Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/1998, - REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FOR PERMIT #U-178-97 1 February 10, 1998 ' San Luis Obispo Planning Commission 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ' To the Commissioners: We encourage you to reject the proposal to relocate Elaine Simer's hostel to 1617 Santa ' Rosa Street. We purchased a home for ourselves and our children in the Old Town/Railroad District ' area because we enjoy the vital mixture of homeowners, renters, and small businesses. The proposed hostel does not fit into this wonderful mixture. The combination of a high-density living situation and a transient clientelle, (a clientelle ' with no bond to or interest in the quality of life in Old Town) is incompatible with the neighborhood. ' When people think of a "hostel," they often think of the wonderful European model, where the hostels are often within walking distance of the train stations. But in Europe, the trains run hourly, if not much more often, and in Europe, the trains actually run on ' time. With Amtrak service at best being infrequent and unpredictable, it is just not logical to expect that hostel visitors will arrive in Old Town without an automobile. Twenty or more cars, swirling around the Old Town area during the rush hour, looking for the hostel and for on-street parking, will degrade safety and the quality of life for the permanent ' residents, homeowners and renters alike. I am sure it is tempting to accept this "deal" with Ms. Simer, because a fraternity is ' moved closer to Cal Poly. But you should never solve one problem by creating a worse one. It is just plain wrong to place this type of high-density housing in the heart of Old Town. Again, we strongly encourage you to reject the 1617 Santa Rosa hostel. ' Regards, ' Mark S. Johnson Ursula E. M. Bishop 1265 Buchon Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1 1 COIN rA rzca 0.�f I '�%l tn 7 qS� S c 1 v y ka lay ror TIP ri Go y A^ 1 IU � S ' Ct J 1-_ 1 C � a 1 b 3 :C C _ 1 d Qct ao 1 AGO all ca 41 �` � � ♦ � � \ .. � � � � � 1 � .. :, � � ;� • -� , �� �, _. � � �. ._ � � , . . p� � 1 � a • `; �' �) � � � � 1 ` � � \ _ � :� � \ _� � �� it .! �� .� � ,1 � � � �� � <� � � � � �� A �� � � � � � �J � � 1 ,� � � ` � �� ►� r � i \` .,� =, _ `) � ' � � ♦ �. � .� ,� i � �.. �' ,, � � � � . _, . � � _ � ,� � ., ,, � � . • � _. � t- � i 4 1 tz bm 1 r� ' pw .. � �1 .. �- � _ �1 - r ,. 1:. . . ..: _ - _ _ ,1 .. . , � , _- .. _ - ,. . . : �.: :. .. . , � '.' . . . : ., � , -� � _ 1_ _ � . �- .. � 1 i , t � � '� - �, � � � � _ 'I .. ' .. ' - ` �, � 1 1 ' �� ' 1 t .. 1 Jugendherberge 7-7777`7 .77-x 7 HaugmannstraRe 27 70188 Stuttgart Tel. 0711/241583 Fax 0711/608351 oder2361041 .� Z. Ortsbeschreibung and III Verkehrsanbindung p I ➢, = w Stuttgart, Hauptstadt des Landes Baden-Wurttemberg, liegt in einem Talkessel, der im Norden an das Neckartal heranreicht and ringsum von Waldern and Weinbergen gesaumt ist. Der Uberlieferung nach geht Stutt- gart auf ein Gestin mit dem Namen "Stutengarten" zuruck,worauf sich ;, ;: ; _' -_-r• 08 e.wrop das schwarze "R6ssle" auf goldenem .- "� = Grund im Stadtwappen bezieht. Bereits �`' ' �c .n.' ` im 15. Jahrhundert erklarte Graf Eber- hard im Bart,der erste wiirttember- gische Herzog, Stuttgart zur Haupt- und Residenzstadt. pusstattung Wanderziele im Mittleren Neckarraum ist Stuttgart das Zentrum fur Regierung,Verwal- tung,Wissenschaft, Industrie- and 51 Schlafraume mit insgesamt 245 Barensee and Schlog Solitude Dienstleistungsgewerbe.Zahlreiche Betten in 4-Bettzimmern. 19 Zimmer Exotischer and Botanischer Garten bei Museen and Theater mit teilweise sind mit fliegend Warm- and Kalt- SchloR Hohenheim internationalem Ruf, ausgedehnte wasser ausgestattet. Rosensteinpark and Hbhenpark Parkanlagen and der weithin bekannte Fur Betreuer stehen 15 Zimmer, aIle Killesberg Tierpark "Wilhelma" sowie viele mit fliei1end Wasser,teilweise auch Unterturkheim-Uhlbach-Rotenberg Kulturdenkmaler im Umkreis der mit Nai3zelle, zur Verfugung. (Grabkapelle Wurttemberg) Stadt versprechen einen interessanten Das Haus hat 5 Tagesriiume mit 180, Aufenthalt. 80, 2 x je 40 sowie 30 Platzen. Ausflugsziele Stuttgart ist Bahnstation im Schnitt- punkt der groRen Nord-Sud-Verbin- Freizeiteinrichtungen Esslingen dung Hamburg-Munchen bzw. der Goppingen-Hohenstaufen-Hohen- Ost-West-Strecke Munchen-StraRburg. im Haus rechberg-Urweltmuseum Holzmaden Im Suden der Stadt kreuzen sich die Fernseher Kloster Maulbronn A 8 Karlsruhe-Munchen, die A 81 Heil- Klavier Ludwigsburg bronn-Singen. Daruber hinaus verfugt Unterhaltungsspiele Tubingen -Kloster Bebenhausen die Stadt Ober ein ausgedehntes in der Nahe des Hauses Netz von Stadt- and U-Bahnen, die den gesamten Mittleren Neckarraum Kunsteis- and Rollschuhbahn auf der Hilfen zur Vorbereitung einschliegen. Waldau Max-Eyth-See Topographische Karte 1:50 000, Blatt Mineral- and Heilbader(Leuze, Berg) L 7120 Stuttgart Nord and Blatt L 7320 Lage der Jugendherberge Neckarschiffahrt Stuttgart Sud;Wanderkarte 1:50 000, Planetarium Blatt 14 Stuttgart and Umgebung Die Jugendherberge liegt im Stad - Sport-, Spiel- and Tennispl5tze beim (F 14); Radwanderkarte 1:100 000, Blatt =wym.iv ostlicher Halbhohenlage, Fernsehturm 55 Stuttgart and Umgebung (R 55) ca. 10 Gehminuten vom Hauptbahnhof Staatsgalerie Stuttgart entfernt. Die Haltestelle "Eugensplatz" WOrttembergische Staatstheater M6gliche Arbeits-and UnterridAs- der StraRenbahnlinie 15 oder der Bus- (GroGes and Kleines Haus) themen linie 42 liegt ca. 5 Minuten von der Zahlreiche Schlosser and Museen Jugendherberge entfernt. Zoo ("Wilhelma") • Stern- and Himmelskunde sa� Eignung der Jugendherberge Jugendherbergen in der Umgebung Einzelgaste, Schullandheimaufenthalte, Esslingen 13 km Erholungs- and Rustzeiten,Tagungen Ludwigsburg 25 km and Lehrgange, Familien, sonstige Calw 35 km Gruppen TObingen 45 km 82 � i Ap y' ` / WI- .4 O / / '✓ r � _ ;7 - I _ 9,`, `F<� '`s I� 0 �<<O� •moi o'®�MI '� 'i'i. `` '.Y. c Q< — r. ' �41. a . Z �I r..�---��_""` �• r4 _i'' ' s � , P' (� �l cin . rr - � �' V 'J °c - P vx Lv Ilk- 10 Iry IT L ' ✓ u66.. 132 IgpaE-� J s C n� 1 l:j �� �� � w.�o Q� •� � ✓L✓ gb2 9 5 AqE 1 � f C `;• "� ko ur) lm CO Iz 21 090 IZE 000 14 100 AOO C3 dOG 'Ai am Op V We, the undersigned residents, petition the San Luis Obispo City Council to use its influence with Cal Poly and the Foundation to upgrade the Crandall-Foothill-Carpenter-Hathway area by purchasing single family homes, as they become available, for much needed faculty housing for couples and families. This would benefit Cal Poly and would be supportive of and compatible with our residential neighborhoods (Land Use Element, p.98). Proximity to campus, child care, and Pacheco School would be ideal. NAME ADDRESS Q7,/ /,3 C SCO od . Cr � /`f 0 S" �� So h 2 s dG s dull A d-,�r IS9/ ��II�IIIIII�IIIIIIHIII�������������,II�IIIII IIIlllll lll� cX Cl of S�►1�11�,11S OBISPO 990 Palm.Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 March 30, 1998 311-7/9 � William R. McLennan Attorney at Law Railroad Square 1880 Santa Barbara, Suite 212 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Request for Administrative Record (Use Permit for Hostel - Santa Rosa St. (U 178-97)) Dear Mr. McLennan: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on March 25, 1998, concerning your request for the administrative record of the approval of the hostel on Santa Rosa Street. I very much appreciate your willingness to listen to my point of view on the matter. I am hopeful that.I have been persuasive enough to get you to reconsider the advisability of filing a writ. At the very least, I would humbly follow-up on my suggestion that you consult with an attorney who specializes in municipal law to determine whether what I have said to you is fair and accurate. I believe it would be a disservice to all of us to expend a great deal of time, money and effort which merely prolongs the conflict if the ultimate outcome is to approve the hostel use. In response to your March 23, 1998 letter, let me first say that your request for the administrative record is acknowledged, and I understand that your request was in part motivated by a desire to preserve your options concerning the applicable statute of limitations. With respect to preparing a transcript of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, I would recommend that you contact the City Clerk, Bonnie Gawf, directly, and request copies of the tape recordings for those hearings. You may then have them transcribed directly. You may reach Bonnie at 781-7104. With respect to all the other papers which would constitute the administrative record, I will contact the Community Development Department and Clerk's Office and begin the process of compiling them. Should you decide to go forward with a writ, then it would be your responsibility to submit the administrative record to the court, numbered consecutively pursuant to local Rule 7.16. On the other hand, should you decide not to pursue the writ, I would be grateful if you would inform me so that the City does not incur unnecessary expense accumulating records. /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. William R. McLennan March 30, 1998 Page Two If I may be of further assistance to you, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, e y J ge sen City Attorney JGJ/sw c: Bonnie Gawf , Arnold Jonas Ron Whisenand Pam Ricci �✓ � a WILLIAM R. MCLENNAN ATTORNEY AT LAW RAILROAD SQUARE 1880 SANTA BARBARA-SUITE 212 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 TEL:(805)544-7950 I (� .FAX:(805)544-4381/5448082 �/�( //, E-MAIL'MCL7WOAOLCOM MA • 2 14 1998 OFFICE OF �Tnn ,ry Ms. Bonnie Gawf March 23, 1998 City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo Hand Delivered/cc mailed 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401 Re: Request for administrative record(Use permit for Hostel-Santa Rosa Street(U 178-97)) Dear Ms. Gawfi On March 17, 1998, the San Luis Obispo City Council rejected the appeal of Wolfgang and Suzanne Gartner, and affirmed the February 11, 1998, approval by the Planning Commission of a use permit for a"hostel"at 1617 Santa Rosa Street in San Luis Obispo. You are hereby requested by Wolfgang and Suzanne Gartner to prepare and deliver to me, their attorney in these proceedings, a complete copy of the administrative record in this case. As stated in CCP 1094.5, the record"shall include the transcript of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer,the final decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case." I believe and am requesting that "any other papers in the case" include all application papers filed 'by the applicant, Ms.Simer, for this use permit, all reports of any city department relating to this use permit application, all letters or other papers submitted by anyone from this community in this case, and a transcript of the proceedings before the Planning Commission and the City Council I feel it is important to remind you that local rule 7.16 of the San Luis Obispo Superior and Municipal Court requires that "The pages of the administrative record shall be numbered consecutively. Any references to the administrative record in either the supporting or opposing points and authorities shall include an appropriate reference to a specific page or pages of the record." I am specifically requesting compliance with this court rule. 46 t. I realize the Wolfgang and Suzanne Gartner will be required pay for the cost of preparing the record. Please contact me to discuss your requirements concerning payment. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please call me at 544-7950 if you have any questions or when the preparation of the administrative record is completed. Sincerely, . William R. McLennan cc: City Attorney WILLIAM R. McLENNAN ATTORNEY AT LAW RAILROAD SQUARE IBRO SANTA BARBARA•SUITE 212 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 Z3 C 1,y )3Aeu"y TEL.:(805)544-7950 Copy � FAX:(805)544-4381/5448082 �!L���� • E-MAIL:MCL700®AOL.COM HA 01 Ms. Bonnie Gawf March 23, 1998 City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo Hand Delivered/cc mailed 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401 Re: Request for administrative record (Use permit for Hostel-Santa Rosa Street (U 178-97)) Dear Ms. Gawf- On March 17, 1998, the San Luis Obispo City Council rejected the appeal of Wolfgang and Suzanne Gartner, and affirmed the February 11, 1998, approval by the Planning Commission of a use permit for a"hostel"at 1617 Santa Rosa Street in San Luis Obispo. You are hereby requested by Wolfgang and Suzanne Gartner to prepare and deliver to me, their attorney in these proceedings, a complete copy of the administrative record in this case. As stated in CCP 1094.5, the record "shall include the transcript of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission, board, officer, or agent, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case." I believe and am requesting that "any other papers in the case" include all application papers filed by the applicant, Ms.Simer, for this use permit, all reports of any city department relating to this use permit application, all letters or other papers submitted by anyone from this community in this case, and a transcript of the proceedings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. I feel it is important to remind you that local rule 7.16 of the San Luis Obispo Superior and Municipal Court requires that "The pages of the administrative record shall be numbered consecutively. Any references to the administrative record in either the supporting or opposing points and authorities shall include an appropriate reference to a specific page or pages of the record." I am specifically requesting compliance with this court rule. RECEIVED MAR 2 199 SLO CITY CLERK � j rL �'a � tD\ t,c�;j w� l � +��. r . - _.�-- 1 1. l: _ - •' :7 I realize the Wolfgang and Suzarme Gartner will,be required.pay for the cost of preparing the record. Please contact me to,discuss your requirements concerning payment. Thankyou for your assistance in this matter. Please call me at 544=7950 if you . have any questionsor when the preparation of the administrative record is completed. Sincerely; . William R. McLennan cc: City Attorney . Y MEETING AGENDA DATE 3 �7 9�ITEM # James F. Lopes 2230 Exposition Drive No. 30 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 March 11, 1998 City Council pp City of San Luis Obispo aAfAO 0' 990 Palm Street ErA RNEY ❑P�v�.., KIORIG [3 PEC DER E._ San Luis Obispo, California 93401 1 pvmDIR Subject: Mid State Bank/Albertson's, 2238 Broad Street o-� o�Drt+ Dear Mayor and Council: I am a resident of the large neighborhood west of this site, and I support the proposed general plan amendment and rezoning to neighborhood commercial. The proposed rezoning is in an appropriate location as urban infill. The scale of the proposal is still larger than I anticipated. In considering the use permit application, I would appreciate your approval of conditions to achieve viable pedestrian access across Broad Street at both South and Alphonso Streets and to design a continuous shopping facade from the"A" shops building shown on the revised site plan along the city property line to Albertson's front facade. My first request would be to require the installation of a pedestrian island at least 12 feet wide at each intersection, with a hand operated signal control, rail handhold and audio instructions on the current signal. Twelve feet is necessary to provide the absolute minimum distance that pedestrians sense is safe to be next to traffic on both sides of them. Broad Street needs to accommodate the elderly and disabled with at least as much security as those of us driving by them. The width of Broad Street should not be increased by adding a second left turn lane. Instead, a second condition is needed concerning pedestrian safety, to require that Broad Street maintain its current width and the pedestrian island be installed in the current left-turn lane, which should be moved to the current inner north-bound lane. This condition will reduce the north-bound lanes from two to one. Through traffic on Broad Street is funneled now from two lanes to one only a block further north. My proposal is to make the transition before the South Street intersection. This condition should be timed with a monitoring clause for a period of 10 years to assess whether widening is necessary later to add a second left turn lane. The owner should be required to bond for the potential widening cost if needed. If these conditions are not desirable to your Council, then I do not support the project because it will not be a viable pedestrian destination and will generate too much traffic onto South Street. City Council Page 2 A smaller project should in that case be considered that will not proportionally cause the widening of Broad Street or facilitate more traffic on South Street, which due to its current faulty design is too dangerous to handle additional traffic generation. However, if your Council wishes to add these conditions, then my second request is that your Council also require the site design of the center to be modified to locate shops in a Albertsons nearly continuous facade primarily along the city property, turning along the west wall of Albertson's, as shown in Figure 1. This design could be varied with sunny Shops outdoor plazas (grids) and intervening buildings, but the shops should not be �� separated by parking lots. A stand-alone building such as"B" Shops on the revised site plan is desirable also to provide some enclosure to the pedestrian shopper's experience and to reduce the wide-open space of Broad Street. Broad Basically some combination of the original and revised site plans would be optimal for Figure 1 attracting pedestrians. If parking is important to be near the shops, then it should be located behind Albertsons them, so that they ring the parking and present a block face to pedestrians, as shown in Figure 2. This approach provides the most desirable use of the street frontage as well, since the buildings are closer to the street. The south side of the entrance drive could mirror this Parking arrangement to create even more of a _. typical urban block. Parking spaces should be allowed a 20 Shops percent reduction instead of 10, and that number applied as a condition so that i additional area can be utilized for pedestrian"parking" such as seating, Broad plazas and dining patios. Figure 2 City Council Page 3 In an infill situation like this, the City has a wonderful opportunity to use all that staff tLnd the,. dedicated individuals on the Council have learned, to create an urban shopping center oriented to . the pedestrian. Respectfully submitted, aures Lopes c: Charles Sanchez, Caltrans MEET ^ JATE I G i7 AGENDA ITEM # • council mEmonanbum March 12, 1998 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bonnie Gawf, City Cle�?p SUBJECT: Invitation to Albertson's Neighborhood Meetings In passing along the attached invitation, I wanted to be sure that Council Members are comfortable that, because this is an open and publicized event, it clearly falls under the exceptions to the definition of a"meeting" in Section 54952.2 of the Brown Act. Attendance by a majority of the Council would not constitute a"meeting" under the Brown Act, as long as you "do not discuss among [yourselves] . . . business of a specific nature that is within [your] jurisdiction . . ." (G.C. §54952.2.c.3). If you attend the project information meetings this weekend, please take care not to discuss the subject matter among yourselves until the public hearing on March 17th. cc: CAO John Dunn City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen Assistant CAO Ken Hampian Community Development Director Arnold Jonas C� 0 ❑Fl _G:: C�ATIORNEY ❑PW DIR IME RKIORICI O POLICE CHF m E3 kC DIR prO UTIL OIR O 13 FWMA DIR MAR 11 ' 9E 13: 27 FROM ALEERTSONS - PAGE. 00_1r, _ AlbertsomO March 10, 1998 Honorable Mayor Settle Councilwoman Smith Councilwoman Williams Councilman Roalman Councilman Romero City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Proposed Albertson's Broad Street Plaza Neighborhood Luncheon Invitation., and Market Study Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council: This weekend, March 14th and 15th from 1:30 to 3:00 P.M., Albertson's will be hosting a project information meeting for the neighbors and any other persons interested in knowing more about our project before Tuesday's City Council Meeting. It will take place at the site, and a light informal lunch will be served. I would like to extend a personal invitation to you, the Council, to attend this meeting; its a good opportunity to hear the neighborhood and to talk with our consultants in a casual setting. The notice for the neighborhood meeting is being advertised in this week's local newspaper. Additionally, we have recently updated our Market Study to include all current stores including the newly opened Food 4 Less. Because of certain proprietary data in the study, I have enclosed a redacted copy which shows the pertinent market information but without any store spec data. Please call me should you have any questions regarding`the foregoing. I hope to see you at this weekend's neighborhood meeting. Sincerel ours, RECEIVED Scott R Thayer MAR 1 1 1997 Real Estate Manager SLO CIN COUNCIL sloinvit ALBERTSOWS,INC./SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION 11180 WEST LAMBERT RGAU/P.O.BOX 75M/BREA.CALIFORNIA 92822-755 TIe.471.9+m ^t'1RR 11 ' 96 19: 26 FRnM RLEERTSONS PRGE . 60Z _ Memorandum DATE: March 10, 4998 TO: Scott Thayer FROM: Sue Mattefs RE: Sales Potential: San Luis Obispo,California CC: Bob Banks;Dave McKinney As you requested, I have analyzed the sales potential for the San Luis Obispo marketplace. The summary of information follows: Trade Area Potential Trade Area Population(see attached map) 54,200 Average Per Capita Expenditure $39.82 Available Grocery Dollars $4168,244 Su ermarke Information Lucky Foothill/Broad 19,250 sq. ft Albertson's Los Osos/Madonna 33,742 sq.ft. Scolan's Johnson/Marsh 30,000 sq. ft. Lucky EI Mercado/Madonna 29,200 sq.ft. Vons Tank Farm/Broad 52,391 sq.ft Food 4 Less Higuera/Suburban 50,000.sq.ft. Proposed Albertson's Broad/Alphonso 38.000 Sq_& TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 252583 sa.ft. A supermarket in San Luis Obispo can be profitable with sales of$6.50 per square foot. We have prepared an analysis of the sales potential of the community based on that measure as well as $7.00 and$7.50 per square foot. MAR 11 19E 13: 26 FRAM ALEERTSONS PAGE . 06,P' _ ' 252,583 sq. ft.X$6.50=$1,641,790 X 90%•=$1,477,611 252,583 sq. ft. X$7.00=$1,768,081 X 90%'=$1,591,273 252,583 sq. ft. X$7.50=$1,894,373 X 900le=$1,704,935 *Note: 90•/is accounted for by trade area(community)sales The remaining 10% comes from outlying areas and passerby traffic. Comparing the sales that are available in the community ($2,158,244)to the sales required by the grocery stores to be profitable($1,477,611 Q$6.50/s.f.,$1,591273 @$7.00/s.f. and$1,704.935 Qa $7.50/s.f.), shows that there is ample available grocery dollars in the trade area even after the opening of the proposed new 38,000 s.f.Albertson's. $6,50/8.f. S7.001s.f. 7 O!s f. Available Dollars $2,158,244 $2,158,244 $2,158.244 Grocery Sales -1.477.611 - 1.591.273 - 1.704.935 Remaining('float") $ 680,633 $ 566,971 $ 453.309 (31.5%) (26.3%) (21.0) Albertson's projected share of the primary trade area's available grocery dollars is Secondary sales will account for . % providing an overall sales volume of$_. /wk. 2 v1LE�liru AGENDA n DATE ITEM # k F A X COYER S 'H E F T TRANSMITTAL B H E E ? 14 March 1998 Fromt Lols Thompson and Frank We.slcy i Tot Mayor A11E11 Settle Councilwo uotie Williams ..Councilwo an Kathy Smith Qounollm Bill Roalmarr Councilman Dave Romero # of Pages including Cover Sheet/Tranemittal Sheet 1 Since we are un�ble to attend the San T,uis Obispo City Cuuncll Meetings on March 17th due to a prior commitment of the Community Concert Association; we are faxing ypu for your support of the new grocery store at Broad Street Plaza on Broad street at Alphonso. The Scolari's c�mplex was poorly planned- with inadequate parking and many times we cannot get in the lot and have to drive miles to shop. This proposed center appears to havo adequate parking and the addition of another grocery store would create the competition for holding prices downi imprepion And it is certellnly going to give a much better/of the'•Gity for those using; 221$ instead of 'the empty - weed filled lot. lois M. Thompson Frank alley pacLn� U! ❑A'fORNEY ❑F i L ., ❑•CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE OF.: ❑MGM TEAM ❑REC DIR O% ,/, ❑UTIL DIR ❑ ❑PERS Dill I } P . 1 L i i ITEM #. STRONG PLANNING SERVICES RoB _STR0KG.,A.1C.R;. 13 13 March 12,1998 _ _ .� . Mayor Settle and City Council Members �;o o Z :. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO . .�9� City Hall, 990 Palm Street o San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 001301300. . Subject: Albertson's Broad Street Plaza General Plan Amendment and Rezoning n m-�mo�9�v :Attention: Mr. Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director vm-n-olegv Dear Mayor Settle and City Council Members: 9 I represent an informal coalition of concerned commercial developers and neighborhood residents who oppose this general plan amendment and rezoning and appealed the stars negative declaration. Last year I had time to meet with Residents For Quality Neighborhoods,the local Chapter of the Sierra Club, Old Town Neighborhood Association representatives and most small_market, large supermarket and several shopping center owners and developers before the City Council denied a similar application on the same site. During the 1996 year end holiday period, I obtained more than 300 residents petition signatures from the Old Town, Hawthorne School and Exposition Park/Woodbridge residential areas near the site, opposed to the general plan amendment and rezoning, discovering that 75 %of the residents contacted did not want or support the Albertsons' proposed Broad Street Plaza. This year the Albertson representatives were able to accellerate the process, which prevented renewed neighborhood petitions or reactivating the same residential and environmental coalitions from reorganizing and reacting to the revised applications. But some of the market and commercial center developers and Old Town Neighborhood resident representatives still consider this reduced center an objectionable general plan change with long-term"adverse traffic and economic impacts. Attached is a four page "White Paper"which provides a different professional opinion than the ten page,"blue staff report"for this agenda item. I also reference two technical reports which we commissioned regarding the previous and current.proposals:', - 1)A January, 1997 letter from traffic engineer Keith Mggins and Associates. regarding traffic study deficiencies and significant impact findings,and 2)A March '1958 sales,projection and market impact analysis prepared by Thompson Associates,which quantifies some of the economic impacts associated with the proposed,revised Albertson project in the current community trade area. We will be present at the public hearing on March:17,to respond to questions and present a brief introduction to this alternative vision for iesponsible.neighborhood and economic DATE jol- development in San_ Luis Obispo W E� _ 444 HIGUERA.STREET, STE.201,SAN LUIS OBI$PO,CA 93401 • PHONE/FAX(805)5. 2-9150' Other nearby.communities have experienced"overbuilding"of certain types,of large scale- . .. stores,which when vacant or clad to unplanned reta�l,uses erodes or destroys the..':. - • Y _ P y , . . neighborhood pattern clearly intended by the Sarni s Obispo...Geaeral Plan.We believe that the future character ofthe.Santa Barbara Street:and Broad Street corridors are at stake with this application to create unnecessary-urten.4 catioa of high vohume retail traffic at this critial crossroads. Recently,,the'San Luis;Obispo Chamber of Commerce presented its viSafi Lu Vision of is Obispo's Economic Future,and a six point economic;strategy::The first strategy Proposes:', ".Nurture.and protect existing businesses and jobs," It is not consistent With this strategy to approve a new development which diverts 90%-of its potential projected sales form existing centers and stores-which will redistnbute but not expand the current workforce.- Please orkforce:Please protect the integrity of the General Plan and deny this unwatrenied amendment and proposed rezoning. The site can be better developed with the existing designations, ora`. lower intensity mixed use planned development rezoning without general plan amendment.: Sincerely Rob Strong; A I.C.P. cc: Marigold Center LLC Laguna Village Center :Scolari's Markets . 'Old Town Neighborhood Association r' 'Tff TE PAPER"REVIEW Opposition to Albertson'Broad Street Plaza Prepared by Strong Planning Services,3/12/98 The issue is a change to the General Plan and rezoning to more than double the size of a potential high volume retail shopping center site at the northeast corner of Broad, South and Santa Barbara Streets,one of the City's most congested intersections. General Plan policies and potential environmental impacts, not project design,should be the basis for decision When the City Council denied a similar application on the same site one year ago,the reasons were: "1) It is not desirable to have Neighborhood-Commercial uses occupy the entire site because of th estimated volume of traffic these uses would add to a major intersection where traffic delays are already experienced(i.e.EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS) 2)The proposed project is not consistent with Land Use Element Policy 3.2.2.B which states that new and expanded neighborhood commercial centers should provide uses to serve nearby residents and not the whole City,and should have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from surrounding service area (i.e.NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE AND TRADE AREA,AND CONVENIENT WALKING ACCESS)" Although the proposed project has been reduced by approximately 7000 square feet,the proposed supermarket is still the third largest food store in the City,behind Vons and Food 4 Less,but twice the size of the Foothill Luckys,and 5000 to 10000 square feet larger than Madonna Luckys,Laguna Village Albertson, or Downtown Scolaris.When the Council recently authorized the application to be reconsidered in less than a year from denial,the applicant agreed to submit market study information to address the size and trade area issues,but that data has not been provided The reduction m.size by approximately 12%may reduce the project traffic by a similar amount,but the facts are that this intersection and segments of Broad Street and Santa Barbara Street are congested now (LOS D)and projected to get worse(LOS E or F).It is also fact that the project alone would add almost 30%to the problem within the next ten years,documented in the previous traffic study.The deficiencies of the traffic study notwithstanding(e.g,lack of General Plan`build-out"projection,and underestimating . of Santa Barbara and Roundhouse Avenue traffic impacts),it is still evident that the project causes "excessive traffic impacts"which are not mitigated In fact,the recommended mitigation measures of widening Broad Street to seven lanes,adding another signalized intersection at Alphonso Street,and the potential need for making Santa Barbara Street five Innes wide in front of the new fire station,all involve major impacts and contradict General Plan policies,secondary adverse impacts caused by the amendment It should be noted that the proposed project eliminates the potential for South Street extension,but substantially encourages the need for Roundhouse-Bishop Street connection,without contn'buring any mitigation Amding.(e.g,payment for signalization at Santa Barbara Street or toward a grade separation). It is also clear that the proposed Broad Street Plaza,containing such a large supermarket,will serve more than the nearby residents,essentially the whole City-wide trade area,despite the reduction in size to smaller than Vons and Food 4 Less,both of which were planned to serve the whole City.Because we believe the economic impact of airy commercial development is an indicator or estimate of its potential environmental impacts,we commissioned an independent,professional economic and market analysis by Thomson Associates, one of the largest and most reputable firms who conduct this type of industry research for both public agencies and private retailers.The attached report documents and concludes that: "-The propesed Albertson will derive a minimum of 90%of its potential sales by diverting or reducing existing sales from other(existing)centers:more distant Albertson and Food 4 Less will experience less than a 10%impact. -The primary trade area of Albertson proposed supermarket is already served by five similar stores: Albertson,Lucky, Scolaris,Vons and Food 4 Less." (the report estimates that six of the eight existing stores will suffer 10%to 17%loss of sales to the proposed Albertson Broad Street Plaza). The Land Use Element of the General Plan outlines community goals for City Form,one of which is: "San Luis Obispo should maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern."(page LU-3,#29). Regarding conservarion and development of residential neighborhoods,the Land Use Element states: "Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic."(page LU-18,policy LU 2.1.3) Concerning separation and buffering,the Land Use Element,policy LU 2.2,2 provides: "Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities" The Land Use Element section regarding Neighborhood Commercial,policy LU 3.2.1 provides: "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." The same section,LU policy 3.2.2,regarding new or expanded centers,outlines six points including: "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 the surrounding service area..." The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains policy LU3.2.3 regarding"Expanding Centers!' "The City should evaluate the need for and the desirability of additions to existing neighborhood commercial centers only when specific development proposals are made,and not in response to rezoning requests which do not incorporate a development plan." Programs of the Land Use Element regarding Neighborhood Uses,LU 3.7.3 provides: "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 citywide market;and(2)they are appropriately located considering access and compatibility with nearby uses." Downtown Policies of the Land Use Element include: LU 4.8-"Downtown residential areas should be protected from through traffic." LU 4.9-"Street widening and realignment should be avoided" LU 4.18-"In retail areas beyond the commercial core,the pattern of buildings in relation to the street should become more like the core,with few driveways and parking lots serving individual buildings,and no street or side yard setbaacks(except for recessed entries and courtyards)." The Circulation Element of the General Plan also includes goals and policies relevant to this proposal: "Widen and extend streets only when there is a demonstrated aced and when projects will cause no significant,tong-term environmental problems."(page CI-1,goal#4) Circulation Element objectives for traffic management include the statement,(page CI-3, # 12 E),that: "San Luis Obispo should manage the use of Arterial Streets,Regional Routes and Highways so that traffic levels during peak traffic periods do not result in extreme congestion,increased headway for transit vehicles,or unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists." The standards for"Residential Arterials"which include these segments of Broad and South Streets are: "Residential Arterials are bordered by residential property where preservation of neighborhood character is as important as providing for traffic flow and where speed should be controlled Desired maximum LOS D,Desired maximum speed 35 and Travel lanes 2-4."(page CI-17) The Circulation Element Programs stated on page CI-29, Cl 8.9 regarding State Highway 227,provides: "The City will ask the California Department of Transportation to designate Prado Road between Broad Street and Highway 101 as State Highway 227."Program CI-8.10 further provides: "The City will ensure that changes to Prado Road and other related system improvements are implemented in a sequence that satisfies circulation demands caused by area development" It is difficult to review these specific goals,objectives,policies,programs and standards and find any rational to approve the requested general plan amendment or rezoning,or to conclude that a negative declaration is justified,particularly if the traffic study and economic study are considered carefully. -2- On page 7-5 of the current staff report, the ARC 12/1/97 comments regarding the project conclude: "We feel these changes are minor to our overall concerns.Our initial concerns still apply which- include: hichinclude:project scale,size,massing,pedestrian access to residential neighborhoods, compatibility with the architectural context of surrounding development,building heights and setbacks. We have additional concerns which include: 1.Views of the large roof from residential neighborhoods across the railroad tracks.2 Views of the entry to the City along the railroad corridor.3.Bicycle path location in the parking lot.4.Widening of Broad Street(it is already too wide).5.Integrety of Broad Street elevation-provide street frontage drawing showing Fire Station and Bank.6.Location of Building"A"relative to parking and pedestrian dropoff." Page 7-6 states that:"The project seems consistent with most governing Land Use Element policies." But the following questions should be addressed by staff regarding the proposed inconsistencies in policy: LU-3,#29:How does a proposal which derives 90%of its potential sales from City wide trade area,and diverting traffic from six existing centers help"maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern"? LU2.1.3:How does a proposal which increases LOS D on two Residential Arterials,Broad and South Streets, contribute to"Neighborhoods protected from intrusive traffic"7 LU 2.2.2:How does doubling the size of one block of a Neighborhood Commercial district along Broad Street protect residential areas along South or Broad Street"from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities" ? LU 3.2.1:How does the proposal to make one block of the existing neighborhood commercial district containing in excess of eight acres,and within one mile of at least three other centers, conform to the intent of this policy? LU 3.2.2:How does a supermarket which is sized to serve the whole City and increases traffic on two residential streets beyond acceptable standards,and is separated from the nearest homes by streets which need to be five to seven lanes wide,conform to these criteria to expanding existing centers? LU 3.2.3:How does the Cityjustify"the need for or the desirability of"additions to the existing undeveloped neighborhood commercial zoning when the specific development proposal associated with the rezoning serves the whole City while eroding the economic vitality of six existing neighborhood and community centers? LU 3.7.3:How does a 38,282 square foot supermarket at this congested location 'primarily serve a neighborhood rather than a citywide market"?Is it appropriately located considering access and compatibility with nearby uses when it is separated from all surrounding residential areas by the railroad tracks,Broad and Santa Barbara Streets?Do the ARC concerns indicate that the project is compatible with nearby uses 7 LU 4.8:How will the traffic from the northwest,the north or the east access the proposed center without traversing downtown residential areas such as Pismo,Chorro,Osos,and Broad Streets 7 LU 4.9:Doesn't the Caltrans requirement to widen Broad Street;the traffic study finding that Santa Barbara Street will also need to be widened largely due to the proposed project;and the potential need to realign the South Street extension to connect at Roundhouse and Bishop Streets all seem to conflict with the policy precaution"to avoid street widening and realignment"? LU 4.18:Do the ARC concerns regarding scale,size,massing and placement of buildings indicate that the revised project conforms to the beyond downtown core design concepts? -3- - Rather than question consistency with the circulation element goals and policies in a similar list,it is important to recall the findings of the traffic study prepared for the previous project,and the defi6encies- which we noted one year ago,but which have not been addressed According to an independent traffic consultant,Keith Higgins and Asssociates' letter of January 14, 1997: "1)The trip distribution pattern represented for the project and the project trip assignment do not appear to be consistent; 2)Ten-year traffic forests rather than 20 year or General Plan buildout traffic forecasts were utilized to evaluate long-term traffic conditions; 3)Utilization of the Roundhouse Avenue project driveway may be understated given the traffic operating conditions anticipated at the South Street/Broad Street/Santa Barbara Street intersection This has implications with respect to project impacts and design needs to the Santa Barbara Street/Roundhoouse Avenue intersection and the Roundhouse Avenue project driveway intersection,and 4)The fate of the Bishop Street Extension has not been fully resolved.Development of the project site as proposed would preclude the southern alignment as a viable alternative for the extension, should the City decide to construct this link.Development of the project site(requiring the vacation of South Street right-0f--way)should not be considered until the Bishop Street Extension issues are resolved" Until the City provides a General Plan buildout traffic projection for this congested intersection and segments of Broad,South and Santa Barbara Streets in the vicinity,with and without the proposed project and possible Bishop Street Extension,we will consider the traffic study and the resultant environmental determination to be fatally flawed Additionally,trip distribution should be based on market analysis, Which shows a totally different trip pattern than the traffic study arbitrarily and incorrectly assigned (For example,the study assigned 15%of the trips to the project to Broad Street from the south,45%of the trips to South Street and Highway 101 from the west, and 20%each to Broad Street and Santa Barbara Street from the northwest:this does not correspond to available trade area travel patterns.) Despite the deficiencies of the traffic study,it does find a significant adverse impact(IAS E)at the South Street/Broad Street/Santa Barbara Street intersecton with or without the project within a 10-year period It also found that the project would increase PM peak hour traffic on Broad Street by 36%in two years and 24%in ten year projections,and 33%and 20%of the Broad Street and South Street intersection. Such findings of potential significant adverse impacts should have caused staff to require an EIR or at least correct the inaccuracies of the report and require more study of project alternatives rather than propose a negative declaration We continue to challenge the negative declaration,and believe that the inconsistencies with General Plan Land Use and Circulation policies and-standards outlined above only reinforce this conclusion. In summary,we are hopeful that the City Council will deny this proposed general plan amendment again and retain the existing zoning. (Denial does not require an EIR,but project approval should)See staff report attachment 4. To illustrate that we are not opposed to responsible, planned commercial development which respects the important residential neighborhood integrity of the City of San Luis Obispo,we submit a simplified plan to show what we envision 1 Broad Street corridor between downtown and Prado Road should be enhanced not widened,and landscaped medians and mixed use rather than high volume retail developments encouraged It should be considered an extension of Railroad Square,Villa Rosa and the Crossroads rather than an intensification of the strip service commercial character it has had in the past . Prado Road should be developed to divert the State Highway 227 and Airport Area traffic from overburdening the existing street system of central San Luis Obispo,including Broad,South,and Santa Barbara Streets.This regional mute is essential to Airport Area traffic and development,but also needed to improve access to the regional centers at Madonna Road/Freeway 101 and Downtown.