPO. CA
Rels'ln this docurnert for
folure Colit'Kil meeting
7-,2-9b
June 18, 1996
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
This letter is to affirm the position we stated in our letter of April 19 to the
Planning Commission regarding the proposed TK Commercial Park, and to
request that the Council change the zoning from C-S to C-S-S.
We believe that the proposed Commercial Park is inappropriate for our
neighborhood. The noise, pollution, and safety hazards that would be brought
by the development are unnecessary in view of the proximity of existing
supermarkets. Since the General Plan provides for large stores west of
Highway 101 in the Froom Ranch and Dalidio areas, a large store in our area
east of the highway would result in excessive traffic shuttling back and forth
between the areas. There is a distinct probability that property values in our
living area would plummet. Please deny the Developer's appeal.
Because the Developer has presented a proposal that is inconsistent with the
General Plan, and because of the very great concerns expressed by so many
residents in our neighborhoods it is important that all proposed uses of that
property be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and appropriate-
ness to the neighborhoods. Therefore, we ask the Council to add a second "S"
(special) to the C-S zoning to ensure that all proposed uses are reviewed and
approved before implementation.
Sincerely,
Mott NCIL CDD DIR
*Rob .
p ❑ FIN DIR
ff pA ❑ FIRE CHIEF
f' ariposa
id TTnFiP1EY ❑ PW DIR
RICt< ❑ PCaLICE CHbet A. Mott ❑ MGWrTEAM ❑ RECDIR
/lDrive ❑ c RUQ FOE ❑ tmLDIR
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 of ❑ PERS DIR
RECEIVED
July 1y Iyya
CITY COUNCIL
SAN I- OBISPO,CA
Retain th;s document`or
future Cojl-xit meeting 93 Chuparrosa
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Date,it s:;snd'zad
June 17, 1996
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
I live on the corner of Higuera and Las Praderas and I am very much
opposed to the development planned on the TK property. The reGsons are as
follows:
-The traffic on Higuera is so heavy now that it is difficult and unsafe
at times to exit this neighborhood
-If a shopping center is built across the street, the traffic, noise and
air pollution will become intolerable
-Too many cypress trees are being destroyed to accommodate this
development
This development is a very bad idea which will decrease property values
and make ours an undesirable neighborhood. Please develop this property
for light industrial use as was originally planned.
Sincerely, n
Emma Romero GePIUNCIL UROCDD DIR
V.qA0 ❑ FIN DIR
IKIKCAO ❑ FIRECHIEF f
i
(IT RNEY ❑ PW DIR
CLERi
CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF'
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ Q RPD FILE ❑ U nL DIR
q/ ❑ PERS DIR
DECEIVED
JUN 191' O
CITY COUNCIL rn
CAN
EETING AGENDA ;, ,a✓9�� (► � u,�p,�J, Q
ATE ITEM #
B" OUNCIL D DIR
CAO ❑ FIN DIR V
W9QA0 -O FIRE CHIEF &4 /�_ (I c/d
r�❑,ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR r�- owe n oxeye no+l C.
❑-CMIGMT ❑ POLICE CHF ^n
❑ GMT TEAM
❑ REC DIR..
❑ C FILE ❑ UTIL DIR'
❑ PERS DIR
LYCALL 1-800-EMBASSY
for reservations
9'! 77
�G2t hGr'I rn v�V►l D�eY� g �p U�� ,�
��`"0�`°� �n G L�r►l �r.�.• ®— JPO J QA'.
rvv S °I- I `i/I q�
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I/WE �Q OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
/❑`MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
file C/o1,ej7" 711- a f'{,61
e-
&
& Address
. fa /2-7
Name
J
rLtAbt FLAN TU ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF K'1U ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT, '.'!ANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMEtr . ' YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUN.- `8 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVt.
1/WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
CIMIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED .
Because:
Name & Address
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY {._..._,tN t,:_.i BY JUNE.28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
.I /WE OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
B e c a use: Frere ale bel&- 6-0 a4d JO1I/7/leW`OCd 174W Ar lCl//moi-talo/ L'B�7iy�i!`li/
S`ylll cutlerr deyelrz,,7eitt alesf O✓�f/iq/utQy /O/ a!/if!?cufG/�a✓<r/i�zp rP4�brrQl
eetn/nevw� / 7*�fi�, r/o/se, exLirllllt`� d ,sQ P/ jvrv6/Prn fv ou ��y✓/. 'A�-40ze'
/-e/ ?S hof scarf Gke Bakers{P/d -s� �v/.:7� ur.�i; /ff/F tl o�/,t zo tie
Name & Address
�ve�/-burr�r o�detor�tou�n and fielflg4
T URN THIS _
1/WE Iy OOPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
ElMIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
Name & Address
----------------------------
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR +
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF ''.OU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BU,, .<'IANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMS " YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUK'' 28 TO ONE OF THE "
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I /WEV OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING. CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS •SUBMITTED
1A �� ����, E;� ��A S� 1h(: v Acv q3F:
Name & Address
1/WE U OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTcn - fl-IE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
DO
SNOT PPOSE THE pROPO AL AS SUB�D 1 �
Because:
Name & Address
oe
I/WE FS OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
Name & Address
---- ----- --=------ !------ -----
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF._;'_ `U ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BU:-'' FANT THE COUNCIL TO
• RECEIVE YOUR COMMEK_ YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUW-128 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I/WE OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because: 1" �
l/-t� I �i0 -� fsir�i
Name & Address d�hsr�, SCU
I/WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
IGH SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
E CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED a
Because: >�.
CT-
Name & Address --------------------------
o z
I /67/K OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
Name & Address
R�,3 12- /�—/Z-L--A--L--Z111,-,
--------------�r
—
J,�,t. IGAe
PLEASE. PLAN TO ATT'VD THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, E- '`.: •,WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMtNTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JU`i-.c 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I /WE OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
All
C -z�
Name & Address -------- -- --------------------- -------
,-s o �fid/
rtnsuNb I eu AbUVn.
I OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING. CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because: o
Name & Address
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE. — -
I /WE OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER. BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because,
Name & Address ��' ' - - _____ _ _--r__-___-__----__--
4 PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEM,,q THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEE' ` TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. If ; )U ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BU. ..ANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMEt`°".'; YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I/WF.�OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
Name & Address
------------
1 4WE' 0 OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
A-MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL (Ae-u s
. Ytf L4nt fi s/p�+� �+�i✓ ++e hvr �'�1 4r� -�O-.�C:1.� r �f
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED j
Because:
'y p ✓ ���d5 e C5 �•b� cS +t/P.rveJ� s ./�`��lyYYT
/ c on M GEd/ Si,�t/� J7I.a vti✓, d' .{ra Ords f c.
eoc 7�en yGrS r s4 i iiPv/7 t
Wan'�"Pd ik R,QQSa/r.r��ee� 41°t �' is,� 1�✓u'q �fn �. T/,.r�. ��42rG �� 1-
TJ'+ n cJ
Name & Address ✓oXel * y
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.3 + n Sq .3 '<Llf-1 0-6 'spe-, Cy9. ¢3 5022/
WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
Louis&Anita Beerson
40
s Mior Court
L
San lids Obispisp o, CA 93401
Name & Address
----_-------------- h
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETIVG TO MAKE YOUR `
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF ?U ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BU" .`r: ,--ANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMEI" YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE``18 TO ONE OF THE -
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
/ 1/WE)OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
�/ ❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑
DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
o n-� b T LZc _e 7r v,4 S
4y,f_" 0-71 ���/e /✓–ru�e�u Las �� //� �n
Name & Address "r-5 /"lQ r
------------------------
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I/WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
S S l nod 3 t'1Q i
Name & Address
nrlunN
I CW,F,e)AOPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because: F#115- ! �rj OF 7Ht tUNoA jA) S,L() �eNoTw ,vT
Aiil �DITraN�4l ��/EL�/�i�tE,U�—dFMtZDruM m2 CAkGl- S�
s l
77f J CVECo�Mi.v/P�&Pvs,� �� 7, k � 615P, r�rtc.y �}F v Ll—sf s r art
ANOS &F M47-TXX) w�L() a1'w& (,v 7�F(C- F aM (9t(7S1l)9 T7f� 910
O Vk�CLo�aING T7{£ N�fQ`1`�o2rI✓� srrc rs, -wow Lj At a,+ITL
h-XISTf�G Ga�+9L STL�S cruj o¢'ac{SrN�Sr, y
Name & Address
�{� --------�tij ,�a�,ST7Z0�� S��OS�r9-�U� �/iP!►/t=
C40 VEA,665 1iA26c 1�/
'DING AGENDA /)
DATE ITEM #
SANTA LUCIA NATIONAL BANK
trCqPNCIL D DIR
June 26, 1996 ❑ FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF j
Q AMMEY ❑ PW Dift 1
04CI§WORIQ ❑ POLICE CHP '
Mayor Allen Settle ❑ MGW TEAM ❑ REC DW
990 Palm Street ❑jCL ❑ LMLDIR
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 ❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Settle:
I am writing you on behalf of Milt Souza owner of ,the
Food-4-Less store in Atascadero. I understand that Milt
would like to open another store in. San Luis Obispo.
In my opinion Milt's operation would be an asset to
your community. They do not operate like the big national
and regional food stores. Milt owns his store and banks
with a locally owned bank to keep the money in the local
economy. He hires local people. Their store has been very
active in the community supporting the local high school, 4H
and FFA by buying animals of the fair, the Food Bank, Loaves
and Fishes and many more.
In our business dealings, we have found Milt to be a
capable businessman of high integrity. In my opinion, small
businesses of this character and community concern should be
encouraged and supported.
Sincerely,
SANTA LUCIA NATIONAL BANK
Staney R. Cher
President
RECEIVED
JUN L 7 6"
CITY COUNCIL
nRispo.CA
ATASCADERO: (805)466-7087 0 FAX(805)466-0402 ♦ P.0.BOX 6047 ♦ 7480 EL CAMINO REAL ♦ ATASCADERO,CA 934$3
PASO ROBLES: (805)239-1140 ♦ FAX(805)239-6632 4 P.0.BOX 1947 ♦ 1240 SPRING STREET ♦ PASO ROBLES,CA 93447
ARROYO GRANDE: (805)473-1988 t FAX(805)473-0613 P.O.BOX 106 4 1230 GRAND AVENUE + ARROYO GRANDE,CA 93421
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM # -2
Evelyn Novakj
Administrative Assistant ` O-COUNCIL DD.DIR.
The Salvation Army ❑ FlDFDIR
San Luis Obispo MCAO ❑ FIRECHIEF
Q,ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
pjMGMT
ORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ EAM ❑ REC DIRILE ❑ UTIL DIR
June 24 , 1996 � ❑ PERSDIR
Dear Mr. Settle:
I am writing this letter to encourage you to allow Milt Souza and
Mike Edmonds to bring a Food 4 Less into San Luis Obispo. This is
not a chain store, it is a locally owned and operated store.
For the past two years it has been my responsibility at The
Salvation Army to purchase the tons of food needed to feed the
below poverty level families in the city of San Luis Obispo. For
the past two years The Salvation Army has had 15 to 20 percent cuts
from the food budget . The San Luis Obispo Salvation Army has been
purchasing food from the Atascadero Food 4 Less , as they are the
only store in the area that will give us a break financially.
There is not one San Luis Obispo store, including Smart and Final
that can beat the prices or that will give us a break on the price
for the food needed in our pantry.
Prior to my taking over this position, the former Commanding
Officer of The Salvation Army in San Luis Obispo also purchased
food from the Atascadero Food 4 Less . Therefore, for the past 5
years money that could have been spent in San Luis Obispo was going
to Atascadero.
It would be a definite asset to this town to add a Food 4 Less.
Thank you for your time and consideration in regards to this
matter.
Sincerely,
®r-
Evelyn
Novak
�eRECEIVE®
VFFz- 11 JUN 15 tyro
JUN 4 6 199A clTr couSAN LUIS CBISPOSPO, CA
CITY CLERK
..I , t z nco ?O.CA
MEETING AGENDA 2
DATE ITEM #
Carl -Rjgr-yve- ��1n�s,,t� . m9
,;ZIA 4aS ProcQ w. Dr
Scan 4ots 06tspo, « gIL10(
Gt1� coonc't1 � Ea%n Avis ObtSPO
9Qo PQW Sf
Suv, .vis 06ispot ct) , 93Hoi -3a49
Ime- a4( IKr{G
sv 6 Je c--+; "TK p(91i C+ - 61-ci a 1) S-fo c c lobe Pip fvv,i�
•Zhls -�r�nly ckva ciduv Aj+(� u OIOst +4 P- eS-(u6liur vKvi+
Or( ee c�to crz►� 6� re o rvt 6°I x a s ro�o s Q v� - e 1 K �n�e c G u c&
GVp(a\jCj.S t'Oe ►�lctv+>ntnc��o��,w�css�on ach�tl to c pny V �� �erm�+fir
c�rou. G-6re ()+ Igo tonK -rvrm r2oUc�p . (Du(- �f)MCI c;,ncorv► Is 4-We-
e,ko Y �mc-C1r10Q's c.,v\cicfi6y� -Wrv} p"'IcAils opovi Akvwov, i�o eK4
o�/r VI oV s lut tl P ry c+ V e Inc c�(e oo-!o So�-1ln =\A
cJ e � 1�} + -hvYtcJ,V1av�& +urv, Is cAbso(„+,plr p0oh�t1vA0Ck,O CIJ Q ver,-i-asic-
YietE -truck c,f• W\is 6+rcP-+ Ve- i+nrrea.f.0& IYu-f-At1 WVkC\, VVWiX 04 VOrtgSi�
re Sol+ �Ilow�v� u rrvYa� a� u pA-ec- - SvcVt uS -f- Gtpove j will Q39ri+Vo4e-
1�}pe �c'�carr0�1S �Jc��,r, a-� � as �suaQ.et'a1' cau.�Q Sov-Nn H�� �'ertc (c;�JH—k,
oV f s < «c y1-t c Jq I Lt z� ) ^l mm ure YI o r- ter-R c l t 5 k-1-s ci--
*Is 3Vvxc-h �\D. .._ v� �{`f s� Cl vwa v`f` pwbi evvl oT CaArovl nJ vire(I.
1also bel�eve -H+�uF �,rE lncnre e+noVi}�� (j)muq S�ves Ivt -Hoe Vlclnfto ...
doY\k y�ee�Q gv`�-H�ec cJ
iS G EIS/ F=0
JUN 2 6 1996
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
oca b DR �.
CSIL C;�lt.tQLv� 0 PGyp ❑ RH DIR
(� //" ❑ FIRE CHIEF
pTfOFlrnEY ❑ PW DIR
❑ oERKPORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REG DIR
❑ G FILE 0 UTIL DIR
� � ❑ PERS DIR
MEE1
ATE 111G 4 AGENDA Z
ITEM #
June 17 , 1996
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
We, who are residents of the Meadows neighborhood on South Higuera
Street, live directly across from the proposed T.K. Commercial Park
bordering Tank Farm Road and Suburban Road. We wish to register
our strong opposition to this project as it is currently proposed.
The proponents of this project tout it as being a "neighborhood
center" , when in fact; there is nothing "neighborhood" about it.
The project is in reality, a very large, inappropriate, regional
commercial center that once built, would have a serious negative
impact on the quality of life of all those living along the South
Higuera corridor. There may be a place for such a development, but
this is certainly not it.
Trying to turn left into/out of Las Praderas Drive from/to Higuera
Street is very hazardous at times in existing traffic. The
enormous increase in traffic generated by this development would
make these turns nearly impossible. In addition, our children, who
are mostly confined to our neighborhood due to the traffic on
Higuera Street, and a lack of safely reached recreational
facilities, would be functionally trapped by such an increase in
traffic flow. The air pollution from the trucks servicing this
development and especially the noise pollution would contribute to
changing our nice neighborhood into an unpleasant place in which to
live.
We had always envisioned a continuation of the business park
concept, such as that north - of the Telegram Tribune, as being
appropriate for this area. A . grocery store, especially one as
large as that being proposed, is simply not suitable for this
location, and violates provisions of the General Plan.
The families of .the Meadows neighborhood look for your help in this
matter, and ask that you follow the General Plan as it was drafted.
Sincerely,
G
F
C�-Xdio 11 FIN DIR
N CIL e-CDD DI
R
C3 RRE CHI
EY ❑ PWDIRE
F
10wMCEIVE13 M TQM 13 POUCE CHF
❑ REC DIR I
JUN 2 6 1994 + �% ILE ❑ unLDIR
❑ PERS DIR
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
MEET!! AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
June 17, 1996
SCEEIVED
San Luis Obispo City Council ' "
990 Palm Street ,JUN 2 6 1996
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
CITY CLERK
SAN L'J13 OBISPO.CA
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
We, who are residents of the Meadows neighborhood on South Higuera
Street, live directly across from the proposed T.K. Commercial Park
bordering Tank Farm Road and Suburban Road. We wish to register
our strong opposition to this project as it is currently proposed.
The proponents of this project tout it as being a "neighborhood
center" , when in fact, there is nothing "neighborhood" about it.
The project is in reality, a very large, inappropriate, regional
commercial center that once built, would have a serious negative
impact on the quality of life of all those living along the South
Higuera corridor. There may be a place for such a development, but
this is certainly not it.
Trying to turn left into/out of Las Praderas Drive from/to Higuera
Street is very hazardous at times in existing traffic. The
enormous increase in traffic generated by this development would
make these turns nearly impossible. In addition, our children, who
are mostly confined to our neighborhood due to the traffic on
Higuera Street, and a lack of safely reached recreational
facilities, would be functionally trapped by such an increase in
traffic flow. The air pollution from the trucks servicing this
development and especially the noise pollution would contribute to
changing our nice neighborhood into an unpleasant place in which to
live.
We had always envisioned a continuation of the business park
concept, such as that north of the Telegram Tribune, as being
appropriate for this area. A grocery store, especially one as
large as that being proposed, is simply not suitable for this
location. The families of the Meadows neighborhood look for your
help in this matter and ask that you uphold the Planning
Commission's denial of the developer's request for a 52,000 sq. ft.
grocery store on this site.
Sincerely,
B-OWNCIL L3'Cp�DIR
a ❑ FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF
�f -�rROAIVEY ❑.PW DIR
KIORiQ O POLICE CHF
O MGMTTEAM O RED DIR
C ILE D 11flLDIR
s; -
0 PERS DIR
9;� MEETING AGENDA
. DATE ZJ- (!�ITEM #
C?�•+fio-� CLQ �,.�/• �-f'-�-
7 N ` .
COUNCIL 19 CDD DIR
fJ AO ❑ FIN DIR
ACAO [IFIRE CHIEF
L( TTORNEy E3 PW DIR
"MLERKlORIO ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ M(3MT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
p _C FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PM.DIR
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 7;�-96 ITEM # �
June 22, 1996
COUNCIL WtDD DIR -
Honorable Mayor Allen Settle WCAO ❑ FIN DIR
1,W CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ' '
and City Council Members _ ��RN�, ❑ PWDIR `'
City of San Luis Obispo ErCLERKAORIG ❑ POLICE CHFF
990 Palm Street ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 ❑ R D FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
Subject: TK Center
I am strongly opposed to the development currently planned for the TK property. This
property should be developed in the same manner as the area north of Tank Farm Road
was developed.
Entering and exiting The Meadows development is often dangerous. We already
experience backed up traffic on Higuera between Tank Farm and Los Osos Valley Road
and between the 101 Southbound exit onto Los Osos Valley Road and Higuera. The
additional traffic that would be generated by a 52,000 square foot grocery store would
create an unmanageable traffic situation. This size store would undoubtedly attract people
from all over San Luis Obispo and the surrounding communities of Morro Bay and Los
Osos and the South County area. The additional noise and pollution would also have a
negative impact on the quality of life in this neighborhood.
I find the proposed destruction of the healthy cypress trees along Higuera unacceptable.
Whatever development is eventually done on the TK property should be done without
creating access to the property off of Higuera. By maintaining the existing bus stop south
of Suburban Road,the destruction of eight cypress trees can be avoided.
.To allow a large supermarket complex in a area so poorly suited for it and not zoned for it
would truly be a grave mistake for the entire city.
I ask that you uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Use Permit for the
TK Center.
Sincerely,
Allison Edmonds
37 Las Praderas
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
RECEIVEC
JUN 2 5 IYY0
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LI'tS OBISPO, CA
MtETING AGENDA
DATES ITEM #
Metzler Family
3960 S. Higuera#16
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
22 June 1996
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Attn: City Council
We note that you will hold a hearing on Tuesday, July 2, 1996, to consider
the appeal of a Planning Commission denial for a use permit for a grocery
store at 154 Tank Farm Road and wish to make some comments with
regard to this issue.
There is a group, or groups,who claim to speak for area residents who
oppose the development. They do not speak for us, or most other people
in the neighborhood. We strongly urge that the Planning Commission be
overruled in this matter.
We need a grocery in this area. The city should welcome the extra jobs, the
added tax revenues, the convenience to residents who have no nearby shops,
etc. We've heard moaning about the traffic, big deal, isn't traffic what trade
is all about? Its not a surprise that the chain stores don't want Food 4 Less
to enter their private preserve here in San Luis Obispo. We have driven up the
hill to shop at Food 4 Less many times and will probably continue to do so.
Someone on the Planning Commission remarked that a major market was
just too big for the neighborhood. What are they suggesting, maybe a new
7 Eleven?
Please consider this appeal carefully. Thanking you for your kind attention,
we remain, sincerely,
Donald E. Metzler Patricia M Metzler Susan M. Metzler
cc: T.K. Development, Inc.
COUNCIL CDD DIR
CAO ❑ FIN DIR
CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
TTORNEY [3 PW DIR
CLERKIOFUG ❑ pOLICECHF
C3CE[VEI
MGMT TEAM [3RE,
REC DIR R
❑ FILE ❑ UTILDIR
❑ PERS DIR JUN 1 5 Wo
CITY COUNCIL
SAN L "S OBISPO, CA
..rEETINGAGENDA
DATE ITEM #
RRM DESIGN GROUP
Arrhirri tune-Pia?ming•Envneerin r.Survening•Interiors•Landscape Architecture
June 19, 1996 2 WCOUNCIL CDD DIR 44
1 CAO ❑ FIN DIR I..
WACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ;
Mr. Allen Settle, Mayor WATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
City of San Luis Obispo @YCLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
955 Morro Street ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ❑ C FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
Re: T.K.Project
Dear Allen:
Thanks for taking the time to meet with us this morning to discuss the appeal for this project. After our
meeting, I had a thought about the Planning Commission action that I wanted to be certain you were
aware of because it affects the options available for making this project succeed. The Planning
Commission, in addition to their action recommending denial of the use permit for the grocery store, took
a straw vote to determine what action they would take if the grocery store was brought back to them with
the zoning designation changed to neighborhood commercial from service commercial. The result of the
straw vote was that the Planning Commission would again deny the grocery store at 50,000 SF even if it
was in the CN zone. As you can see, this puts us in the position of knowing that the General Plan
Amendment suggested by some staff members would be a wasted effort on our part (at the Planning
Commission level) and would put the City Council in the same position of overturning the Planning
Commission in order for the project to move forward. It would be roughly the same position we find
ourselves in now except the same arguments would be made under different headings because the
General Plan contains policies in both designations CS or CN, which can be argued either way, for or
against.
I wasn't sure you were aware of this straw vote regarding the grocery store in the CN designation and
wanted to formally bring it to your attention since it may affect how this appeal is approached at the City
Council hearing.
Sincerely,
RRM DESIGN GROUP
Victor ntgome
C 'ef Execu ' ffic
CC. e Ti ,Timm Development
arry Kr tzkampf,T. K.Development
David . John RECEIVE[:
c/a94035\govt\vm-appea1.sett1e JUN k S mo
CITY COUNCIL
$AN L!''^ OBISPO, CA
vr.6 Suu�r HiFuc5::ar:.Sac Lcs Ociico,California yi-a: Euj ;4.; :i C�
io:_ -urn S:rrat. Idu.irs;u,Cabiornia
+.,J. R.It--1,... lF::1.
MEL,ING AGENDA
DATE LZ-.1;'4 ITEM #
�®POS®l� L. �'1I<I➢PP®Q/
43 Del Sol Court San Luis Obispo Califomla 93401 (805)5443037
�OUNCIL CDD DIR
C�r/CAO ❑ FIN DIR �' June 24, 1996
LI ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF .i
!M/TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
eCLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF.,
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
Councilwoman Dodie Williams ❑ R DFILE ❑ UTILDIR
City Hall , ❑ PERSDIR
San Luis Obispo
California 93401
Dear Dodie,
find this "mixing of church and state" a little distasteful, so I hope you'll forgive the
feeling of desperation that drives me in the matter of the development on South Higuera that will
come before the council on July 2. 1 am asking -- perhaps pleading — for your support in
rejecting this specific proposal.
I've outlined some of my arguments in a letter to the mayor, whom I do not know well at
all, notwithstanding my reference to our being colleagues at Cal Poly. Rather than reiterate all
of that here, I have attached a copy.
I've become convinced that the disadvantages of this proposal, with its centerpiece the
gigantic grocery complex, heavily outweigh the benefits, whatever they may be.
A grocery store of the size proposed would be a nightmare for us who live down here. It
would, in my estimation, also be a bad dream for the city. We can and should do better. Help us.
Thanks for considering this appeal. See you in church.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Murray
RECEIVE®
JUIN 2 5 Wyd
CITY COUNCIL
$AN L"c OBISPO. CA
43 Del Sol Court San Luis Obispo California 93401 (805)5443037
June 24, 1996
Hon. Allen Settle, Mayor
City Hall
San Luis Obispo
California 93401
Dear Mayor Settle,
I'm appealing to you as a fellow citizen and as a Cal Poly faculty colleague concemed about an
issue to come before City Council on July 2.
I'll get right to the point: please don't permit the largest grocery store in the history of the
city to be erected on South Higuera. It would be cruel and inhumane treatment to those of us who live in
the neighborhoods. It would bring devastating traffic congestion, accidents, noise and air pollution to
the Higuera/Los Osos Valley Road comer on which a school shares space with Los Verdes Park I and Los
Verdes Park 11.
At one time, 1 was willing to support the developers, bargaining only that they share the cost of
a sound wall to replace the magnificent hedge bordering our neighborhood, Los Verdes Park 1.
Their "stealth" campaign of emphasizing "neighborhood center" and downplaying their plans
for a comprehensive grocery store almost twice the size of Scolari's turned me into an opponent. The
Planning Commission underscored that they waited until the very last moment to obtain the use permit
for the grocery store because, I contend, they knew that its size would create the kind of opposition
now arising, however belatedly. Moreover, their initial notification did not adequately cover all
residents of my neighborhood, as a check of their mailing would verify. Their initial notifications went
only to the few homes along the South Higuera side, even though all homeowners share ownership of
property along that street and have concerns about the kind of commercial activity that is finally
approved for that location. On the eve of the first meeting of the Planning Commission, they met with
members of our homeowner's association and claimed that no grocery would sign a lease until the use
permit was approved. Yet just a few days ago, they announced that a lease had been signed with Food
for Less. Their representations have been calculated, deceptively tardy, and, at times, untrue.
Larry Kreutzkampf, a likable man if ever there was one, will try to persuade the council that
he has spent many dollars, having been encouraged by earlier actions by council. He will stress the
unfairness of a denial at this late stage. I contend that is exactly the strategy — to make it appear that
he was encouraged to go forward and that he cannot be denied at this late date. But when did the 51,000-
square-foot grocery store come into focus? Only a month or two ago.
Please vote to deny them this scheme, and let's work together to bring an appropriate
commercial entity to that property. We have lived in harmony with the commercial properties that
already exist across the street. We would welcome an opportunity to explore more fitting uses for the
empty space that inevitably will be filled.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Murray RECEIVED
JUAN 2 5 trio
CITY COUNCIL
SM I ! _" OBISPO. CA
Valley
We-3h
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1231 • FRESNO, CA 93715-1231
STREET ADDRESS: 144 E. BELMONT • FRESNO, CA 93701-1403
PHONE (209) 264-6583
MEETING AGENDA
DATE
1.�.—q�7-146—ITEM #
City of San Luis Obispo rh COUNCIL CDD DIR
990 Palm Street e1''cno ❑ FIN DIR
j( CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401-3249 i :,ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
Mr. Allen Settle, City Councilman ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C FJEAD FILE ❑ UML DIR
1 ❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mr. Settle:
I am writing this letter in my support, and asking that you support, the T.K.
Project on Tank Farm Road and South Higuera. I also support the Food 4
Less Market that is included in this project and see a definite need for this
type of market in the greater San Luis Obispo area. The Food 4 Less Market
would be one of the anchor tenants for this project and would add a
tremendous amount of tax revenue for the City of San Luis Obispo.
My name is Rick Sherwood, I am the San Luis Obispo Branch Manager for
Producers Dairy Located at 3560 Sacramento Drive. Producers Dairy owns
this property and has been an established business in the San Luis Obispo
area for over fourteen years at this location. Our branch operation is
approximately two miles from the proposed T.K. Project. Producers Dairy
employs seventeen people at the San Luis Obispo operation with an
annualized payroll of$500.000.00. This payroll also contributes to the
prosperity of San Luis Obispo. Mr. and Mrs. Milt Souza, the owners and
operators of the Food 4 Less Supermarket in Atascadero and who wish to
operate the market on the T.K. Project site have been customers of Producers
Dairy since the opening of the Atascadero store and have supported the
greater Atascadero area for some six years and have established themselves
as community leaders. These same two people can and will bring this strong
RECEIVED
JUN 2 5 wo
}�• CITY COUNCIL
T9 SAN I "^ 0;31SPn- CA
Over
4 SOI
Locally Owned � , �. � From Local Farms
VALLEY FRESHNESS
Aizue '000,
Valley
WN ,
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1231 • FRESNO, CA 93715-1231
STREET ADDRESS: 144 E. BELMONT • FRESNO, CA 93701-1403
7 �`1 PHONE (209) 264-6583
r' DO
G
community image to the San Luis Obispo area. As was the case at the
Atascadero store, all the employees will be hired locally and the store will
contribute greatly to the local vendor community. The approval of the T.K.
Project and Food 4 Less Market will greatly enhance the prosperity of the
City of San Luis Obispo. The owners and employees of Producers Dairy
strongly support this project. I ask that you consider these issues and
comments in my letter and request that you approve the T.K. Project.
Respectfully,
Rick Sherwood
Producers Dairy Branch Manager
3560 Sacramento Drive
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
541-0241
o�er
ear
Locally Owned 1 From Local Farms
VALLEY FRESHNESS
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 7_/,4_/9
TEM #
o
O ❑ FIN DIR
r ❑-ACRO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
❑-AlfORNEY Cl PW DIR !
❑-CCCRWORIG ❑ POLICE CHO
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ RE
C READ
DIR
❑ C READ FIIF 0 UTIL DIR
/ rl ❑ PERS DIR I
Poe--
21
mo
RE FIVE®
JUL U t lyyn -
11VIErl AGENDA
DATE 4 ITEM # �2- IMPORTANT. MESSAGE
FOR
A
DATE "7f TIME---V
M
0
OF
PHONE
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
O FAX
❑ MOBILE
AREA CODE NUMBER TIME TO CALL
-TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL-.'
CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALLAGAIN
rWANTS7DSEEYOU '. .; ' RUSH <.. ... .::.
RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION
MESSAGE
SIGNED
TOPS FORM 30025
LITHO IN U.S.A.
S-COUNCIL 6-BBDDIR
O-CAO ❑ FIN DIR I
O-ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
O-Al ORNEY O PW DIR
❑-6LERKVMG ❑ POLICECHFf
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
J FILE ❑ UTIL DIR '
0 PERS DIR
DD---COUNCIL CDD DIR
0.1 AO ❑ FIN DIR j
❑ICAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
MEETING AGENDA ; ❑/ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
DATE _�ITEM # / -- ❑ CLERKKRG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
June 27, 1996 O 5R7 ❑ UTIL Dpi }`
❑ PEERS DIR
Dear Neighbor:
Our project has been scheduled for final consideration by the City Council on July 2, 1996, 7:00 PM, at City
Hall. The project is going to.the City Council because we have filed an appeal of the recent Planning
Commission action which determined that there should not be a grocery store at our site!! They denied the
grocery store despite the fact that we have told everyone what our.plans are for the past three years, and despite
the fact that we previously had approvals by the City for the subdivision map which showed the grocery store
on it, and approvals by the City ARC for the grocery store building design.
We need your help! We have started circulating a petition to get signatures to show that people in the
neighborhood support the grocery store, and we hope you will sign up. However, the very best support we can
show the City Council is people who will appear and speak out at the City Council meeting on July 2, 1996.
To help make it easy for you to appear at the meeting, if you need transportation, we will provide it. We will
have a van at the Silver City Mobile Home Park entry starting at 6:00 PM the night of the City Council meeting.
We will provide rides to City Hall about every 15 minutes until about 8:00 PM. We will also have the van at
City Hall to provide a ride back to Silver City whenever you need to leave. If getting to Silver City is a
problem, please call 543-1794, ask for any one of the secretaries at RRM Design Group, and they will arrange
to have you picked up at a more convenient location and brought back.
we hope that you wiil make the effort iu lei int City -VU11W1 iu,uw tilde is SUPPoft foi tine gfoccri Store! T hC
silent majority occasionally needs to speak out in order to help get something done. Without your help, a
grocery store on South Higuera Street may not happen,even though it is an allowable use.
Please plan to attend the City Council meeting on July 2, 1996 at 7:00 PM at the City Library, and let
them know you are there is support for the grocery store.
If you absolutely cannot attend, please call or write to the City Council to let them know how you feel. The
City Council names, addresses and telephone numbers are at the foot of this letter. Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
Larry I4ent`l:az pf Mike -'*n .
Phone: 966-7888 Pho 63-0358
01_pq A- W61
Mayor Allen Settle (781-7417) Dave Romero (781-7415) Dodie Williams (781-7466)
Bill Roalman (781-7263) Kathy Smith (781-7468)
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
c/a94035\others\vm-neighbors RECEIVED
JUL 0 1 1996
CITY COUNCIL
9AN I 4 OBISPO.CA
f INC. 807 s6 0614 P. 06
Creative Alternative For Learning And Living, Inc.
7635 EI Camino Real, Suite 7
Atascadero, CA 93422 0-05UNCIL E3-CDD DIR
7/1/96 805 466-0766 FAX 806 466-8814 ❑ 6A0 ❑ FIN DIR j
O ACAO D FIRE CHIEF ;
TO Allen Se"IMEETING AGENDA ❑ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
L � D POLCE CHF SLOMayorDATE - ITEM # 0 MGMT TEAM
.
❑ REC DIR
Re: Food 4 Less ❑ C R FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
r] A ❑ PERS DIR
Recently I learned that Milt and Frances Souza would like to open a Food
4 Less store in San Luis Obispo. I wish to express my support for them in
that I have seen the positive aspects the store has had on the city of
Atascadero. The C.A.L.L. Program is a non profit organization which
serves people with developmental disabilities. We give the people who
have had no choice but to live in state developmental centers the
opportunity to live in a comfortable normal family dwelling and to work
in the community they live. The impact we have had on Atascadero
includes saving the City of Atascadero up to $30,000 dollars annually by
doing volunteer work cleaning the city hall and fire stations. We do
much of the landscaping work at the city parks. We in the last year
have begun offering services to San Luis Obispo by cleaning the fire
station and some of the city parks as well. The best thing though is
when a C.A.L.L. consumer graduates to a work setting and earns their
own pay check for-the first time. All of these positive things and we
employee approximately 70 people doing it.
Life at the C.A.L.L. Program is not always so easy. Being non-profit,
money is always tight. We are always facing situations of discrimination
or ignorance among community members. People don't want those
people around them. Our job is educating, our clients and the
community in general. Food 4 Less has been very supportive of the
C.A.L.L. Program over the past 6 years. Financially, they have made tax
deductible contributions to our fund raising efforts. Personally, they
have made us welcome in their store. Our clients shop at the store
weekly, and sometimes are less than ideally behaved. Yet, Milt and
Frances have been understanding and help make our, clients believe they
have as much right to be their as any other community member. I
doubt the large chain store would be so giving. I strongly encourage you
to approve the plans for the new Food 4 Less store. Undoubtedly, they
will have the same positive impact on many of the SLO residents as well.
Warm regards,
1'
Joe Hoeflich
Program Director
Creative Alternative for Learning and Living, Inc.
..__ a-..ra A.,annv Carvinn The Develoomentally Disabled Adult Community
MEETING AGENDA
DATE- �""-ITEM #
PHONE CALL
FOR 727 .DATE ? � TIME
M
OF L,--TELEPHONED
/ �� g RETURNED
PHONE
YOUR CALL
AREA CODE NUMBER ''E%TENSION
FAX PLEASE CALL
Fes' ��''-7 WILL CALL
MESSAGE
AGAIN
/Ctsc 1 cc CAME
TO SEE YOU
WANTS
TO SEE YOU
WUNtU
B'COUNCIL 6-CDD DIR.
ATE A o.eao
13 FIN DIR
DATE o-ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
❑-1TfORNEY ❑ PW DIR
❑-CCERWOR G ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C FILE ❑ UTIL DIR '
13 PERS DIR
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
MEETING AGENDA
DATE a' ITEM #�--
July 1, 1996
3-COUNCIL Es D DIR
Mayor Allen K, Settle [r�'CAO ❑ FIN DIR
City of San Luis Obispo C3'/CCAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
REFERENCE: TK PROJECT - USE P0411T i ❑ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR f
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 2 ❑1LERWONG ❑ POLICE CHF
JULY 2, 1996 COUNCIL MEETING 13MGWrTEAM E3REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR +�+
' �� ❑ PERS D1R 1
Dear Mayor Settle:
This letter is to voice my support for the Planning Commission's denial of a
use permit for a grocery store at 154 Suburban Road.
I admit that I have a vested interest in the outcamme of the appeal of the
Commission's denial as I own a residence on the east side of Los Verdes Park One,
near Higuera Street. I, therefore am concerned about two aspects of the project;
the possible noise impacts of increased traffic on South Higuera Street and
more significantly, the effect of evening and late night illumination (of the
grocery store and parking lot) on the ambience of the neighborhood.
I can attest to the deleterious consequences of increased traffic noise as I
previously owned a residence in the Laguna tract that abutted Madonna Road.
After construction of the Madonna Plaza shopping center and with the increasing
population growth in Baywood and Los Osos, traffic on Madonna Road (and Los Osos
Valley Road) increased tremendously and sice the residence was not designed nor
constructed with adequate sound conditioning measures, it became increasingly
undesirable to live in and the resale value diminished accordingly. Now I an
concerned that a similar situation may occur with the Los Verdes hones located
near to Higuera Street.
I do not oppose development on the Suburban Road property and would support
linded hour commercial and irdustridl uses similes: to those currently existing
on South Higuera Street between Prado Road and Los Osos Vallet Road.
I believe the the Planning Commission considered the detrimental effects that
the extended hour TK grocery store (supermarket?) development would have on the
adjacent residential neighborhoods when they denied the use permit and I would
hope that the Council will uphold the denial.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sinc y,
Kenn Wattelet
P.0 Bo 1712
S Lu Obispo, CA 93406
544-8907
JUL 1 1996
CITY CLERK [
^9io?0.Ca
MEETING 9� AGENDA
DATE- _ITEM # e=EoUNCIL
❑.CAO ❑ FIN DIR
?l p ACA0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
J 0-ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
June 26, 1996 p�LERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C D-FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
Mayor Allen Settle and City Council Members ❑ PERS DIR' I
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm_Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members:
I am writing in regard to the proposed T. K. Development shopping center on So.
Ifiiguera. Since I live in a home across So. Higuera from this proposed development, I
would like to voice my opinion.
First and foremost there is no shopping in this part of town and to add a shopping center
would not keep with the continuity of the area. The size of the proposed shopping center
and the proposed Food 4 Less Grocery store will have a definite regional draw. Don't we
all know people who travel to Atascadero to shop at Food 4 Less?
We already have a traffic overload on the stretch of So. Higuera between Tank Farm Road
and Los Osos Valley Road. At most anytime of day it has gotten harder and harder over
the past five years to make a left hand turn from Las Praderas onto So. Higuera.
I would also point out that the storage facility now on the property has graffiti on it and
nothing has been done to correct the situation. This does not leave a very positive
impression of their responsibility toward this community especially when they claim to
want.to be good neighbors.
I hope you will consider keeping this area for business and manufacturing as was
intended. Wouldn't that also perhaps have the potential to generate more head of
household jobs which I would hope the city would welcome?
I'm sure we can count on you to give the T. K. project very careful consideration as to the
consequences for the residents nearby.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
David and Robin Wilson ,Jud C 1 lyyb
27 Las Praderas CITY COUNCIL .
San Luis Obispo, CA 93.401 SAN ' S OBISPO. CA
VCIL DD DIR
e-6AO ❑ FIN DIR MEETING AGENDA
[TkAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF :I DATE 7 � G
I�TrORNEY ❑ PW DIR ITEM #
[YCLERK*RIQ ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REG DIR
❑ C D LE ❑ UTIL DIR June 17, 1996
❑ PERS DIR
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
We, who are residents of the Meadows neighborhood on South Higuera
Street, live directly across from the proposed T.K. Commercial Park
bordering Tank Farm Road and Suburban Road. We wish to register
our strong opposition to this project as it is currently proposed.
The proponents of this project tout it as being a "neighborhood
center" , when in fact, there is nothing "neighborhood" about it.
The project is in reality, a very large, inappropriate, regional
commercial center that once built, would have a serious negative
impact on the quality of life of all those living along the South
Higuera corridor. There may be a place for such a development, but
this is certainly not it.
Trying to turn left into/out of Las Praderas Drive from/to Higuera
Street is very hazardous at times in existing traffic. The
enormous increase in traffic generated by this development would
make these turns nearly impossible. In addition, our children, who
are mostly confined to our neighborhood due to the traffic on
Higuera Street, and a lack of safely reached recreational
facilities, would be functionally trapped by such an increase in
traffic flow. The air pollution from the trucks servicing this
development and especially the noise pollution would contribute to
changing our nice neighborhood into an unpleasant place in which to
live.
We had always envisioned a continuation of the business park
concept, such as that north of the Telegram Tribune, as being
appropriate for this area. A grocery store, especially one as
large as that being proposed, is simply not suitable for this
location. The families of the Meadows neighborhood look for your
help in this matter and ask that you uphold the Planning
Commission's denial of the developer's request for a 52,000 sq. ft.
grocery store on this site.
SincerZely,
---9�
Bru a an��ki Z/gd?me�r /d���
32 Las Praderas Drive
541-4460
RECEIVED
JUN 2 b 1996
CITY OLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
- - ---- - -mow __
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 7vL% ITEM #__._ "— RECEIVED
JUN 1 8 199b
p l„(UNCIL OOODDDiR
O FIN DIR
0-M �" CITY COUNCIL
4RISP0. CA
97= O FIRE CHIEF
(�-ATTOAM O PW DIR
q,0U9qK10FgG O POUCECHF 3960 S. Higuera St�162
Q MQWr TEAM O REG DIR ? San Luis Obi spo, Ca. 93401.
0 FILE n UTIL DIR
o PERSOM
Mr. Bavid Romero
San Luis Obispo City COUNCIL
S'an Luis Obispo, Ca.
Dear Mr. Romero :
Enclosed are papers sent around Creekside Mobile
Park, To say the least, I am so disgusded with peopole
making decisions for me.
I am all for the shopping center, The figures on
these papers are so far-fetched but you can read for
yourself.
These so-called representatives, as you will note,
want everything an the other side of our city. How about
a break for "us" on this side.
I have studied the plans and think it will be very
attractive to the community. kccording to Barry Kaufman
7,000 people dailey will be shopping - unbelievable.
There was a petition going around Creekside Park
in favor of the shopping center but I didn't get to sign
it myself. I sure hopes it was turned in or will 1pe turned
in at the Council Meeting July 2nd.
It will be great to have a grocery store so near
and when I run out of that loaf of bread or quart of milk
it will be just a matter of minutes to stock up.
Thanks for your time and please vote @YES" for the
shopping center. I am sending this directly to you as I
do not believe the yes votes will be turned in to the
COUNCIL by the opposition,
ost incerel
Gwen qRWi de
REASONS TO DENY THE APPEAL:
1. Shopping centers are prohibited in this part of the Airport Area Land. Use
Plan.
2. The 1994 City General Plan states: "New specialty stores, department
stores or neighborhood commercial centers should not be developed in
Service and Manufacturing areas" (which is what the area east of Higuera
Street is planned for).
3. The General Plan also provides: "The City should focus its retailing with
regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area around Madonna Road
and Highway 101, and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley
Road." (Downtown, Madonna Road and Central Coast Plazas and t h e
proposed Froom Ranch on Los Osos Valley Road west of Highway 101.)
4. The proposed T.K. project has the potential to add more than 7,000
Average Daily Trips (ADT) to our area. Many of the trips would be added to
the existing 17,000 ADT already traveling this segment of Higuera Street and
14,000 ADT on Los Osos Valley Road. About 5,000 to 6,000 of the potential
additional trips would be generated by the shopping center--that equals a 40%
increase.
5. Less than 6% of the project traffic would be from our neighborhoods. More
than 94% would be attracted or generated from other parts of the city and even
a broader region if a large discount-type store is the actual tenant.
6. There are better existing and planned locations for regional or community
shopping center development west of Highway 101 without drawing regional
commercial traffic, noise, exhaust, and safety problems to our neighborhood.
This property is appropriate for business park and manufacturing employers,
more compatible with our nearby homes.
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR
OLISTED C COMMENTS
YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
RECEIVEI
I/WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY JUN 1 8 1996
CITY❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE' CENTER BWN NOT' 9 sPo CA
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Bec us
1 /
N e & Address _ _ ___
MEETING_9 AGENDA
Iaf COUNCIL ' coo DIR DATE—�ITEM # ...
1 ❑ FIN DIR
p ,gyp ❑ FIRE CHIEF '
L9'ATTnRNEY ❑ PW DIR
ErCLERKlORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
MGNRTEAM' ❑ REC DIR
❑ CFILE ❑ UTILDIR
JE3
❑ PERS DIR To
*!eTi&me
n nMDate � M
WH! YOU, WERE UT
RICEIV ® o
Phone
i�ll� ��tv Area Code Number Extension
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
Cf1Y CLERK CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
M sa +
-ro L
reorder 23.700 Operator
O Green Cycle'
REC=LEC FVU2M
MEETING AGENDA
COUNCIL CDD DIR DATE ITEM #
gyp ❑ FIN DIR
I ❑ FIRE CHIEF
EY 0 PW DIR
cU9W4O Q o POLICE CHF
❑ MOWTEAM 0 REC DIR
O Cf1EAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
01 13 PIERS DIR
ToCrAM
_ PM
Date Time
RECEIVED WHILE YOU ERE OUT
IJIll. 1 1996 M 9
CITY CLERK a
SAN LUIS 0618P0,CA Phone f
Area Code Number Extension
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Messag
E / a
b
reorder 23-700 Operator
0 Green Cyele"
�s RECYCLED PAPER
�M/AO
MEETING AGENDA Z
DATE ?'2'`� ITEM #-
R R til D E s I c Nl c P, o U P
Architecture.Plmuling.Engineering•Surveying•Interiors•Landscape Architecture
Lctter of Transmittal
To: City of San Luis Obispo _-- Datc_
Irl,: T.K. Project _- _ -- -.
A94035
Atteilhow Ci ty Cl erk — -- —_- -_--
7
MFT
DD 6DD DIR ,
[ire Traturnit: CAO ❑ FIN DIR
&Herewith Vill: Hand deliveryfi?'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
— -— —�DATfORNEY ❑ PW DIR
❑ hl Accordance will,vola Rrquesr;_ — --- ------ ------- -- WCLERWORIG -- ❑ POUCE CHF'.
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
For Your: ❑ C FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑Approval ❑Distribution to Pin'tifi L)b11OF11 etion DI' ❑ PERS DIR i
ems'
❑Reviews&Conunelli ❑Record
❑ Use ❑. - --- -- --- --- ---The Following:
❑Drawings ❑Shop Drawnis Prints ❑ Letter
❑specifications ❑ Shop Drawing Reproducibles ❑ Prodito Lrtcraturn•
Clchallgc order Petitions -- - -------
No.
---No.of Copies: Date: Description: - -- — -- -- -- _--__-- _lclion Cate:
Petitions regarding grocery store _
at T.K. Project
A,11on GO":A.N".A, In.fax i rn rrr I'Lenumm'l i.I,v tirruelw.an.l Rnnnr In ILr-Uttrr.� __ .. _ _. I ?:;'I:rn:,u l,.'161•r
P.No ai I.Vll Rnpu,'t It.I...:;i"nou'. "'Id ........
Remarks: Enclosed are copies containing approximately 974 signatures.
An additional ±150 and all originals will be turned in at this evenings
meeting.
Colics To: dr L...r....... c„I,1 r.,......
M. Timm ❑ - ---- ------
L. Krueutzkampf ❑ _ _ ❑
By: Victor Montgomery
w]b Suurh Iliguera Surer.San Lui>Obispo,(:aillornu V\Jur N0G/;43-7.44
roc rrr�r S""t.Ahul.Ao.Cuh(nnna a�liJ :•^r/ .IJ-.T•J
I Gibb run(ori...rnubrr
"70-0
��1�� z
PETITION ** ** * ****
v
WE TI[E UNDMIGNM CITY AMOR SOUTH WGUMU STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPQRT THE .Tr PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - DICLiIDIAiG THE GROCERY
STORE(50,000 s ) WE URGE THE CTTY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN HE BUILT.
NAME tP,A4m pxnM ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
2.3.
4. 6 z
s
5. 160 "
. "F % 3
6
S. INY\ OoW1 _ 4 G
9.
14
7zG
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21,
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27-
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For addiitl"intormatton coM
7b=DevdopNNW REMDealp GmV
Amg.- Wde 79mm OR AM: MfOrMmrtgamery
90.0358 543-1794
SITE pL4Lj pRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION 41
00 3ElVd SV1V 5531 7 a003 LL98I96909 bZ:ET 966T/bZ/90
June 10, 1996
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CR 93401
Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members,
On May 8, 1996, the Planning Commission denied the proposal for a
grocery store to be located at the T.K. Deuelopment between Tank
Farm Road and Suburban Road.
Because Mr. Rthon was present at that meeting we are well aware of
the aguments for and against the proposal. We agree with the
Planning Commission's decisions that the proposal was not consistent
with the General Plan and the request should be denied.
We urge you to deny the applicant's appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision. We belieue that a grocery store and shopping
center are not appropriate at this location. R business park would be
a far better use, and could create new jobs and income for the city
rather than merely redistributing money now spent on groceries in
stores nearby.
Si cerely,
Hal Rthon
Stella Rthon
15 Mariposa Driue
San Luis Obispo CR 93401
RECEIVE®
,JUIV i � iyyu
MNC
'. .zO91gpO. C
71z/9� :W �
June 10, 1996
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
We believe that the best uses for the proposed T.K. Commercial Project are service and business park uses
such as those established just north of us. We do not believe that a grocery store is appropriate in this
location.
Therefore, we ask that you affirm the Planning Commission's decision by denying the developer's request
to build a grocery store at 134 Suburban Road.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Bruce ercier
Jo er
11 ariposa Drive,kSLO 93401
MICENED
JUN 1 S 1110
'0CM Lroohc4
7•sD°
July 2, 1996
Mayor Alan Settle
City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members,
We are sending this letter to express our support for the construction of the
Food 4 Less store near the intersection of Tank Farm Road and South
Higuera. We believe this store will provide needed competition for existing
supermarkets and will be an asset to our community.
We urge you to approve their application to build.
Sincerely,
71- Y
40
along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area; at certain freeway interchanges;
and in the downtown.
3.4.3 Appropriate Uses Tourist Commercial uses are those which primarily serve the
travelling public. Tourist Commercial areas should accommodate motels, restaurants,
service stations, recreational uses, and minor retail sales for the convenience of travellers.
To assure adequate space for visitor-serving uses, area designated Tourist Commercial
should not include offices, general retail stores, auto repair, or business services.
3.4.4 Residential Neighbors Site planning, building design, and types of activities for new
tourist-commercial development adjacent to residential areas should be carefully reviewed
by the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, or both, to assure
compatibility.
3.4.5 Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed.2.5.
The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and
minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as. procedures for
exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine
a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character
in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in Tourist Commercial districts, they shall
not exceed 12 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum
residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site.
(See the residential section for policies on density bonuses for affordable housing.)
3.5 Services and Manufacturing
3.5.1 Purpose The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and
Manufacturing to meet most demands of the City, and some demands of the region, for
activities such as wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair,
printing, bakeries, and retail sales of large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored
outdoors (vehicles, building materials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also
accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers.
3.5.2 Appropriate Uses The following types of uses are appropriate in areas designated
Services and Manufacturing. Certain areas designated Services and Manufacturing may be
reserved through special zoning provisions for certain types of uses, to assure compatibility
among the wide range of potential uses, and to assure adequate land for certain types of
uses.
A. Wholesaling, warehousing, and storage;
B. Vehicle sales and rental;
C. Retail sales of products which require outdoor areas or large floor areas for display
and storage, such as warehouse stores, lumber and building materials dealers, home
improvement centers, furniture and appliances stores, and plant nurseries;
7-2-96 �
Wonoaable Mayos and councU embeas:
My nmae U Baarty Kaupt and have ae-&Lded at 3960 South #Lgueaa Staeet
&ince 1982. TAU mobilehome pack 1 Live in, called Cneekaide, has only one
enfaance and ex Lt. If U Ln line with Tank Faam Road �aom and onto lligueaa
St/Leet, puffing all oua paik,'.a fitq�Lc in cloae paoximity to the TK paopeaty.
We appaecLafe the noft�LcatLon and oppoatunLty to ezpae-&a oua opinion on fhe
cuaaenfly paopoaed development. A-& paeaLdenf o� Caeekaide llomeowne&'-&
&aocLaiLon (afaafLng tALA yeas) I have made the TK development the main
Aub fecf o� a homeoumeal'a meeting, attended anotheA homeownea,'-& meeting.,
attended a developeai'a pae-&entatLon, attended a planning commL"Lon meefing
and helped gatheic aefuana nom the two -&uavey-& given fo aeai.denta o�
Caeekaide. The lafeat auavey, which allowed ort three choLcea plus comment-&,
wa-& mailed aaound mid-yune and, out o� 215 homes at Caeek&Lde, I have tecetved
18 voluntaay aeapmuea. Bea-& in mind these ase the people motivated enough f
give a teApomie. Atfached is a copy o� thole teiponAea. The total Ln each
cat egoay a-& o� today, guly 2nd, is as �ollowa:
3 checked og "BO NOT OPPOSC T11C PROPOSAL AS SUBMITM)", one included a
leften &enf to the city council.
9 checked og ""M1071 SUPPORT A SMALLa N&MMOR11008 CONVENICNCC 65XIFJ2 BUT
NOT W CM&VT PROF05411.0, one with a leften affaehed,
7 checked 0�� "OPPOSC ANY SIVOPPING CaTCR ON T#f- T.K. PROPERTY.
Now -&peaking as a aesi.denf o� Caeeksi..de I have talked fo ofAea rte-4UentA
and although the pack L-& divided on the Uaue, moaf people say -&ome kind o�
acaled down g.aoceay -&forte and a aeatauaant would be veay convenient. 1
peaaonally �ind little I can uae at Food 4 LeAA and think thio would &et up a
dangeaoua paecedence. Food 4 Lean U a veay &ucceAa�ul bua.ineaa, to the point
wheae a second one i:-& being built in Santa Alam..¢. I� a aegLonal dmw type use
U allowed at tAU -&Lte 1 bel Leve Lf will open fhe dooa f ofhea aegLonal dame
type developments on other wife-& eaaf 4 flLgueaa Staeef. If would be easy jos
ofhea land own" to aague that "you let them do if, why not me"? TAU LAn't
like ,sub-&cnibLng to a paemLum cable channel that you lafea defeicmLne L-& too
vLolenf and you make a phone call to cancel the ieavLce. It become-& a
peamanent deci.aion we all have to lLve wLfh! I am con�Uenf the council, like
fhe planning commUA!on will look at the 64 picfuae. Thank you �oa you-& time
and conatdeaafLon.
Sinceaely,
BARB K 6FMAN
Paeai,dent CaeekaLde GSMOL/C11A and CaeekaLde aeAaenf
( 8 0 5 ) 543 - 1384
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I/WE .OPPOSE ANY SJIOPPING Q T RON T ETI(. ROPERTY p -� ��D7
04,to" -�.QTCP cz 2t4ol . 'JAZ-
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALL R EIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
I ❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
p p
Because: Ai����lnwcKL yIxx;tQ Girl.
e.Fit�.c.�,+.cLe. Lc-�pGo-,�' ,�:E t�r9'�-o..� zv�, a y-�B•L �,i�.. !'�-rt.�
Name & Address _ __= 3 9 (o o
I/WE WOPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
1
Name & Address �� 1/ 9Zos� � � 1
1 /WE OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
U
W
Name & Addresses
cely t�5-7k
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I /WE % OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
e
Name & ddress
If you,absolutely cannot attend, please call or write to the City Council to ler them know how you feel. The
City Council names,addresses and telephone numbers are at the foot of this letter. Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
Larry Kreutzkampf �oG,SG�Q _ y Mike Timm
Phone: 966-7888 /�� Phone:963-0358
IMayor Allen Settle (781-7417) Dave Romero (781-7415) Dodte Williams (781-7466)
Bill Roalman (781-7263) Kathy Smith (781-7468)
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
c/a94035\others%vm-neighbors
- : - - - - - - - - .. - - �pP� -C �, - - - - -
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND "JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING" TO-MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE'
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I/WE OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
C
Name & Address �
0-01
f
WS # C034
TO OUR NEIGHBORS AT:
3960 S HIGUERA ST #160
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-7453
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS
LISTED ABOVE.
1/WE ts� OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
( Because: —
6
L e�
04
Name & Address - -- `J` _ �D - - ��0-
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I(q ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
D )kMIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE
THE
PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED/
Because: )
Name . & Address � 3�i��S•/����u��-3 S�, �_
Co ygk)
"310 0
U it =
I J
WS C034
TO OUR NEIGHBORS AT:
3960 S HIGUERA ST #3
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-7441
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
1/( II�IF� P1 OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
E(MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
eX
Because: C�/L� ✓rLG22 -� p� � ��
�.�y7?Zy'�+zdLG�72�
Name & Addresses
r
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.---- -- --
I/
BOVE. —I/WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY JJ
MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED I -�- •
Because:` f',0 of ,a1 itv 4` 1105lo(11 QS�GQF1 ►Q al}' fn�� Q�(�t/J/�
nod cu 5l, o0o sQaa &)t f � �1h►� i5 ��•
and cdibb (ZOV x3'08 ' o 5 /rrarzr] acVd WZ
k7odGdTfroUIo cSQti �Jis 0 o, ai&Name Adllress
51V"l�rj p
axi� so qL( ,
I/WE 11 OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
a/MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because: T- C4,7vY Q. 1^28(®ha ( ctk- v GPihl� a (gyp f' /oc. (rDh 4id27
h� /i-t
(ci-� ,� o�iiher� e.a1
7cfeop-w—
Name
& AddressYI'zsC� q _J�8_,� g �Py�_j^ �
oor
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. -IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
1/WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
IF MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
I ❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
I
Because: � G 0'y /-//G[1"'6z.s sT 61iU.e i'ff/Lri i2D) h`�}_S
T/2e_h7E.t.Doa.SGr /N T/le Ajlewzs J /fs9-ve Liv�-p /fry
/J a lwrT S 4ri cA .9 S/n lZ 41�O C/3� /`�9.c,D�e /h a2� ,S l G
/r/0' Tfie .9-ee�q
Name & Address
�/' S/U / //O•Y/S /�lG/LJJ/�G Oma( 77� >>I f32�Go�_p O�:�UP�.Ty� � �
1/WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
K MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
I
Name & Address
I /WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
13 MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because: �C
�M,cam^
c:lt3l-� C�rC f-G� .
Name & Address LC l C./C /1'\C-_/- e [_�G. e�G,C7k-G a—/Ll J Co —
3��� s. (may u S
J. June 24th 199 -
i
San Luis Obispo City Council
I would like to voice my opinion regarding
the 22 acre "T.K. " Property due to be decided
on July 2, 1996•
I can' t imagine having more traffic along i
this very busy stretch of S. Higuera<-. &
Tank Farm Rd. than we now have. It is not
a good location for the proposed grocery
store. Small businesses would be more
appropiate. Big grocery markets belong
in Malls or the outter edges of the city.
I hope you will deny the permit for this
i
kind of store.
� I
Sincerely �
Catherine C. Schattler
` 3960 S. Higuera Sp. 176
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
I o PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
r COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I/WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
Name & Address � __ eft_ -_�1_ _ ----
GyD
- �_�_�_�:�_:v+•M:'•.5,"Tb•ir:)9^..^.:MY.t)•^M•.i,.:a�Y.. .•, rn.. .i .. .-s - ._ .. _ —
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I/WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
J(MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
I ❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because. ��
�,/ fKO
wed stzxle w►CL be foo bl� , Fneoa e -boo
'LfQ�fic, . - Pfo�r� 5 MR 6LPfYNDfime -fir nAL-LRU-42a(2-fltf1 n-5
�u s�ness pa�'k -f( pe -ben r)ants .4'lease soak. i L cl own !
'Tl.c1�. cjb w j J
Name & Addresszq1�
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE.OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I Q WE►13 OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
��❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because: a rl
woo B .7I1.a5 SVAAu-r;,� Nr-,1Wi13 oR—r.1oaD r� g :,
/3N7�1 ow
jolt E*)
Name & Address
"I- MFz'rZ fL nru 4- M. Mr,r 2%,!t S ')sAnv lM
M,yr -- 3 q 6 0 5 /-11 C,% a- (o 51,a
I /WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY —'
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
I
Name & Address
I/WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
DO
NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because: ; .��(,� / dye
Name & Address
S � >
SOUTH HIGUERA STREET NEIGHBORHOODS
Dear Neighbor:
On Tuesday, July 2, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. the San Luis Obispo City
Council will decide whether to approve a 51,635 square-foot grocery
store with hours from 6:00 a.m. to midnight as part of a proposed
100,000 square-foot shopping center on the east side of Higuera
Street between Tank Farm Road and Suburban Road, across the
street from many of our homes. We need your help on or before July 2
to be effective with the City Council's ultimate decision....
Why? Read more about the history of this project:
The Project
The 22-acre "T.K." Property has already been annexed to the city and
subdivided into 21 commercial lots of various sizes, the largest along Higuera
Street proposed by the developers as a "small neighborhood shopping center."
The size and character of the potential new grocery store (implied to be Food 4
Less and considerably larger than any other existing grocery store in San Luis
Obispo), is neither "small" nor "neighborhood" in our opinion.
The History
ww se-1
In Arril 2nd ." we!ay e organized and �Npathe uScR permit and have
succeeded in getting the Planning Commission to deny the use permit. But we
need your help on or before the July 2 City Council meeting to be effective in
our opposition.
How you can help
The many reasons we feel the appeal should be denied are attached. If you
are concerned about the future of our neighborhood, we ask that you comment
to one of the following representatives before July 2 and/or attend the City
Council meeting to speak out.
Sincerely,
Bili Bates, President of Los Verdes Park 1
28 Los Verdes Drive de
John Van Etten, President of Los Verdes Park 2 JV
63 Contenta Court y� l/ ,
Barry Kaufman, President of Creekside MM H Community
Space 95 1 Ai(o►- a rma/1ei-9foce1-y x re.
Bob Mott, Member of Meaoows Neifftbooood Action Committee
14 Mariposa Drive �
S� r►+ JlAii e SM
P
REASONS TO DENY THE APPEAL:
Fl. Shopping centers are prohibited in this part of the Airport Area Land Use
Plan.
2. The 1994 City General Plan states: "New specialty stores, department
stores or neighborhood commercial centers should not be developed in
Service and Manufacturing areas" (which is what the area east of Higuera
Street is planned for).
3. The General Plan also provides: "The City should focus its retailing with
regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area around Madonna Road
and Highway 101, and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley
Road." - (Downtown, Madonna Road and Central Coast Plazas and t h e
proposed Froom Ranch on Los Osos Valley Road west of Highway 101.)
4. The proposed T.K. project has the potential to add more than 7,000
Average Daily Trips (ADT) to our area. Many of the trips would be added to
the existing 17,000 ADT already traveling this segment of Higuera Street and
149000 ADT on Los Osos Valley Road. About 5,000 to 6,000 of the potential
additional trips would be generated by the shopping center--that equals a 40%
increase.
5. Less than 6% of the project traffic would be from our neighborhoods. More
than 94% would be attracted or generated from other parts of the city and even
a broader region if a large discount-type store is the actual tenant.
6. There are better existing and planned locations for regional or community
shopping center development west of Highway 101 without drawing regional
commercial traffic, noise, exhaust, and safety problems to our neighborhood.
This property is appropriate for business park and manufacturing employers,
more compatible with our nearby homes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR COMMENTS YOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THE
PERSONS LISTED ABOVE.
I /WE ❑ OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BUT NOT
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
❑ DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Because:
Name & . Address --------------------------------------------------------
TExT OF STATEEmLENT TO S.LO. CPPV COUNCIL A't JULY 2, 1996 MEETING
BY JOBN VAN I rrE N 63 CONTENrA CouRT
RESIDEli1T OF LOS VERDES PARK II
Honorable Mayor and Members of the San Lois Obispo City Council:
blj neighbors and.I of Los Verdes Park H attended an information meeting in oar
Clubhouse in.July 1944 to bear about Annexation, to the City of San Inis Obispo, of a 22 acre
Parcel Located to the Airport Lend no area, and owned by the T.B. Developers
The purpose of this annexation was to allow the T.S. group to develop a Commerdal Center
on South Hignersn between Tank Farm and Suburban Ronda We were asked by representatives of
the T.H. Group to mite or phone our Mayor and City Council members to give our support for the
proposed annexation..
At that time no mention of a Food 4 Less Store was presented to na When the goestion,of
BIG BOR stores came up we of Los Verdes Park H stated that this type of store would be
inappropriate in the vicinity of our-residential neighborhoods and would only be welcomed on the
West side of 101 Highway, such as the Froom Ranch area, because of their regional draw which
would add significanttraffic noise; congestion and air pollution to our neighborhood area.
Neighbors at this meeting said they wouldn't mind having a smaller grocery such as a
Scohni's or Keney's type store located nearby on the TjL property. We were assured by TS's
representatives that they had no plans for any thing larger than these type of stoma
After getting city approval, WITH OUR HELP, the same T.B. group now wish to shove
down our throuts.a Big Bos.Store (Foo"Less) which care what we oljected to two years ago and
were assured by them would not happen.-
We trust that our able representatives will not be talon in by the nefarions tactics of such
Chameleons which change color to suit their greedy purposes and truly represent the interests of
constituents by ruling on this matter as advised by the Planning Commission in May of this year.
Thank you for listening to the opinion of what I and my neighbors feel about this issue
before yon tonight.
5inoere>,y,
W A50 fill
L'i I I--M i 171.-i2-� LD1:F*i ff-�K-
7ac FIE Aillial.mi MA101610 F!f- bvt!FztJP.
".Q.P.J t,',
OtSWOMMi AS 11h ell A&PA? St NI-Oju -wa;� imW Acqf.;y
-.,t w-i-All: tyj wive
TP.wA Qw,C-!-rw 1�wdlad no WS wdl A awl,
$o 1A nwjy,�--. -1U0 9,;,g C4 L,);2.S-
(13 L'.01nowul w: tau!F zan.1 A hadl :--14
A Moor awn Alp uqzt min; vinb ;b1z,14 CCE ::f.-l.
c-o Na9-11V 11:0 in A0 -4.1
.JR
P{ al F.lrAt1' libM( ,4Svlnajw
'jaeh OR ;WWRi Af A 8105"WO,
WAT A 19. 2.'r tall n(i Z,-.k�
OV&A s, AN f-a-w qwv% A.71, twls-,& �.kli) .'1213L' UTF-WTV, •
wey Ot bubakla 5YI ;ads! Una AW.': iP,2 OrIOR vA gill is nwu-ef'.; iii,y
a-d 1'w- nhh�
-100 AM Lit Whe wwwAy UK :10101MIM-1
od, V,,j rq IMI! -•f P: lon r,% gahhi-1
10
WA 4 1 bn
REASONS TO DENY THE APPEAL:
1. Shopping centers are prohibited in this part of the Airport Area Land Use
Plan.
2. The 1994 City General Plan states: "New specialty stores, department
stores or neighborhood commercial centers should not be developed in
Service and Manufacturing areas" (which is what the area east of Higuera
Street is planned for).
3. The General Plan also provides: "The City should focus its retailing with
regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area around Madonna Road
and Highway 101, and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley
Road." (Downtown, Madonna Road and Central Coast Plazas and t h e
proposed Froom Ranch on Los Osos Valley Road west of Highway 101.)
4. The proposed T.K. project has the potential to add more than 7,000
Average Daily Trips (ADT) to our area. Many of the trips would be added to
the existing 17,000 ADT already traveling this segment of Higuera Street and
14,000 ADT on Los Osos Valley Road. About 5,000 to 6,000 of the potential
additional trips would be generated by the shopping center--that equals a 40%
increase.
5. Less than 6% of the project traffic would be from our neighborhoods. More
than 94% would be attracted or generated from other parts of the city and even
a broader region if a large discount-type store is the actual tenant.
6. There are better existing and planned locations for regional or community
shopping center development west of Highway 101 without drawing regional
commercial traffic, noise, exhaust, and safety problems to our neighborhood.
This property is appropriate for business park and manufacturing employers,
more compatible with our nearby homes.
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE JULY 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO MAKE YOUR
COMMENTS KNOWN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, BUT WANT THE COUNCIL TO
RECEIVE YOUR
LISTED COMMENTS
ABOVEYOU MAY RETURN THIS BY JUNE 28 TO ONE OF THELRErEI"Cr
I/WE 13OPPOSE ANY SHOPPING CENTER ON THE T.K. PROPERTY JUN, 2 8 1996
❑ MIGHT SUPPORT A SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE CENTER BWN NOT TY OBIsPo CA
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
DO NOT OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED
Be us
1 \
N e & Address
-- --- ------------------ —--
r
•
m .? � f�• u. L�IrJL
.
CA
WS # C034
TO OUR NEIGHBORS AT:
3960 S HIGUERA ST #162
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-7453
SOUTH HIGUERA STREET NEIGHBORHOODS
Dear Neighbor:
On Tuesday, July 2, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. the San Luis Obispo City
Council will decide whether to approve a 51,635 square-foot grocery
store with hours from 6:00 a.m. to midnight as part of a proposed
100,000 square-foot shopping center on the east side of Higuera
Street between Tank Farm Road and Suburban Road, across the
street from many of our homes. We need your help on or before July 2
to be effective with the City Council's ultimate decision....
Why? Read more about the history of this project:
The Project
The 22-acre "T.K." Property has already been annexed to the city and
subdivided into 21 commercial lots of various sizes, the largest along Higuera
Street proposed by the developers as a "small neighborhood shopping center."
The size and character of the potential new grocery store (implied to be Food 4
Less and considerably larger than any other existing grocery store in San Luis
Obispo), is neither "small" nor "neighborhood" in our opinion.
The History
in April and May �Ye organized and opposed the use permit and have
succeeded in getting the Planning Commission to deny the use permit. But we
need your help on or before the July 2 City Council meeting to be effective in
our opposition.
How you can help
The many reasons we feel the appeal should be denied are attached. If you
are concerned about the future of our neighborhood, we ask that you comment
to one of the following representatives before July 2 and/or attend the City
Council meeting to speak out.
Sincerely,
Bill Bates, President of Los Verdes Park 1
28 Los Verdes Drive
John Van Etten, President of Los Verdes `rk �</ L
63 Contents Court
Barry Kaufman, President of Creekside M H Community
Space 95 j sinal/ef9tocer,Y rtre.
Bob Mott, Member o
of M ws Nei or ood Action Committee
14 Mariposa Drive �
�®fold®DV d. �ImPP®�
43 Del Sol Court San Luis Obispo California 93401 (805)5443037
June 24, 1996
Hon. Allen Settle, Mayor
City Hall
San Luis Obispo
California 93401
Dear Mayor Settle,
I'm appealing to you as a fellow citizen and as a Cal Poly faculty colleague concerned about an
issue to come before City Council on July 2.
I'll get right to the point: please don't permit the largest grocery store in the history of the
city to be erected on South Higuera. It would be cruel and inhumane treatment to those of us who live in
the neighborhoods. It would bring devastating traffic congestion, accidents, noise and air pollution to
the Higuera/Los Osos Valley Road comer on which a school shares space with Los Verdes Park I and Los
Verdes Park II.
At one time, I was willing to support the developers, bargaining only that they share the cost of
a sound wall to replace the magnificent hedge bordering our neighborhood, Los Verdes Park 1.
Their "stealth" campaign of emphasizing "neighborhood center" and downplaying their plans
for a comprehensive grocery store almost twice the size of Scolari's turned me into an opponent. The
Planning Commission underscored that they waited until the very last moment to obtain the use permit
for the grocery store because, 1 contend, they knew that its size would create the kind of opposition
now arising, however belatedly. Moreover, their initial notification did not adequately cover all
residents of my neighborhood, as a check of their mailing would verify. Their initial notifications went
only to the few homes along the South Higuera side, even though all homeowners share ownership of
property along that street and have concerns about the kind of commercial activity that is finally
approved for that location. On the eve of the first meeting of the Planning Commission, they met with
members of our homeowner's association and claimed that no grocery would sign a lease until the use
permit was approved. Yet just a few days ago, they announced that a lease had been signed with Food
for Less. Their representations have been calculated, deceptively tardy, and, at times, untrue.
Lary Kreutzkampf, a likable man if ever there was one, will try to persuade the council that
he has spent many dollars, having been encouraged by earlier actions by council. He will stress the
unfairness of a denial at this late stage. I contend that is exactly the strategy — to make it appear that
he was encouraged to go forward and that he cannot be denied at this late date. But when did the 51,000-
square-foot grocery store come into focus? Only a month or two ago.
Please vote to deny them this scheme, and let's work together to bring an appropriate
commercial entity to that property. We have lived in harmony with the commercial properties that
already exist across the street. We would welcome an opportunity to explore more fitting uses for the
empty space that inevitably will be filled.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Murray RECEIVED
JUN 2 $ wo
CITY COUNCIL
SAN Li"� OBISPO, CA
MEETING AGENDA Z
�, F. � DATE ?-2-q ITEM #®
R R M D E S I G N G R O U P
JUL' 2 1044 Architecture•Planning-Engineering-Surveying-Interiors-Landscape Architecture
OITr u6�..
c I(;ALetter of Transmittal
Ire n�
yo: City of San Luis Obispo Date: 7/2/96
lob: T.K. Project
A94035
Attention: City Clerk
NTCOUNCIL WtDD DIR
We Transmit: CAO ❑ FIN DIR
n Herewith via: Hand delivery I CACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
9eATT0RNEY— ❑ PW DIR
❑ In Accordance with your Request: 6YCLERKMCu— ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
For Your: ❑ C REA FILE ❑ UTIL DIR 4
❑Approval ❑Distribution to parties xL7 Information ! El PERS DIR
❑Reviews&Comment ❑Record
❑ Use ❑The Following:
❑Drawings ❑Shop Drawing Prints ❑ Letter
❑Specifications ❑Shop Drawing Reproducibles ❑ Product Literature
❑Clrnruge Order C� Peti ti ons
No.of Copies: Date: Description Action Code:
Petitions regarding grocery store
at T.K. Project
:brie..Gain:A.Nn Arline Indic alyd on Ifem Lan:nwtrd C Far Si.,wmrr, mid Remm to Ih:s Utprr L Srr'RrnrwA;'1i11.IZ .
R.No avian Required P.For 5i�unlure end FnnranlinS e:Nntcd 14(4011'LLnh•r'f4cmark,-
Remarks: Enclosed are copies containing approximately 974 signatures.
An additional ±150 and all originals will be turned in at this evenings
meeting.
Copies TO: With Emh-H,rs t\1d1 t:nrinsure.
M. Timm ❑ ❑
L. Krueutzkampf ❑ ❑
By: Victor Montgomery
_toxo South Higu.Strep.San Luis Obispo.California 934or 805/543-1794
tou-inch Strm,Modesto,California 9p9.1 :09/544'1:94
A C.1,f,',C,1,,.jiwi
* PETITION. ***-.*' . . . *, .
WE .,tffi UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPQRT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS"PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE' GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000,s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL.TO.APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEAsE PwNp ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
Aij
Ri� s. �
5.
6
7. -C 3
8: Z t r F
g. �LZ S 't! IZZ - '-
lo. `. \2S\ C1 lu• q{ .
11. Sco 6
12. r
Lq
13. 746
15. �{ ✓�'�e. I u l7e cu sa 5
16. ^�o
19. Le�,ln..�r �S T�T.
20. '00v
i
-7
22.
23.-
.24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35. -:
36.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 5431794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PE'''
ren Aft
. . � . 1 . . • I A • • • • • � I I ' •
• • 1111 • • • • • • I
DID Dole
• . . • • • •
IF � •
1 � L1.MILK1
_ - - - A
'.rte`.../ � �i.• � 01
�
VON� i .I//M�.a./rte
��. •
r i
/ . �m
gim-
• I�I / _tL� i/a
FACM• V. "
qprgp
AL�1 .r.
j
IN
/�/��/�
JII�I/�'�' 1 Ill ► . 1 / .. � ij . i _ � I /
Mull M
fl , if
• • 1 111 • • • • • • I
IWO A
��/./lL�'/�/(�I
w
♦ MEW" /
MOW
Xj
IM MR lfflff�P!Affiop !A,
will 1FAT-Illur
TI M � �`7�L� , • �F� '
l
1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1
• ' 1 Ilf • 1 • • • • • I � � f
dui / / _ � J I�� . / �%I71/7_�✓ � �1/. ,L������
.J
C
lop 9
��ii � I _ ■.�rri _ I. ��.1. cart �_ � ,._�� _ ---
'� r /MrAFTIMIMIL
i
1 i� ��' I o ► .'/'_ r tom-
2=10mol.'i RDA;
raw PIN OWN
WAYA
Ou
As
MENIF
tin WI
iV
• a<�.�� iii/%/�� �i�'•//.I
- _
I J r G� fi.��
MOM NO/
r
rr
r r r • r
PETITION : *
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEAsEPxrim ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1
3. kLM dAr.'-cC to SLo 11111Af6 ` ,
4. o p�
5. '
6. •{/.t..� f +.�/1/t.'ei..e .:S 3 bC� (: A. �' ` ' ..�1....-r ,6:Fi-<..1•
7.
8.
9.
10.
12. I�i t!:! eI e) C.f'.; �rxi—t. ;
13. (' v� 3 6 -Se. r v /, &o ,f
14. ); - C A
IA41
v
16.
17.
vv 7 11
20. /
21
23.
IZ 24.
n� ..
26. r3% 1
28.
30. ?."r 1, ?. i `� �'' ►��1 , -� (v���q- tel/
31,
32.
33.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
\� l SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
* �: * * PETITION �:�:
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE( 50,000 sl ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PmAsE P&AT ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1 'LL L E 8bb 5D. 4j t 4:,1R a q�
2. - L 8 a o . ) R
3. T i
4. 3 0. 5
5. Tor i � S
8-
-9.
9.
o fa 7fQ[
1 .
G,
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION 4
e
50.
I/ 1
'd
....,
. . .. . . •
WRA
OR
a ' `/
IJJJI11�111111IIIII� ilia
L u p
rig
`'�,�� _•Cis. '- ' �� ��_i i�
MANDOMM
• �.
_ wmffi WR
/
Fj
MWOM
EVA
• I i( r
d .
Map, Hill1
..1�►� � � ' i�'�7��r tom:
M.
pip
�111211IIM1111111 1111
• LLf-_
* *** ** **** PETITION * *
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "Tri PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s1 ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(pUASE pFJIM ADDRESS SIGN TUBE DATE
1. lrlcj��Al 1,46 d 7G
�7
2. A icn ,L &. fonT! Z 0y4fc(,
3 r�
4. //35 61 � Y2
5. 6 641-4 yro+3 A-1- 4 Ff0 6 96
6.
6 0
7.
v-9
8. cks zo u.SO4; Rasti 4k7&�
9. � '_Tall 3z4 n1 44,.n8
10. r r a Ta
11.. v-,na 6owlev 61.10 lqk-
12. sT //6 / efl < -�
14. i
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For..additional information call: :. .
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
• ' 1 111 • I • " ' • I I
FA
�i6 Inm4ffmblbwLvuo,it ° - iii/! rr •
. . ♦ . lam. _/. _ I � /1 �i.�-y�f�l/��/��i i � 'i
IPA
- .IAMWAIl.!'7fialw�07
_ r • I
VA
L _ r
1 _ _cif ✓ • A • —L �
i SOM
Mhomm / Y
r I/
Oil AMPORIF161)WIll"I
I re
wl PA
_
RMAU
r -
i •
� , 1 11 11 1 1 11 11
� 1 I
• ' 1111 • • • • • • I
- r _
WE
i i ._� girl /� _.•!%'
:1.714,MIMI
.,iii! ,
-s:i•Li.J-»�.ir���lei�.. ._ --
L�����.r� Ate,=w�y=i �•:��w.•�7��Ii'i.�s.d�1�c.h:����IlS7
T/�f:.�►1�:.i�\�1'�r. �,Il�; 1 ►1. !e,� :. �,�! P„��t,Y��/+".. .IJ i �, i,lr .1!�if �.�
* * * **** *** PETITION ** *
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPaRT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 sl ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(p7.F-A-SEPRIN7) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
2.
3. frS" f
PZ3 S °
4. -
5. ;j*1A,P7 --:g�a,4 Z,;4Q1�-f L
6. 3 �S
7.
8. sI# 2i
9. Uk S S � •[ $ Cos c y.'G
Or
11. �+ i�vz �- zd - 56
72 ro.Tl,J) AP12 = o s Lv � -�i 6 JZal9d
1�-
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
IW w '101ft
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
4
** *** * PETITION * * *
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPQRT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 sl ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
S, L - O Fees/ D-e h-tS OW 11
NAME(PLEASE mim ADDRESS SIGNATLIRE DATE
1. -• Pn/o�,C � of-� �
2. 04kP, PAPAZ l
3. 1A A
4. '
5. U�
6. -
7• S EL� vErdr S� as aS . `
8. r i
9-
I 1. ! ,2 Edna S'L.-.o
12. hrrn-&n 5-Peber- 11 3157 A L-05 A565 U/cA fcl (aJMW
ZZZ4r
13. KokT M e-C C-Ad zu/ a CeK04-ra z-o
14. f`' -e+ Lis b o� �3 Zy
15.G\ 1(o K LA;r �he r v Lb
16.
17. • Y _ _ ^ �a(2G�c
18. v�
19. 1-3-3o7 Q LU 9A10 .2
20. retie rnb 5 sa S st -
21. 122<1 ETI C&,M o L z�
22 e ,0aLx r,, doj)JtA Dr. d C13q0 l
23. t U't v St1'z c. pi v `"
24. r - /<&g L Lo 9
2 a h
27. ck 3 0
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
31-
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
* ** PETITION * * ** *
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
2. ( C VJ a�..+M�=� en .
3. CV a� '
wa Ave . _
4. WeS G Saw er 1147 au,-e/ Lil,
5. 1 I /o to .
6.
7. C
9. 2 s /et(
10. Z
F•� Je �i
al��l ecl�ee .,• 6/zs
11.
a 012 ,016
13. - 6
14. C� 3
16. ra- r :° P
17. 7% Ortufl 9
18.
1 a ,� _ i
9.
20. 3 , . (vZ
21. ►L- LI A .,c J-'�1 U�H r � SIT ,�, ti s co 6
22. . a
23. 2 6
24. h7let
1gjz;k4
25. . � SLp zy_ b
26. ! a CLQ
27.
28. ► s 6 _
29. ` �� r h,k1 _
30. &7NAA ,E )d PC r C E; G O,2r�GE�4J P� L U G-Z r-tet
31. a/Z/c h o 55
32. _
33. et�Uu�7 gas z 9G
34. , vR /4 V."5-1'>
35. j Aij A i I A & P S
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
* PETITION
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 sl ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NA M(PLEASEPPJNT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
�;
2. fAorl- aro Pn )03t" ar- 5-A-,q _ l 6/moi
3. , - -?A,(
4r4�1�b( 'A)JV�AA L400 � J 514�4-6 rn<:;A MAB 5(-6 q
5. cMzzj ( 92y L1.I 4 {,
6. v� 1S �lllll �5s c 3G (O
8. � ►,1 ? P►�a cm.�v ,� 6 �� ,6
9.
10.
12. 3(a5 A Al 6bOOV l cc a�/9(,
13.
1 r Z 4 ► .r r� a C 1�,-lam C r /r-
15. aa � L��w,IVPc. lb3 aN�� sr qrr 3 6
16.
17. 5 a Z
18. 13 \Sa c.O a. a 9�
19. c 3/ nog cc C5L, 0600 - - 9.6
20. q 600 urtl tia 1,T d v q, �79/P
21. (O9 U , S Ldl KL
22LI aro
23. c o a O -Aj 414Vwl S -a)
7�
25. S a ISLO
26. a. 0y S L o
28. 1/tet
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
i SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
* PETITION
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPaRT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERNUT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASE nw) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
2. �, �, z
4. (VV-. WIMP& 6
5. S,c 3 M9&ri 9(,S ST Fi t �I ZS
6.
7. �Ezs Ro / �Q 6' Z
9. ► ZI
c 9�
10.
11. ,ter I 6 Z6
12.
13. 7Lkjft 0gedir, do knbL . 4-10 '
14. IRIS Fmh-m b a q6
15. 7a„;d Vo,Jenlle ra 10 t1K5fC" 'Dr. � G z�/QG
16. s/'f & xve D Ay 6 ad 6
17. TrA05 keAvC-L Z 5Aug ' � 26/96
18. inzs Latey C. • 34a
19. 3o a h S V N ve.411 1 �la� 6 - 26-26
20. Tod Smrra lwikf 1-4)2 OA I PIK -- ar
21 ky Aj�i I t 1AG=4 31 ERRh 6A= G wtQt*') - - g t.
22. S a, "�
331✓ �a �' R6
23. r
24. c K .., o. N 4 04 111� 'l e !-4 1'
25. i c 0 - #1
26. I6tx v rjn
27. 6 D 1
28. 4r19104 I�Z,- 7"199
29.
30. - 1160 0
31.
32.
33. Sc,, 5..i4 // F-qo- c- 2 6
35. tY70tt/L, ZtickiQ IVW BAAL #A -/ LeAelb cCw,-0 a
36. Loc fug'Al, ill &Aah6ft-A Or CA21 40E -- L_-9(1
37. or
For additional information call:
Timm Development, RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
9 Ole
• ' 1 111 Vol I • • " ' • 1 I
� .
owl
al.rfx_�KARM for
IMM
_ Ja -
• 1
rA
ow
1kawwo Mid
.l ► L_
W&FA as 1 �W�W► rjr
�.Wii.
91171 M- 1 M
i
WR
Lo—1
MAN
AMER
lAi,_ -' ; fid'
MUM,FMJ�Mfooft�-ffl�-PANE
-
* PETITION
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 sl ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASEPRmy) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
`T4,,.- Tisc -7e/.4
2. 0 1 CjrttAA ,&e-*
3. vyue, "' n I -Tr ,6 �b
4. Ica
7. � S" CrY16 v/Z
8. lCI'Cp
9•A�eG��c-a t_��K--. ���-1� Sl-a�lc— �-}- l�le t..o��ts/�rio
15. Vtov T i o4 3 Ei
17. zrm , 410
18.
19.
20. 141kr
21. !z Ord
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery .
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
• ' 1111 • • � ' • ' • •
-
OW
�AfArplpmFwAww F. w V.
WAF
MAMI
•� OVA
' "'Twor i
"A 11ME
AIWYIM
r
r . , , rr . r r rr
rr I ' r r
r.
* PETITION
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAIVIE(PLEASEPRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1. ��S •� X�5S dojo Z ��
2. 4 - 4 1111A A b T� z_
3 a
13/
5. vie 3 gG D S /5!d
2� 6
10. .0 A-9 5. H(GUEM 5. L.O. (c'zZ-9
tffewo 1 .9 _,Z2- 7
12. 3 /-Y.te0,fzo5l
13. A 2 S
14. e lG 0 S
15. (o o S o. ,�,r4-4-1' / -//d SLo
16. So.
17.
18. 6-z2-a
19. o R
20. M6-z
21. . #"/6S S. ( .a . (?a-
4
23. -22. 9G
24. o. &,0
25. S o iai t.o CAL 10 - 2q,&
26. :Q ai,. H 3YGa S. irx 171 0,4- 0- G Sz 34
27. 3g6 e S ),41- -3=- -a0 ,6 e y C=
28. 3j (,v S rQ CS-7 SLo CA G122-
29. - -4 G 5 // r
30. 7-
3
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
r.
PETITION
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASEPRINT) u'tA`ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1. -
2.
qOPA 5. 4,4 J0A1Z&-
5.
6. Aa 9 ado s
7. o -2.9. J.
u it
8.
9.
10.
11. Afgj, W0
12.
13.
3960 5
140 5 AL G -
15 #Pus j/-0 CA.
16. . .
17. m 93s�6 lv -o2c7 - 9(P
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information calk
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
i
. . ,� . . . • • • • � • r r ' •
1 off
a/a
0 WA
I.fii i �
F-M)' �i -
_ _
rig
u► L�WWNWINWWAMRWRM
C
I Mm MM SCUPS
UM
..!► . mit . _ ���
�',ls�\moi
- ►: • '_� �.• �t� � .e�Li �.�� i -ice
' _ Iii l..� G►. ��� � J� � _
MM I
J�d MUM
ME mil Pff-A
FAMAMM
• l
AA
' / IAV� "ll"
i
I
I
at
• ' 1 111 • • " ' • I I
��.. i
�- O-
Q / . d if ;i
PRIA
XMI W.2
A 4D
` • L� wL�
•
* PETITION **
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE( 50,000 s-E ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASE PRiNI) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
iI ��,�/�,
e
2. S IE05-
3.
Eur3. 1 KIM /34:1 AM b2P
4.
5.
6.
7. rNInlles, Cer-fro PZmaulda Pr-r 1 ) it Z''
8. �: rtir�rr ;. aqG ( Y �,�r-,,? ri, I ;?� I�9`Z.3 ci
9. ��' / ` .9
10 .MdL� Z3 JON-90
14.
17. 110 c le4rJ4 CL —Z �-
?IYr6
18. 1!i; Q �\nM 1n „r 0 ' if
"l1c21 d'f i it } , ur / -
19.
20. 49 a C
21. , • ;vii - ytt ✓E �3� �,,.
22. ! 1
24,
25.;.ficia
26. Marl
27. u a G a
28.
30. r&6KAt
S , tilsar, 36�-w ��w,vwmn�R -
31.
32. f. 2 Q6
33. 1tkA << �� c^
34. -------
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
PETITION *
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
i
2. ' 2-1I Z- 6
3.
zo
6. � � ° —
7 ZAAWI - k 3Z3-9 465 O5b-5 G )w 6. La • 9�
9. e.✓b L c S+ Jl�uLo • P—I —Cho
12.
13.
Igor I
14.
15.
18. .. t� Lace i �v� �� « � s0 t
19. 8a L-G 4 -,u-F
20.
21. r ' r S
22.
2 r
24.
25.
26. _
27. eco .ai
2 . e ' Ca .
29. Al a2rj 1141. / s d _
30. S ' LD 3u o
31. o S �S
32. i p
33. L �21
34. =map=.
35. T 'NoWL 09
36. .2 JAA
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
/rf 963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
PETITI®N : x :r : :��: �k �Y4 =kk>E
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GIZOCERY.STORE SO TH LT AN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASEPRIN7) 'A ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
2.
4. 6a,%� ✓ v 30 514
7l-c. • 7�G 6' z,3 - �L
6. A L.4 ?,12
7.
8. ti u.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
******************* PETITION *
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 sl ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE.USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NA M(PL-EASEPRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1. . U� i'`�2 .4�..t i r ���5:1�r c�tt�•�C __ � 6' - �Y _ g'�
2.
3' d s 9�
4. �' c ' / (nn
5' d ct CA o 1-L i
6.
7.
9.
�'i
13. Pc,,,- A.,
14. l��/,1/ .%�; . ll�� rJl/� + �'t . 1.�� I�h . 17y� ;?I r '/ / �/
15. ,
16. `C' 2�'• r�i9r r�l�G? 3 rs&0 /74= u ,;,Ci
17. es/r' aw, s 3 S� 3-v 5 c•i e. I ` = ;/ � 6 r, -
18. Y S :ti's i /y i s S �S�v �',L�;�, �. •-,�c� r C
19.
20. r 4 /3 4 , / z.A,aF Ar C G1 1.J
21.
z
Z .E .mar 1 .� E /z .
22. CLEi�(1J cTrC t{., t� S�[ L�><l LTJ S(.2- 3 :� 2-2-
23. -
t n3 /�'W. S(-tom
.. ,JC
24.; ; v �- �tl k.. iZ-� 1pZ
25. 7G Lc G Ly
C-L� I fr C Kn4 r 1 -D i t l f l�fly
27.
:�. � c fes:�..: �•, 4.�! L. S c �;:: /, �zL'
28.
29. T6, I 4c up
30. Z-19-6
32.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
4, Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
I 963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PE
ZC�
PETITION *
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 sl ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASEPPwm ADDRESS SIGNA DATE
3. -
4. 7- i//A1 jils i 76 -3 it Tti
o?sy , Fc �e _
6: �7 '
8.
9. 1(61oof UF _
A �.
11.
12. ) Lt(..
13.
15.
16.
17. '
0(00 S An
18. �s 53y AT All SSD
19. AL
20.
21. j L. �
22. Con r * /- !2
23.
/-
23. O•L
24. (\ '
25. — 4
26.
� c
27.
Ski
28. - � <
29. _ CAAldiNk . �v
�� `� _ c
30.
31. -
32. ;�1�.,•.v J,vc,crr i3'3h %yc.Jcc
33.
fie
7 .S
35. r 'F( fol z Y�. \
36. -
37.
oil
For additional information call: ,
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF T HIS PETITION
l:
******************* PETITION
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLFAsE PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1. 7a�A A4N7t4�n2.
3.
/3 y slDe l s•��. Gt, � - o
4. w-s
6. - -
7. t:��E
8. 0S tY
9.
12: a
13.
i e!
4
16
17.
18.
, �} G ,z
20. r h an
21.- �. 5 3 — KJ LO —
22. Z r� SL O
24. rf � 2
25: G?I S
26. 'ia.� y� , LZ Z► f� C� S ' &
3 L/7315 s LA
28. 5Mt
29.
30.
31s�� 3 0 3 a .S L' ;o .t
33.34. i iC aL(� to_
�d/ �_ E!,"CJ G�c`�•/�ivµ� Gi ' t�c G. jyc,�Ef /3
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-/794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
ni
f V` gyri .�H � L`� � I ✓r
**** ** * PETITION
r
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGrUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 sl ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASEPPJND ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
S_Lo .
1. ear)- Ln re Sk AP-r4 -
11 r 2 2 2 2 60 'sem, i2 VZ. LI o S
4. In 20,5ver t - -9,4
6. ! es - 117- 9a
8.
10.
12. it
11
13.14.
i �.
15.
17.
18.
19.20.
i� L7Lrc �� nl o�ur�►2�i2c7� SC L°a �t3lGl 3 96
/�
21. 1,_1.
22. \ j �� _,•v• "1 ( G).j .a r,_. Ir! G l C.
25 1 ��, r ►, t;+ > I,. Ci - ...J r :'+ ,Lr' :; J '1 ,' i j. • ii _ : c
26.
27.
Of
30. RCL i .yt dd
31. �,�,,,�,. Iv
32. S7 SGa' 93 %o/ 71/
33. UU
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
TYmm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attic: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
6b
PETITION * **
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJE PLAN
PROPOSED
TOINCLUDING
APP OVE THE USE PECRMIT
ERY
STORE ( 50,000 S.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASE PRINT)
ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
2. s76 un,cam '7G.
S•�-o- -
3. G 27 9
AIN - 6
5. I-t1
6.
V& )N-.,
5-V,-
21�a
13. /�,� ,.,-r e
14. � 1 ti� ���' � Z��
7
15.
2-1
G 1
17. /iii E� ��/ . c-v5 3�'������y.�i �Gc' ����-• , �/ -, �: _-
18. /ter/ ;i ti s -�
20. '/ L11
21.
22. R 0 C 2/� C� .� L i -Z�-iL
23.
24. �' c 1C-e S O v
t, Q s7
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
PETITION **
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPaRT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 sl ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASE PRIN7) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
2.
5. ;.
4
7.
8. > > i i ti I �y� / Lo Z 7
9. F
10. '� J 2
11. �J,, jvy� -
12.
13.
15. s _
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
MW
tional information call:
w vW6
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
. dd.
* PETITION
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASEPRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
�lr'�.; % K % 'i% � �lv /J r7• ��•.', /i__�l rjl�� r _ry •%;J/i1. .j %!
rl
6. J01's'61-1 I suc&m a wEsT-- P Lr *A
7. CANW* W696 'moi h'9a.d' -7 t q
8. �e L 1 c�'o S F rto Q-(F-1 X16
9. tw rc&N 9r• It
10. f
1
13. )o 9 -
14. ke, - ro57 Me& cuM 7
15. ���a.[. TZta
16. a 333516rpa-d,se. Zz 7 ( y�
GvRN�F �
1 .
p
18. �t r l l a(k :%:.=u• �'; rc I ���ur w��I t:.7��!L(/'% �/�1�"f
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Groupie
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery l
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
** PETITION *
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE'( 50,000 s-f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASE PR11M ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
a.
2.
4. ,G
5. k4kD1A'f�l,�ll l ' X
6. Q,.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. •
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
,
************** PETITION
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASEPRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1.
2.
3. )�2 clic J/+L��L�J -�`I(�•G �c l r �'�:rek �y� � � _ .
4. -
5.
�_
6. Evil 1� ,I FifI^ ) 0 7 6 ( a ' ..
/7
8.
9.
10. i. P.i at,1) 1-. rx,f: -,- _ V? 1 � 01
r:, . /-}/ Ui:/7!3
C V l LSI':� lY J (L.'�ey.,(.:� %y. (i /�C!•L �^ ���/'- /�
13. 391
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 5434794
17- SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
rn
* PETITION
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS•
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
1. u ,�' L• y 1,. f
2.
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
* PETITION *
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
2. c C t CZ✓Q-lo, 3, l c.,
3. w C /
6 • c ' _
,�` .� _46
8.
7C
9.
10. 3 A,C L..n ( LA,-c_
5
11. fZi 5 �! !
12. � � i •e.v �s ea�L �• a�-9
t 2-
1 53 f} w = 7/Z
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
* PETITION
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEAsEPRINT) ADDRESS SI 1A DATE
2. aC _
3. _
4. L A, �ti9 a G
5.
6. -.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information calL-
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION
i
s
************** PETITION
WE THE UNDERSIGNED CITY AND/OR SOUTH HIGUERA STREET RESIDENTS
SUPPORT THE "TK" PROJECT PLAN AS PROPOSED - INCLUDING THE GROCERY
STORE ( 50,000 s.f. ). WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT
FOR THE GROCERY STORE SO THAT IT CAN BE BUILT.
NAME(PLEASEPRIN7) ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE
A
2�,�'>�,-:E'. Lf- n/L-�yi :;��1�i r�•� ,: - ,i �.; � �..Y-�-rz.���.tc.��".., cam-i�-9 (c,
Ar
4. c-- Efi
5. 1 7W%TH X�
6. /=e !)
,396- j-4 i r' a r-,t' 9! 4 Q
7. hlci, �ScHie �f�
8. _ 'r �= �= - ice, ��; ;•
9.
'' :✓/���1_f.�' - -�'Lr /i�llf�;i �'�l �'� s;f.%4�-1�.��4'� �7' j�.f7 ,., �
14.
77
r.
16. cr <
17. -18. ic
j
r 3 3 `i F /�/,'2
20. -
21. tk:;� t.l? �'- 3 3y S S- I ��a e�I T; 7bSLO
'
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
For additional information call:
Timm Development RRM Design Group
Attn: Mike Timm OR Attn: Victor Montgomery
963-0358 543-1794
SITE PLAN PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THIS PETITION