Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/1998, 1 - TK FOOD-4-LESS PROJECT - SAN LUIS OBISPO SOUND WALL CONDITION1:;: G7 bUb'365; 1714 LAW OFFICES • PAGE ©2 MEETING kGENDA DATE c ss' ITEM # _ January S, I998 DAVID ST. JOHN ATTORNEY AT Law 8 EAST FTGUEROA, SUfrE 210 SANTA BARBARA, CAIZORNIA 93101 (805) %S•1016 • FAX (805) %5.7134 MOY' david1k*n ®ibm.= Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 -3249 Re: TK Food -4 -Less Project - San Luis Obispo Sound Wall Condition Dear Ms. Gawf: RECEIVED JAN 0 5 1.998 SLO Ci7Y ERK Via FAX and mail TK Development has just been informed that the Los Verdes HOA may request a continuance of the referenced City Council Agenda item, presently scheduled for tomorrow's date, January 6, 1998. TK vigorously objects to any such c resolved without delay. ontinuance. It is imperative that this matter be The Food -4 -Less store is currently being stocked, and is scheduled to open January 15, 1998. Failure to timely open the store will result in very substantial damages. TK is in agreement with the Staff Report, and remains committed to build the wall as stated therein. Si David St. John DSJ: mt c: Jeff Jorgenson, Attorney for the City of San Luis Obispo Douglas Hilton, Attorney for the Homeowner's Association client 8.61) DIR ❑ FIN MR �AO ❑ FIRE Chi_,' -0 ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR ❑ GHRKIORIG ❑ POLICE C4F ❑ MGMT EAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ :ol, ❑ UTIL DIR C}: AJ ❑ FERS DIR 'K Developmeni sound wall of I mailbox : /C %7C /Program %2OFiles /Nets. -' 8ab03 .34ad5393 @aol.com&number -12 Subject: TK Development sound wall MEETING �� AGENDA / Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 15:52:32 EST DATE ITEM # From: MPalmer66 <MPa1mer66 @ao1.com> Jrganization: AOL (http: / /www.aol.com) -- - To: asettle @slonet.org, dwilliam @slonet.org, ksmith @slonet.org, sstendah @slonet.org, broalman@slonet.org Dear Council Members, I attended the council meeting when you approved the TK Development project for the Food -4 -Less on south Higuera Street. The representatives from TK were adamant that this is to be a "neighborhood" store, not a big -box one and their pitch was how much this project would benefit that neighborhood. Part of their agreement was to provide a sound wall along Higuera Street for Los Verdes Park I. I understand that they are trying to renige on that agreement and that the matter will be brought to you on January 6. Please do not let them do that. We have a nice, safe, and quiet neighborhood and I would hate to see our property values decline because of the noise level. I know that the quiet was one of the things I looked for when I purchased my home there and I suspect that's true of other homeowners as well. If TK truly wants to be neighborhood friendly, please insist that they deliver on their promises and build the sound wall at their expense. If they do not, it will certainly tell me volumes about their integrity. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Marsha Palmer Homeowner, Los Verdes Park I /t.v�� EIVED IAN 0 5 1998 SLO CITY COUNCIL 1/5/98 1033 AM 0-6D DIR Q L`' CIAO 11 FIN DIR 2 G,�A,,I/tORNEY ❑ FIRE CHIEF O PW DIR [ICCERKIORIG 0 POLICE CHF IIK�MT ❑ DIR a U11 tmLow O O PUB DIR /t.v�� EIVED IAN 0 5 1998 SLO CITY COUNCIL 1/5/98 1033 AM ME A� DA ETING `�P� / DATE ! t ITEM # 39 Chuparrosa Dr San Luis Obispo, CA 93=101 Mayor Allen Settle San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93=308 Dear Mr. Settle, December 30 ,1997 Quality of life in San Luis Obispo is very important to nearly every resident. San Luis is unique in that a huge number of residents live here because they want to, not because they have to. But your recent approvals of two major shopping centers lead me to believe that you've forgotten that because, while the center's themselves could have been an enhancement to the city, they're turning out to be a scar on the landscape. A recent public hearing notice indicates that the TKUFood --3 -Less development is attempting to get out of a commitment they made to the local residents regarding the sound wall adjacent to Los Verdes Park 1. As a resident of this area I urge you to uphold the sound wall commitment both you and the developer made to the residents. The sound wall should be constructed tastefully and properly, with significant landscaping on both sides to prevent it from becoming a graffiti wall, and installed before the shopping center is allowed to open. That was the arrangement made at the council meetings. Please remember that several speakers at those controversial meetings indicated that the TK owners and their local planning representative, RRM Design Group, had been deceptive in their initial discussion reaardinc* this project. Their attempts to renege on their earlier promises have given some support to that allegation. The developers have no intention of respecting the nearby neighborhoods. It is your job to ensure our quality of life is maintained. You properly denied their recent request to allow left hand turns exiting onto Higuera. Please ensure they complete the sound wall as promised and, when the time comes, make sure they uphold all other requirements of the project they attempt to sneak around. It is now apparent that there is no intention to pave lower Higuera as was promised during those initial council meetings. Either _you, the council, or the developers representative commented that the noise from the additional traffic would be mitigated when the road was repaved curb -to -curb between Tank Fann and Los Osos Valley Road. Whether promised or inferred it was a statement made during the meetings that several residents took as something to look forward to. A review of the transcripts from those meetings will reveal the statement. The road improvements are obviously not happening now. Too bad, as it is badly ne .�t throws one more feather into the deception hat.,, o(r ^- - . r RECEWED AT R�!'Y LERKIORIG 5 1998 ❑ MGM �Ah1 ❑ RGG Ci.t 0 � 0 UTIL DIR �((/ ❑PERSDIR SLO Cl�, ;OUNCIL I also urge you to review the existing plans and disallow any structures located directly adjacent to either Tank Farm or Higuera. Significant setback requirements should force the buildings to be far away from the street. This has the advantage, if large enough, of not blocking the view of the mountains to the east and allows for space in which to install substantial landscaping. Developments with large setbacks are always very attractive visually and adds significant charm to any city. Allowing structures directly adjacent to a street makes us look like any other poorly planned and poorly lead city. Plus, block wall structures are not even nice looking buildings. That's two strikes on our intelligence. We're better than that. This is where the Council must have the courage to tell developers that's the way it has to be. Period. Besides, all it takes is a little creative engineering to satisfi, both the developer and the city. No setback at all was utilized at the Marigold Center and now the view of the mountains from the road is gone forever, replaced by an unattractive low -rent district type of structure. Developers like them because their inexpensive to build, but they add nothing architecturally to a city. In my opinion they detract from it. The street -side structures of the Marigold center have turned Broad street into a commercial canyon and there's not even any significant landscaping to block the awful view of the cardboard buildings. That portion of the Marigold Center was simply bad planning and should have never made it through our city's project review process. If a similar situation is in store for the TK project, let's change it now before we make another mistake. It's never too late until the building is in place. I d like to suggest that you take it upon yourselves to review the city's planning and architectural rules to prevent this from happening again anywhere in town. Simple changes such as increased setbacks (several hundred feet from the street for projects of this size), substantial landscaping requirements both surrounding and within the development (for example, three to four times what was planted in the Marigold center and all trees must be more mature when planted - say 12 -15 feet minimum), no block wall construction in commercial projects unless covered with stucco, siding, etc., as was done in Santa Maria. The Santa Maria Food -4 -Less is a iorueous white stucco structure. Compare that with the no- windows warehouse version going up in our city. I've seen prisons that look better. How did the developers talk you into that'' It's awful and now I have to live right next to it. Our architectural requirements and reviews should be designed to prevent this. I would appreciate a personal response to this letter with your thoughts on the topics I've discussed. It would be really nice to know where you stand on these issues. Thanks for vour time. Sincerely, l Mark J. Frauenheim January 2, 1998 lay t om an Co Smith Councilwoman Williams Councilman Roalman Councilman Romero This is one last plea for justice. 1 r,rETIIY�] NrE I AGE -ND4 u ATE %, ITEM # _ I I ask again that the City Council hold firm on the condition that the developer, TK, be required to construct a wall on the entire eastern side of Los Verdes Park 1. The Planning Commission considered all testimony and concluded that TK alone should build that wall as a condition of operating at 154 Suburban Road. The City Council reiterated that condition in Resolution 8557 dated July 2, 1996. That condition says, "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 safety reasons to the approval of the ARC in conjunction with architectural review of the neighborhood commercial center ARC 6 -96." I note that the condition says "The project shall include ..." (boldface mine). This is solely a "project" of TK Development and not of the 91 homeowners of Los Verdes Park. In all of TK's representations to City Council, including Attorney St. John's letter of December 4, 1997, there is not a single mention of the commitment made by TK partner Larry Kreutzkampf to build the wall. (Please see my earlier letter to City Council attached.) I suggest that Mr. St. John's selective ordering of facts, while perhaps lawyer -like, reflects the propensity.of the developers to speak less than the full truth. These are the same developers who asked Council to continue the item regarding the left turn onto Higuera only to fail to show up at the subsequent meeting when Council acted on their request for the dropping of that condition. Now, strategically (for them), they ask you to consider at this first meeting of 1998, dropping the wall condition, at a time when it may be difficulty to get a community of citizens to rally in opposition to this last- minute maneuver. I don't want to take credit for being prophetic, but my letter attached written last August suggested this very thing. Please, continue to require TK to construct a wall. A trip down Higuera today will demonstrate how we have already been harmed by this development as we have not been heretofore by any of the commercial entities on Higuera or Suburban. And the store isn't even open yet. When that happens, the noise, pollution, pedestrian and residential safety issues will multiply unless that wall is built before the businesses open. Please, in the interest of justice, make this a requirement of ope ❑zouracr- REC'EE V E D Ili ❑ AC,AO TTORNEY ❑ P!f_ ❑ F'c" i:, , I 0I bl 1998 ❑ L-E8K10RIG ❑FOLIC.`.:.... (�MGMTT�AM ❑RECD!R SLO i . ":':' ,;)UNCIL ❑ UTIL DIR — — �'v� ❑ PERS DIR Randall L. Murray 43 Del Sol Court San Luis Obispo California 93401 (805) 544 -3037 August 19, 1997 To: Members of the City Council Re: Food 4 Less Permit Conditions/Los Verdes Park 1 Homeowners Assn. Larry Kreutzkampf, a principal in the TK Development company, has said over and over during the last several years that he is a man of his word. Last fall, he gave members of the Board of Directors of Los Verdes Park 1 Homeowners Association his word that TK would assume full responsibility for the building of six -foot wall along the Higuera Street side of our park. That pledge was witnessed by project coordinator Larry McGee and architect Vic Montgomery. Three members of our board of directors were present. I was one of those officers. We now detect significant foot dragging, and we ask members of City Council to hang tough with us on this prerequisite to the granting of the permit for the Food 4 Less store at 154 Suburban Way. Mr. Kreutzkampf agreed that TK Development would bear the expense of the wall and a gate to be erected between the Meadows development and the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and South Higuera Street. He further agreed that the Association would select the specific color and type of block. He further agreed that, as part of the construction, TK would remove existing hedge roots after the Association cut the hedge off at or near ground level. TK asked, and the Association agreed, that construction of the wall could be delayed until masons were on the premises to erect the Food 4 Less building. That was referred to as "Phase II" of the project, which was then estimated to begin in February of 1997. This masonry work was delayed but is now well underway, giving the Association some concern that TK may not be intending to live up to its agreement with us and with the conditions for the Food 4 Less permit. We respectfully ask that you lend your weight to this matter on our behalf. I suspect TK Development is hoping that, at the 11th hour of this project, council will be reluctant to appear to be obstructing this new business. I think, in fact, that TK is counting on members of council caving in on this issue. I would remind council that this is a last- minute matter only because TK Development has made it a last- minute matter. The wall could have gone up a month ago. If TK suggests that it is under pressure, that pressure was self induced, and for a purpose. Kenneth L. Wattelet P.O. Box 1712 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 December 31, 1997 Councilperson Dave Romero City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 MEETING A GE- NDA DATE ITEM # Re: Food -4 -Less Use Permit Condition Ammendment (Hearing: Tuesday, January u, 1998) Dear Councilperson Romero: As a homeowner in Los Verdes Park One (LVP), I am concerned about the Food -4- Less/TK Development's plan to appeal the use permit condition requiring construction of a sound wall on the South Higuera Street property of LVP. I urge you and the other Council members to consider the negative effect that deletion of the sound wall requirement will have on the quality of life of the Park residents, especially those on the east side of the Park near Higuera Street. The construction of a sound wall will help ameliorate the anticipated noise generated by increased traffic on South Higuera Street due to the Food -4 -Less development and its 24 -hour operations. In addition, the wall will maintain the integrity of the Park perimeter by deterring pedestrian traffic through LVP property as a short cut betweeen Food -4 -Less development and the City bus stop on Los Osos Valley Road. For these reasons, I believe the City Staff prudently required the subject wall to mitigate these environmental impacts as a condition of the project's approval. In addition to denying the developer's appeal, I urge the Council to impose specific architectural criteria on the sound wall design (such as use of split -face concrete block or slumpstone construction) so that it will harmonize with existing party walls in the adjoining neighborhoods. I understand that TK Development's prior discussions with the LVP Homeowners Association regarding the sound wall centered on tilt -up concrete construction which TK's re ._ . be equivalent to a block wall in cost and quality. C- COUNCIL ❑-CAD ^17 ❑.eAAO Cl r, ❑.AOAO Cl Fl C AtTORNEY ❑ PV; .. _, ❑.BLERKIORIG ❑ POU"..... ❑ G T TEAM El REC DIR Q ❑ unL DIR ❑ o FERS DIR RECEIVED I��ra 0 5 1998 SLO C',;-: ''; COUNCIL Kenneth L. Wattelet, �_.,Y Council letter 12/31 /97 Unfortunately, a tilt -up or cast -in -place concrete wall , while equal in quality, is better suited to an industrial setting, and is totally out of context aesthetically with existing property walls in the neighborhoods fronting South Higuera Street (e.g. slumpstone wall at the Silver City Mobile Home Park, and split face block at the Meadows residential development). I also believe that a concrete sound wall would be significantly less costly to construct than either a split face or slunnpstone sound wall and therefore preferred by the Developers if they are ultimately required to construct one. It should be noted that TK's own development features a perimeter wall of split face block construction facing; Higuera Street, obviously as an enhancement to thier project. In conclusion, I believe TK Development should be required to fulfill their obligation to construct a sound wall, as originally agreed to in obtaining the project's approval. l urge you to deny the appeal and to delay the certificate of occupancy until the use permit condition is met by a contract for actual construction of the sound wall, or by the posting of a bond assuring that the construction will occur. a Keane ,IA c: Los Verdes Homeowners Association 1) TK Development anc' and Wall : Phyllis Needelman rep d that TK Development is asking tu.. City to remove the condition that L.,,y must construct a soundwall along the Higuera Street frontage of our property. By way of background Phyllis reiterated that a condition for development of the TK /Foods For 4 Less site is that a wall be built on the Higuera Street frontage of the o Park. An agreement between the Association and TK Development was reached in I:J M September 1996 in which TK Development agreed to build the wall. Now TK c� � Development is denying that an agreement was reached. The Association's Board of ` t — Directors met with TK again this past fall, but TK refused to acknowledge that there was an agreement or that the Board met with them in the fall of 1996. TK Development is now appealing to City Council to have the condition removed. It is V ` tentatively scheduled for the City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 6. 1998 at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. w w TK Development has demanded that we pay for half the construction costs of the u ° wall. However, the Association's resources are limited and if we should be required to pay that amount it could result in a special assessment to each homeowner of between $500 to $750 per owner. We have already been adversely affected by this project and the condition requiring Tk Development to build the wall must be u held. The soundwall is necessary to provide some relief from the traffic and secu tv R E C E o V E D problems generated by this project. .�o�a 0 5 1998 SLO Ci OJ CIL �-�- --, aj� -a�� Nrl Z EETI NG 9 lb "Z6 A 12 E N ITEM # J1 R 9 71 7, Lc 0 r 14 CDD D!9 ❑ N Flip C. 'evel Fjr,.= C. :F ❑ P 1v L iR -Yz3 [3,ctERRioRlG Cl POLICE CHF 5 - 3 p ,M AM Cl REC DIR 0 UTIL DIR or - 0 PEN DIR R E GEE 'E D I A .. 0 5 1998 SLO Ci-�"r,'COUNCIL 1/►/qg - - •- r. u1 °EETING AGENDA .,ATE /- - ITEM # CC ' to L��- C00NCIL. FiA- mE- -- m 6e4✓z.- T K E~L0PwtEFrj.i S O U N D w tq t,C, t=oY2- L o S V E2D E S P�4 -�2iic D�KZ �1rC.EN� P►A-�� K z, V�O P E i o Q DEsJe.Lo P- Wt� i Qv►�f� pV� sour�D v.t� �S ""�I POVA e.OVtJC tL W1c�g�2 S Cor�Slp� T� 1 VA PEA �' 1>t2c��c' � 's p � ��-L s s ► � E L k a•r � 0 ov � 1A� v � W � t,L. D t2o� ��.�..� �iYZ�k�'� � e N o ► s� iN ► t� Wl �� L ps �1 E� o•� s ��c .i 1� U N D ►-s t ate Pt.u1� 'TD CA< E�tj w Etr stm CDD DIR 1 LL 0 Co u ra 1 FlN DIR RECEIVEDFIRE CHIEF ` �_ POL CIE CHF JAN 0 2 1.ggR T O UTIL DIR PERS DIR SLO Ca :1 CLERK N1I:ETING AGENDA - DATE L 6 - f.6 ITEM # Los Verdes Park Unit One Homeowners' ASSOC. Inc. +44 92 Los Verdes Drive 0 0 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 0 Bonnie L. Gawf City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1-3249 Dear Ms. Gawf, to UNUL e0 XA0 l.C)RNE'( 17 CDD DIR 11 Fl, DIR E3 RE CHIEF PW DIR CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ yG EAM ❑ REC DIR CS' ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ ❑ PIERS DIR December 27, 1997 The Los Verdes Park Unit One Homeowners' Association Inc. has received notification that the City Council will hold a public hearing to reconsider the previously approved use permit condition far th Food-4- LessnK Development. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 6, 1998. e Since this matter is very controversial and Councilman Roalman will not be in attendance on the 6th, we would like the hearing to be rescheduled to January 20, 1998, when the full City Council will be in attendance. Many homeowners and residents of Los Verdes Park Unit One are planning to be present at the hearing and have expressed the need to have the full Council hear the request. We would also like to request that Council add an additional condition to the use permit and require that a sound wall also be built on Los Osos Valley Road along our southern property line. This street will be a major access road for vehicles using Highway 101 to reach the new development as well as people coming from Los Osos and the southern portion of our city. In addition to the regional draw of a Food -4 -Less, the developer is planning other warehouse/retail types of stores that will also have a regional draw. These additional stores will have a dramatic increase in the traffic on all of the roadways surrounding our property. Thank you for considering our requests. Sin ely, Phyllis Needelman President Los Verdes Park Unit One Homeowners' Association Inc. r_ a� DEC 3 0 1997 SLO C;" '' -.i :_RK Phyllis Needelman INGd " AGENDA -SATE / - 1 � _ ITEM # 90 Los Verdes Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone 5445005 Fax 781-0260 Home Phone 543-7168 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Council Members, On January 6th you will be asked to reconsider a previously approved use permit condition for Food -4- Less/TK Development that requires a sound wall be built next to the Los Verdes Park Unit One subdivision on South Higuera. Our Homeowners Association met with representatives of TK Development in September of 1996 and reached an agreement on the cost sharing for the construction of the sound wall. Since that time, TK Development and their representatives seem to have forgotten that meeting and are now trying to have the condition removed as a requirement for a use permit. This wall is needed to reduce the increased traffic noise and security problems that will be created by this development. The addition of the traffic signal at Suburban Road and South Higuera will drastically change the traffic flow and noise. Cars and trucks will now be idling, stopping, starting and sometimes coming to a screeching halt at this new signal. The type of.stores in this development will be regional draws and will bring people from allover our city as well as surrounding cities. A sound wall should also be required on the portion of Los Osos Valley Road at our southern property line. The construction of the bus bench, signal and utility poles have destroyed our hedge that was our only protection from the noise and pollution along South Higuera. We are the ones being harmed by this development. Please consider our plight and stand firm on the condition that a sound wall be constructed' Development needs to honor the agreement reached in September of 1996 between themselves and Los Verdes Park Unit One Homeowners' Association. Sincerel , G Phyllis Needelman D U t C 00 1997 SLO CITY a"7.;MCIL "��� Ii�CDD DIR December 29, 1997 BT ' CEO ❑FIN DIR ❑ F CHIEF M-XTf ORNEY W DIR C- CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF City Council ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR City of San Luis Obispo ❑ ❑ LITIL DIR 990 Palm St. ❑ PERS DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Council Members, On January 6th you will be asked to reconsider a previously approved use permit condition for Food -4- Less/TK Development that requires a sound wall be built next to the Los Verdes Park Unit One subdivision on South Higuera. Our Homeowners Association met with representatives of TK Development in September of 1996 and reached an agreement on the cost sharing for the construction of the sound wall. Since that time, TK Development and their representatives seem to have forgotten that meeting and are now trying to have the condition removed as a requirement for a use permit. This wall is needed to reduce the increased traffic noise and security problems that will be created by this development. The addition of the traffic signal at Suburban Road and South Higuera will drastically change the traffic flow and noise. Cars and trucks will now be idling, stopping, starting and sometimes coming to a screeching halt at this new signal. The type of.stores in this development will be regional draws and will bring people from allover our city as well as surrounding cities. A sound wall should also be required on the portion of Los Osos Valley Road at our southern property line. The construction of the bus bench, signal and utility poles have destroyed our hedge that was our only protection from the noise and pollution along South Higuera. We are the ones being harmed by this development. Please consider our plight and stand firm on the condition that a sound wall be constructed' Development needs to honor the agreement reached in September of 1996 between themselves and Los Verdes Park Unit One Homeowners' Association. Sincerel , G Phyllis Needelman D U t C 00 1997 SLO CITY a"7.;MCIL FROM : EILL RORLMRN SLO,CA 93401 PHONE NO. December 27, 1997 TO: City Counci FROM: Bill Roalmip RE: January 6th City Council Meeting 605 7131 137OS Dec. 27 1997 10:11AM P1 MEETING AGENDA DATE - ITEM # __ 1 As you may be aware, I'll be out of town between December 27th and January 11th. I'm moving my parent's household from North Carolina to San Luis Obispo. On the January 6th agenda, there are two items I would ask you to consider postponing, so I can participate in the discussion. Agenda Item #5: Residential Development Impact Feec: I was the councilperson who originally requested that Council agendize this item. It's been over four months since I originally made the request. Delaying it another two weeks shouldn't be a problem, I hope. Closed Session Item: Acquisition of Property at Nipomo and Monterey Streets. I would like to participate in this discussion. If possible, please continue this until January 20th. Happy Holidays! I'm looking forward to a productive 1998 with you. NOTE: On Agenda Item #1 (Food -4 -Less Use Permit Modification), I'm not asking for a continuance. However, I understand that several neighbors may request that the item be continued until January 20th, so a full council can hear the issue. If such a request is made, I would ask you concur, If no one from the public requests a continuance, please hear the item on January 6th. acT Q-CA0 ❑-ATTORNEY 0- cLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE �. ❑MGM ,T TEAM . ❑ REC DIR CY ❑ UTIL DIR 0 ' 13 PERS DIR MEET IN AGENDA DATE ITEM # January 4, 1998 Mayor Allen Settle 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Council Member Kathy Smith 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Council Member Bill Roalman 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Patricia L. Gordon 52 Del Sol Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Council Member Dodie Williams 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Council Member Dave Romero 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Food -4 -Less Use Permit Modification Request Ladies and Gentlemen: My husband and I are residents of Los Verdes Park I. The purpose of this letter is to ask you to uphold the condition requiring TK Development to build a sound wall along our eastern property line on Higuera Street and to hold TK Development 100% responsible for paying for the wall. As residents we will be subject to addional noise, pollution and security problems generated by the TK project, but asking us to shoulder a major financial burden as well to alleviate a problem not of our making just doesn't seem fair. Our non -profit homeowners association is not an even economic_ match with this out -of -town developer. Our Association's finances are already stretched to the limit and our capacity to obtain the amount of money needed to pay for 50% of the cost of the wall is extremely limited. The sole source of our money is directly from the pockets of our residents, many of whom are either senior citizens on fixed incomes or young families whose budgets are already stretched to the limit. In order to come up with the estimated $31,000, each of the 91 Los Verdes Park One homeowners would have to contribute $340.00. That amount is more than two times our current monthly assessment. Many of us simply cannot afford that added burden. G 5 11998 SLO CITY COUNCIL City Council Memo. rs Page 2 January 4, 1998 TK Development has exhibited a complete lack of concern for the problems which their development will impose on us. TK has dragged its feet for more than a year to avoid compliance with the condition of building the sound wall. After the condition was imposed July 2, 1996, it took until October for our Board to get a meeting with TK and its representatives. At that meeting TK agreed they would build the wall at their expense. At that meeting they estimated that the wall would be constructed about February 1997. If they had followed through, the wall would have offered some protection to our residents from a summer of noise and dirt generated by construction. Instead, the wall was not built and TK did not write up the October 1996 agreement as promised. When TK finally sent a written document dated April 9, 1997 that document bore no resemblance to the agreement which had been reached in October 1996. Their April 1997 offer was not to build a wall for the entire length of our property on Higuera Street, a distance of about 900 linear feet, but their offer was to build a 540 foot wall for which they were asking us to pay half! This offer to build a 540 linear foot wall and to pay for only half of the construction cost was repeated at their September 8, 1997 meeting with the Association. We care deeply about the quality of our neighborhood. As a self - managed community we have demonstrated that care to the best of our economic ability for almost 25 years. In this instance, we believe that our fair share of responsibility is to carry out those items as agreed on in the October 1996 meeting. We believe that TK should shoulder the responsibility for the wall along the length of our Higuera Street boundary. As resident homeowners, we feel that TK has treated us like gullible country bumpkins standing in the way of their progress. We urge you to maintain the condition that TK build the wall along the length of our property on Higuera Street and that they build the wall at their expense. Sincerely, Patricia L. Gordon 1 -02 -1998 d:07PM FROM POOR- RICHARDS -PRESS SOSSd34S32 MEETING AGENDA DATE 1 149- ITEM # _ UrCOLINCIL ErCDD DIR e�j(`AO ❑ FIN DIR C ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIE iORNEY [3 PW DIR r1 LERKIORIG ❑ POLICE C January 2, 1 998 ❑ MG MT TEAM fj ❑ REC DIR [3 UTIL DIR ❑ Z7 ❑ PIERS DIR TO: Mayor Allen Settle FROM: Verle w. & Lilly M. Brumbaugh RE: TK Development Food -4 -Less Permit Condition Amendment Verle & I strongly urge you to vote NO when you consider the Use Permit Condition amendment that TK Develpment/ Food -4 -Less have introduced for Council consideration at the January 6, 1998 meeting. Verle & I have been Homeowners of 2 Units in Los Verdes Park One since 1974 when the first PUD Park Community was introduced in San Luis Obispo. we have watched while young and old worked together to retain a quality living experience, and recently as the commercial development has invaded the privacy of our streets and homes - I hope you have noticed the tacky boards that now line our perimeter. To vote other than NO to exempt the building of the promised wall would be an injustice to all the families of South Higuera. A;7 0 1 ' Los Verdes Dr. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 P. 3 January 6, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Council Colleagues MEETING AGENDA DATE aZZL ITEM # FROM Dodie Williams kQ4 SUBJECT: COMMUNICATION ITEM RE: GROWING GROUNDS FARM Frank Ricceri, manager of Growing Grounds Farm which operates under the auspices of the San Luis Obispo County Mental Health Association, called today to invite the Council to tour their operation. Growing Grounds employs adults with mental illness in a nursery operation. The facility is located at Orcutt and Johnson and is leased from PG &E. They will have an item on the agenda in the very near future and would like the Council to get a first hand look at their operation. DW:ss ❑t:C "- ❑ CDD DIR ❑ FIN C:' ❑i1TfORNEY ❑ PW E;.; ❑�etfRKIORIG ❑ POLICE G.:.= ❑ MGM ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR 13 13 PIERS DIR MEETING AGENDA DAL ITEM # San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, Caiifornia 934013278 (805) 781 -2777 • FAX (805) 543 -1255 e -mail: slochamber@slochamber.org January 6, 1998 David E. Garth, President /CEO Mayor Allen Settle City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle: The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce respectfully requests that you postpone your hearing and decision on Council Agenda Item Number Five, Multi-Modal Transportation Center Update and Downtown Transfer Site Design Contract Award: This is an important issue to the Chamber. Unfortunately, due to, the holidays, and your moving the hearing date for this item up, we have not had sufficient time to thoroughly analyze it and take a position on behalf of our members. In the past day, we have received many calls from our members who are concerned about the timing of this issue. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Shelly Stanwyck Director of Governmental Affairs cc: Council John Dunn nn [[fi�nn t, r."�.� Lam.. _.. . RN y ! �. CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE G..•' ❑ MGM TAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR p l 0 PERS DIR 14N 0 6 1998 SLO CITY COUNCIL TEN YEARS ACCREDITED C"MWR OF COMMEY E e JAN HOWELL MARX ROCHELE ULLUM LEGAL ASSISTANT LAW OFFICES OF JAN HOWELL MARX 864 0505 STREET. SUITE B SAN LU15 OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93401 January 2, 1998 San Luis Obispo City Council Members Michael- McCluskey 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 .,,FETING AGENDA - DATE / -elf ITEM # TELEPHONE (805) 541 -2716 FACSIMILE (605) 541 -2239 Ef COUNCIL O CDD DIR WCAO ❑ FIN DIR V CAO 13 FIRE CHIEF ''O"INEY DPW DIR ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ I.::::,IT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR ir ❑ PERS DIR /1404750 TESTIMONY RE: "Downtown Superstoa" Negative Declaration (Project Number EIR 167 -97) REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF HEARING Via Hand Delivery Dear Council and City Transit Staff: I am a ten year resident of San Luis Obispo, writing to state my objections to the proposed negative declaration conceming the San Luis Obispo Downtown Transit Transfer Center on the 800 block of Osos Street, directly across the street from my office at 864 Osos and my neighbors' homes on the comer of Mill and Osos. I write to object to the project as proposed. Enclosed you will find a petition objecting to the project signed by your "neighbors" across the street. I also write to request the hearing on this item be delayed for reasons listed below. As you may know, three attorneys and the Noise Management Institute occupy the building at 864 Osos Street, SLO, and the Sierra Club and ECOSLO are slated to move into our building by the end of the month. Next door, at the comer of Mill and Osos is an apartment building occupied mostly by students. The proposed removal of 16 parking spaces next to our buildings in the 800 block of Osos will severely and directly unpact our businesses, as well as the students next door who have no assigned parking. Furthermore, loss of these spaces will impact downtown/civic center parking in general. The "Superstop" will concentrate pollution and noise from 5 buses and aim them directly toward the air intake systems of our offices and homes. This obviously will effect human health and the environment we experience on a daily basis. The City's Initial Environmental Study offers no mitigation of these impacts at all. It is my understanding from Staff that the City Council voted for an off - street terminal, but instead is being offered a stop -gap on- street model which will later be replaced with an off - street terminal. This on- street concept is a short term "solution" to a long term problem which will result in the LOSS of parking in the downtown and which will be more expensive for the City in the long run. The City should reject this proposal and instead direct Staff to proceed with the off - street model as originally instructed. The City should do it once, do it right and be done with it. Hearing on this item is scheduled for January 6, 1998. This date was not advertised in the paper. I request that it be postponed so that it may be properly noticed and so that all of the students who will be effected are back from vacation. I may not be able to attend the Council meeting due to a prior commitment, so I submit the following testimony. My objections and grounds for requesting a full EIR are as follows: 1. The Negative Declaration Notice published in the Telegram Tribune December 16, 1997 (copy enclosed) is defective under Public Resources Code section 21092, in that it does not state the period in which comments will be received on the draft negative declaration. ;t also is defective because it does not adequately describe the project. It does not mention either the fact that the " Superstop" will result in the loss of 19 parking spaces in the downtown, or the realignment of traffic lanes, both items which would create significant public interest. The purpose of CEQA is to allow public participation in the process. By omitting these crucial facts, the public has not been given proper notice and thus has been cut out of the process. Notice is defective because it does not Est the time, date and location of the hearing, nor the location where documents may be obtained for public review. Notice should be republished and should state that the City plans to REDUCE parking in the center of the City and the hearing should be postponed. Public review is a critical part of the process of approving a negative declaration. Plaggmier v. City of San Jose (1980) 101 CAM 842, 161 CR 886. 2. POLLUTION: Pollution from the engine is directed toward the back of the busses, which under this project would be directed toward offices and homes. Windows and air conditioner would pull this polluted air directly into our homes and offices. The bus odor is already objectionable in the summer with only one bus opposite the building, five busses will increase the problem five times. The County of San Luis Obispo objected to the Superstop being placed on Palm Street because to do so would suck the pollution right into the County offices, and as a result, the City withdrew its proposal to locate it there. Why is inside air pollution enough to move the project when the health of County workers are concerned, but "no significant impact" when business people, environmentalists and students are concerned? 3. NOISE` Noise from the engine is directed toward the back of the busses, which under this project would be directed toward offices and homes. Furthermore, the sound of braking, already significant, would be increased five fold under this plan. Additionally, the concentration of bus users, many of them young people, would result in increased noise. 4. PARKING LOSS: Parking is already at a premium in this immediate area and should not be reduced. Contrary to the IES' statement at page 8, the apartment residents do not have assigned off - street parking, but rather must share 6 off street spaces, which are not sufficient. Consequently, there is keen competition for spaces, including metered spaces. Your IES states that "the loss of 16 parking spaces in an area with relatively high parking demand will have a noticeable effect on parking availability; however the reduction is not considered significant since additional parking is available in the nearby Palm Street parking structure." The parking requirements of my business are such that the reduction IS significant. Law offices have people coming and going all day, delivering supplies, legal documents, clients and others making short stops, as well as longer stays for meetings. The Sierra Club and ECOSLO will also have this kind of short term parking need. The best solution is to find an off - street location for the Superstop. But, if it MUST be on Osos, I suggest turning the City Hall parking lot into a Superstop and directing City employees to park in the Palm Street structure, since they park for the entire day, would be preferable to requiring short term visitors to businesses, often delivering equipment and supplies, to park in the structure. 5. SAFETY: The proposed project is not practical, since the buses are not drawn to scale and there would not be adequate room for sidewalks in this heavy pedestrian area. Thus, bus riders would drift across the street to use the sidewalk. Cars coming and going from the 101 exit would be disoriented due to the misalignment and busses pulling out in front of them. This would exacerbate the danger to pedestrians. All things considered, the project is ill conceived, deserves and EIR, and will drastically impact my small legal practice. Very truly yours, 6t filb-t� Jan Howell Marx cc: Jeff Jorgensen, Esq. encl. JFN December 18, 1997 TO: San Luis Obispo City Council City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Petition in Opposition to Project No. ER 167 -97 Downtown Transit Center aka "Downtown Superstop" We are writing to tell you that we strongly oppose the above - referenced project because the parking loss it proposes would severely impact our businesses and lives. . Each of us maintains a business office or is a resident on Osos Street between Mill and Palm. Implementation of this project will completely eliminate convenient Osos Street parking for us, our guests and clients, some of whom are moderately disabled due to age. We also receive deliveries from office supply companies, court reporters and other legal service providers who require convenient short-term parking. While there is a small parking area behind our building, it provides only 7 spaces for the 14 people who work in the building; so some of us must use metered parking some of the time. As you know, there are also many business offices on Mill between Palm and Santa Rosa, each of which fully utilizes the street parking on both sides of that street. We would also anticipate a significant increase in pollution, noise and traffic problems if the project, as proposed, is put into place. r acmes R/Oz ,y _k( — 1-7 < f. �1c4 a5�3 SG' � 54� X325 Address Q+6� OSC.s ST., �iE•A Phone No. 511- 5325 TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of San Luis Obispo's Community Development Director has determined that the fol lowing projects) are qual- ified for adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact in accordance with the C.E.O.A. Project Number:... ER 167 -97 Project Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo Project Address: j 990 Palm Street Project Description: The Downtown Transit Transfer Center, -or "Downtown Superstop." (would provide bus pas - senger.,waiting, transfer sand loading facilities fo :City and regional bum . routes.'The site is adja cent to "City Hall, and nea the County, Govt- Center The Superstop will in elude several improve merus in the public right of-way. such as expande passenger seating an sheltered waidng areas sidewalk bulbouts -out landscape planters, stree - trees, information kiosks vending machines. rest rooms, telephones, an lighting. The project is . designed to accommo date existing bus traffic. I will riot increase the num• her or frequency of bus stops- Currently, a total of 6 bus parking spaces are provided along both sides ) of Osas Street, and on the south side of Mill Street. This project would reduce the dumber of bus park- ing bays from 6 to 5. and relocate all bus parking to the west side of Osos Sc. between Palm and Mill Sts. MEETING AGENDA DATE / -6 -98 ITEF David Dubbink Associates ,nte;ve s�nTif :864 Osos Street, Suite D, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 USA1 iOTel:.(805) 541 5325 Fax: (805) 541 -5326 email: dubbink @noisemanagement.coLERKIORIG 0 MGMTt TEAM m,.0 s, TEAM a . t7 Comments on the Transit Superstop Proposal I am concerned that plans for the Downtown Transit Center are moving to detailed design without either authentic consideration design alternatives or sufficient attention to negative local impacts. The City's Community Development Director has determined that the Downtown Transit Transfer Center (Downtown Superstop) is qualified for a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. At the January 6 City Council meeting, staff will ask authorization to have its project consultants, Wilbur Smith Associates, proceed with project design. The consultant studies are to be based on three alternatives developed by staff. The public for the project notice is flawed in that it does not mention that the project will eliminate parking spaces that now serve residents of an adjacent apartment building and commercial clients for five offices. The Director's assertion that there is no significant negative impact is mistaken. It can be conclusively documented that the project violates the city's noise standards. Noise from the project exceeds permissible hourly and daily standards for both residential and office uses. Need for Consideration of Design Alternatives and Impact Mitigation An alternative design can lessen the negative impact of the project on its neighbors, improve project effectiveness and reduce costs. The present three design alternatives are all variations of the same sawtooth design concept. All result in the same loss of parking, narrowing of sidewalk space, loss of landscaping, and excessive noise impact to commercial offices and the apartments on the west side of Osos Street. The sawtooth design wastes space that might othenvise be used for pedestrian circulation and retention of commercial parking. Rather than resulting in wider sidewalks in the bus loading areas the inner edge of the teeth cut across the entire width of the existing sidewalk. This results in elimination of five mature trees and all of the landscape area on the Osos side of City Hall. Further, the sawtooth design shows bus outlines that are improperly scaled. The black outlines shown in the staff concept alternatives are two- thirds the size of the real busses. Real busses would protrude into Osos street and block traffic. The sawtooth design also "freezes" the size of busses that can be served. Because the bus shape is pan of the design it cannot be adapted to the needs of either smaller or larger vehicles. Busses generate noise in a directional pattern; the motors and exhaust are vented to the rear. The sawtooth pattern aims noise at the commercial offices and apartments across Osos street. The sawtooth design is wasteful of space. It narrows the sidewalks and narrows the street space. It is also dangerous in that bus drivers would not see oncoming traffic until they were pulling away from the curb. Auto drivers would encounter odd continuity problems and, when busses are absent, there would be an ambiguous expanse of street. Drivers coming over the hill on Osos Street from the direction of the freeway would encounter this. Noise The present transfer operation violates the city's noise ordinance. The ordinance says the daily noise dose in outdoor activity areas caused by transportation noise should not exceed 60 dB (DNL). Daily noise recorded at the front of 864 Osos Street was 70.1 dB on December 29 and 73.2 dB on December 29 (DNL). The noise ordinance sets standards for indoor noise for both offices and residences. Conventional walls and windows reduce noise by around 20 dB. This implies that interior noise within the apartments facing Osos Street was 50 to 5' ) dB - where the city standard permit no more than a 45 dB exposure. The city ordinance sets hourly standards as well as daily standards and applies them to different land use activities. For offices the worst -case hourly noise transportation noise dose is to be no more'than 45 dB. During the measured period there were six hours when exterior noise exceeded 70 dB (high was 75.2). Assuming a 20 dB outdoor to indoor noise reduction, estimated interior noise exceed 50 dB on these six occasions. The only times the hourly standard was not exceeded was from 7 PM to 5 AM. The ordinance also sets limits on the loudness of individual events at a maximum of 60 dB for residential uses. The maximum noise recorded at the front of 864 Osos Street was 103.7 dB at 1:44 PM. (It should be noted that bus noise clearly dominates the local noise environment along Osos Street during bus transfer periods). Moving the busses closer to the noise sensitive uses will most certainly aggravate this already bad situation. The increase in noise level could be on the order of 6 dB. The motors of the city's busses open to rear of the vehicles. Exhaust is directed from the rear left corner of the busses. With the sawtooth design the rear of the busses are pointed at the noise sensitive uses. A further increase in noise will come the concentration of buss loading activities that are now spread over three locations. This will increase both hourly and daily noise levels. An Alternate Plan Including Noise Mitigation The best way to. lessen the environmental effects of a project is to change the design. Dropping the to drop the sawtooth design has significant advantages. We ask for consideration of the alternate plan shown on the last page. Any plan should include appropriate mitigations for loss of parking or increased noise. A better, more efficient, and safer plan would be to maintain a more linear curbline. Transit vehicles of any length can be accommodated from minivans to articulated busses. Bus drivers would have a clear view of oncoming traffic before pulling away from the curb. Auto drivers would have a place to drop off transit bound passengers. The sidewalks would not have to be narrowed and even could be widened without the need to eliminate existing parking on Osos Street. The alternate linear design widens rather than narrows the sidewalks. It provides more sidewalk area for the use of transit patrons and location of amenities. It retains the mature landscaping along Osos Street Service facilities such as rest rooms, information kiosks and food service should not be located within the narrowed sidewalk area as shown on the sawtooth plan. The Palm Street corner is the natural focus of pedestrian activity. There is room between City Hall and the street for a pedestrian plaza. This would complement the pedestrian plaza at the library comer of Osos and Palm. The plaza would be in line with pedestrians heading from busses toward the commercial center of town. Additional service facilities might be located behind City Hall, along Osos Street. Parking spaces along Osos Street are not lost. The traffic lanes on Osos Street are aligned on either side of Mill Street. Bus drivers have an unobstructed view of oncoming traffic. Nlitigations If for some reason, the parking spaces along Osos Street are eliminated there loss should be mitigated. This could be accomplished by providing replacement metered parking spaces behind City Hall. This option more directly benefits City Hall visitors than the office customers but it would not result in a net loss of visitor serving spaces within the area. Noise impacts (which are significant with any of the alternatives) can be mitigated through acoustical treatment of the offices and apartments facing the bus loading area. A five to ten dB reduction can be affected through local acoustical treatment of windows. While this may not bring all of the residential and office areas in compliance with the city's noise ordinance, it will be sufficient to mitigate the effects of shifting bus operations closer to the units. Your,�enjider tion of these proposals is appreciated. David T. Dubbink, Ph.D, AICP January 2, 1998 Pacific Bell City Staff Parking C I tY HALL".'... /0//V/ ALA . . ...... ...... ........ lea—IrAINS M� 7RW7-7C 1�a641L-)� Aoeos5 Afz-'-' -T� 1:14,e&IM6 lh� ALLEY wAy if r IC47iO? 771'4&1