HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/1997, 7 - CONSIDERATION OF ALBERTSONS' PROPOSAL FOR A 59,000-SQUARE-FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL CENTER AT 2238 BROAD STREET BETWEEN SANTA BARBARA AND ALPHONSO STREETS. (CITY FILE NOS.: ER, GP/R, MS, A 32-96) council
j acEnba REpont I"." b.
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
b
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director
Prepared By: Whitney McIlvaine,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of Albertson' proposal for a 59,000-square-foot neighborhood-commercial
center at 2238 Broad Street between Santa Barbara and Alphonso Streets. (City File Nos.: ER, GP/R,
MS,A 32-96)
CAO RECOMM00ATION:
1. Find that the Environmental Initial Study(ER 32-96) adequately addresses potential environmental
impacts of the project and identifies mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level in
conjunction with recommended actions 2 and 3 including support for widening of Broad Street as
recommended by Caltrans.
2. Conceptually approve a General Plan Map Amendment to change the land use designation from
Services and Manufacturing to Neighborhood-Commercial; from Government Facilities to Neigh-
borhood Commercial; and from Services and Manufacturing to Government Facilities, effective
upon recordation of an approved Parcel Map. Direct staff to aggregate the resolution with other pro-
posed General Plan amendment actions for adoption by single motion at the end of this meeting
3. Introduce an ordinance to rezone the site from Public Facility to Neighborhood Commercial
(PF—+C-N);from Service-Commercial to Public Facility(C-S-*PF); and from Service-Commercial
to Neighborhood-Commercial(C-S-+C-N), effective upon recordation of an approved Parcel Map.
4. Adopt a resolution approving a use permit to allow a 10 percent shared parking reduction and side
yard setback exception for the"tower" and the grocery store, effective upon recordation of an ap-
proved Parcel Map, and take no action on the setback exception for `Building A" referring the
matter to the ARC for resolution of appropriate setbacks as part of that review process.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Albertson proposes to demolish all industrial structures on the 7.5-acre site and construct a 47,000-
square-foot grocery, 9,000 square feet of retail shops, a 3,000-square-foot fast food restaurant, and
parking for roughly 300 cars. The project would incorporate the existing 9,000-square-foot Maid State
Bank building To maximize efficient use of the site, street abandonments and a boundary adjustment
between the project site and the adjacent fire station site are proposed
Positive attributes of the project include environmental clean up of a contaminated site; infill develop-
ment providing convenience services to residents near the city's center; compatibility with adjacent uses
to remain-the fire station and the bank; and an apparent commitment to quality in architectural design
and choice of building materials.
Concerns about the project that have been raised by members of the public, ARC Commissioners, and
7-/
Albertson
Page 2
business competitors include traffic generation, auto-dependent site planning, a suburban aesthetic too
close to the center of town, and potential for an oversupply of Neighborhood-Commercial zoning and
associated uses.
To accomplish this project as designed, the applicant must obtain several City approvals to be proc-
essed in four stages as follows:
A. Council review and action on:
1. Mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact.
2. General plan map amendment to designate the entire project site for neighborhood commercial
uses.
3. Rezoning the entire site C-N consistent with the general plan map amendment
4. Use permit for parking and setback reductions.
These items are the primary subject of this report and are discussed below in detail.
B. Architectural Review Commission review and action on:
1. The project's architectural design and site planning.
The project received preliminary review by the ARC on August S, and December 2, 1996 At both
meetings the ARC asked if the project could be modified to locate some of the buildings closer to the
street for improved pedestrian access and a more urban-rather than suburban-streetscape. Speck
ARC concerns are discussed below.
C. Council review and action on:
1. A minor subdivision to adjust the perimeter-boundaries of the site and re-subdivide internal
lots. As part of the subdivision,the Council must also determine:
a. Whether the proposed property exchange between the fire station site and the project
site is consistent with the general plan and desirable from a property management and
operational standpoint, and
b. Whether the proposed abandonment of Emily, South and Rachel Streets is appropriate
(See attached Property Exchange/Street Abandonment Plan and Sheets SD 4 and SD
5 of full-size plans).
The internal lot configuration will correspond to building footprints to enable separate ownership.
Building footprints must first be determined through architectural review before lot lines can be es-
tablished. For this reason Council review of the subdivision will take.place following ARC action
However, any concerns regarding the property exchange and the proposed street abandonments
should be raised as soon as possible since both items affect the project's site planning. Both the
property exchange and the street abandonments are proposed to specifically accommodate the Broad
Street Plaza project
7'�
Albertson
Page 3
Fire Department staff do not object to the proposed property exchange and resulting reconfiguration
of the fire station site. Public Works staff support the proposed street abandonments, subject to reser-
vation of certain easements,providing the project receives other necessary approvals.
D. Council follow-up action on:
1. Final passage of the rezoning ordinance; and
2. Acceptance of the Parcel Map with associated site improvements, dedications, easements,,and
the property exchange agreement.
DISCUSSION
A. Background:
Site Description
The project would occupy about 7.5 acres on the east side of Broad Street between Santa Barbara and
Alphonso Streets. Southern Pacific Railroad adjoins the site to the east. The new City fire station is
immediately to the north To the south and west are offices, service-commercial uses, and houses. The
site is currently developed with warehouses, a trucking company and a branch of Mid State Bank.
Data Summary
Applicant: Albertson
Property Owners:Mid State Bank
Representative: Scott Thayer,Albertsons
Project Designer. Courtney Architects
Current Zoning: Neighborhood-Commercial, Service-Commercial, and Public Facility
General Plan:Neighborhood-Commercial, Services and Manufacturing, and Government Facilities
Environmental Status: The Director made a determination to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration
on January 2, 1997.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative action are not subject to the Streamlining Act.
ARC Review
The Architectural Review Commission felt that any approval by the ARC would be premature in light of
project complexities related to land use, zoning, traffic, height and setback exceptions and variances, and
neighborhood concerns. Commissioners appreciated the quality of the project and its architectural detailing
However, they also specifically outlined their concerns for the benefit of the applicant and the project de-
signer. Concerns include the project's scale, size, massing, building placement in relation to Broad Street,
pedestrian access to residential neighborhoods, compatibility with the architectural context of surrounding
development,building heights and setbacks. The project will return to the ARC if City Council approves the
general plan amendment and rezoning
B. Evaluation:
♦ General Plan Amendment and Rezoning: Should the Neighborhood-Commercial zoning be
Albertson
Page 4
expanded to enable a shopping center at this location?
In the hierarchy of decisions to be made regarding this project, approval or denial of the general plan
amendment and rezoning request is foremost. The project site is currently zoned Neighborhood-
Commercial (C-N), Service-Commercial (C-S), and Public Facility(PF) consistent with corresponding
general plan land use designations. The site is split almost equally between Neighborhood-Commercial
and Service-Commercial zoning. The Public Facility designation applies to the fire station property.
The existing area of C-N zoning is not large enough to accommodate the proposed neighborhood
commercial center. Therefore, the applicant proposes to rezone the entire project site C-N and amend
the General Plan Map to reflect a land use designation of Neighborhood-Commercial. To further fa-
cilitate development of the center, the applicant is proposing an adjustment to property boundaries -
with associated zoning changes - between the fire station site and surrounding property controlled by
the applicant.
The project seems consistent with most governing Land Use Element policies. Unless otherwise noted,
the proposed rezoning and site development are consistent with criteria specified in the following
commercial & industrial development policies from the Land Use Element. Consistency with Circula-
tion Element policies aimed at encouraging more pedestrian, bicycling, and public transit trips and
fewer single-occupant vehicle trips is more difficult to achieve. The applicant has agreed to mitigation
-bicycle facilities, shared-use parldng, provision of a bus stop and shelter, and pedestrian friendly site
planning to the approval of the ARC-to better meet the Circulation Element policies.
Land Use Element Polices
3.0 Commercial Siting
3.0.L Slope Commercial and industrial uses should be developed in appropriate areas where the natu-
ral slope of the land is less than ten percent.
3.0.2 Access Commercial and industrial uses should have access from arterial and collector streets,
and should be designed and located to avoid increasing traffic on residential streets.
3.0.3. Residential Area Expansion of commercial and industrial uses into residential areas is prohib-
ited
3.2 Neighborhood Commercial
3.2.1 Purpose and Inchided Uses The City should have areas for Neighborhood Commercial uses to
meet the frequent shopping demands of people living nearby. Neighborhood Commercial uses include
grocery stores, laundromats, and drug and hardware stores. Neighborhood Commercial centers should
be available within about one mile of all residences. These centers should not exceed about eight acres,
unless the neighborhood to be served includes a significant amount of high density residential develop-
ment. Specialty stores may be located in Neighborhood Commercial centers as long as they will not be
a major citywide attraction or displace more general convenience uses.
Albertson
Page 5
3.2.2 New or Expanded Centers New or expanded Neighborhood Commercial centers should:
A. Be created within,or extended into, adjacent nonresidential areas;
B. Provide uses to serve nearby residents, not the whole City;
C. Have access from arterial streets,and not increase traffic on residential streets;
D. Have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding service area, as well as good
internal circulation;
E. Provide landscaped areas with public seating;
F. Provide indoor or outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a focus for some neigh-
borhood activities.
Note 1: Item B: Market Area - Although the new grocery store would serve nearby residents, it will
also likely draw customers from other areas of the City, as do all existing grocery stores. The
Council may wish to modify the language of this policy in the future to more realistically address
typical shopping patterns. One suggested revision is: 'Provide convenience uses to primarily
serve nearby residents."
Note 2: Item D: Pedestrian Access- Safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding service
area will be difficult for any project on this site since the surrounding service area is bisected by a
major arterial(Broad Street). Widening Broad Street in front of the project is recommended as an
optional mitigation measure for potential impacts resulting from this project and other anticipated
regional sources of traffic. (See traffic discussion under Environmental Review on page 5.) Wid-
ening Broad Street will further deter pedestrians at the Broad, South, and Santa Barbara Street in-
tersection. Additional mitigation would require installation of a signal at the intersection of Broad
and Alphonso Streets which may facilitate pedestrian movement at this location.
3.23 Expanding Centers The City should evaluate the need for and desirability of additions to exist-
ing neighborhood commercial centers only when specific development proposals are made, and not in
response to rezoning requests which do not incorporate a development plan.
3.5 Services and Manufacturing
3.5.1 Purpose The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to
meet most demands of the City, and some demands of the region, for activities such as wholesaling,
building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, bakeries, and retail sales of large
items,bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials, plants). Areas re-
served for these rises may also accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily
serving area workers.
Note 3: Attached to this report is a table listing development and vacancy in nonresidential zones
within the City. This inventory indicates there is more vacant floor area and vacant land in the C-S
zone than in any other nonresidential zone.
g
:5
Albertson
Page 6
Note 4: Replacing C-S zoning with C-N zoning in this area may be more compatible with nearby resi-
dential neighborhoods.
3.5.3 General Retail and Neighborhood Commercial Uses New specialty stores, department stores,
or neighborhood commercial centers should not be developed in Service and Manufacturing areas....
Note 5: Without approval of the general plan amendment and rezoning request, the project would not
be consistent with this policy.
Alternative Actions on General Plan Amendment and Rezoning
1. Approve the amendment and rezoning as requested(CAO Recommendations 1, 2, and 3).
2. Adopt a resolution denying the general plan amendment and rezoning, finding the proposals incon-
sistent with adopted land use and /or circulation policies, problematic from a health and safety
standpoint, or otherwise specifying the reason(s) for denial. This action precludes the need for ac-
tion on any other project requests. A recommendation for denial does not require environmental
review.
♦ Environmental Review: Are potential impacts adequately analyzed and is mitigation suffi-
cient to reduce impact levels to less than significant?
The attached initial study of potential environmental impacts identifies several aspects of the project
which may have significant impacts. Recommended mitigation for all potentially significant impacts
are listed at the end of the initial study. Special studies conducted for this project (traffic, archaeologi-
cal, geotechnical, and a hazardous materials site assessment) are available at the Community Develop-
ment Department.
The single most positive impact of the project would be the clean up of hazardous and toxic materials
in the soil resulting from adjacency to the railroad and on-site industrial uses. The most potentially
negative impact of the project would be the increase in traffic and related impacts to air quality and pe-
destrian and bicycle transportation. Please refer to the attached letter from the Sierra Club.
The project is anticipated to add roughly 7,400 vehicle trips - a roughly 28 percent increase - to the ex-
isting average daily vehicle trips along this section of Broad Street. In order to maintain the current
level of service at affected intersections in the near term, the traffic study recommends restriping - but
not widening-Broad Street to replace a single.through lane with a combination through/left lane; a sig-
nal at Alphonso and Broad Streets; limited turning movements into and out of the project driveway on
Broad Street; and Keep Clear pavement marking at the intersection of Roundhouse Avenue and Santa
Barbara Street In addition,the project requires the elimination of the bike lane between Branch Street
and South Street The bike lane in conjunction with other restriping would become a right tum lane.
Cumulative far-term traffic projections indicate a need for widening Broad Street (between South and
Alphonso Streets) to accommodate two northbound left-tum lanes, two northbound through lanes, a
northbound.right-tum lane and two southbound lanes - a total of seven lanes of traffic, one more than
currently exists (Mitigation Option B).
7-6
Albertson
Page 7
The question of whether or not to widen Broad Street in conjunction with this project is largely de-
pendent on Caltrans since this section of Broad Street is a State highway. The attached letter from Cal
Trans dated February 28, 1997 indicates that Caltrans favors widening the street as part of the Albert-
son project. Although Public Works staff believes that traffic impacts can be mitigated without the
need for widening Broad Street (Mtigation Option A in the traffic study), they are deferring to Cal-
trans' approval authority and are therefore recommending widening (Mitigation Option B) as a condi-
tion of development approval(CAO Recommendation 1).
Alternative Actions on the Environmental Determination
1. Find that the Environmental Initial Study(ER 32-96) adequately addresses potential environmental
impacts of the project and identifies mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The Council should indicate whether it supports Mitigation Option A in terms of traffic impacts.
2. Find that the Environmental Initial Study(ER 32-96) does not adequately addresses potential envi-
ronmental impacts of the project and direct staff and the applicant to provide additional informa-
tion; include additional mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level; or initiate
preparation of an EIR.
♦ Use Permit: The applicant is requesting approval of a use permit to reduce the number of
required parking spaces and to reduce building setbacks.
Shared Parking-Zoning regulations provide for a 10% shared use reduction in the parking require-
ment when two or more uses share a common parking area subject to use permit approval. In this case,
nine uses would share a common parking area. A 10%reduction will be equivalent to about 30 spaces.
The exact number of required spaces depends on the final architectural approval. Staff supports the
reduction and it is recommended as a mitigation measure for potential traffic and air quality impacts.
Alternative Actions on Parking Reduction
1. Adopt a resolution approving a 10%parking reduction(CAO Recommendation 4).
2. Continue action with direction.
3. Deny the requested parking reduction based on appropriate findings.
Building and Yard Setbacks-The applicant is requesting exceptions to the setback standards as fol-
lows(See Sheets SD 1 and SD 9 of the full size plans, and Use Permit Resolution Exhibit A):
1. Along the rear of the grocery store,the project site would share a property line with the fire station.
Building height, measured from existing grade, ranges from 19 feet to 28 feet, requiring a setback
of 6.5 feet to 8.5 feet. Plans show no setback The Fire Department staff support a zero setback
along this common boundary. Fire Department staff could use the rear wall for.training exercises
and would prefer to avoid a lot of additional landscaping maintenance.
�'7
Albertson
Page 8
2. At the northern comer of"Shops A" -the fast food restaurant - building height measured from ex-
isting grade would be 26.5 feet, requiring a 8.5-foot setback. Plans show no setback. The irregular
lot shape may warrant some degree of exception to enable efficient use of the site, however staff
questions the need for a single story building to be over 26 feet in height. Due to the uncertain na-
ture of where the building will ultimately be located (see ARC discussion, above), staff is recom-
mending that the Council take no action on this use permit thereby leaving the setback authority to
the ARC. This will allow the ARC to determine the appropriate setback based on building orienta-
tion and location in relation to Broad Street and the Fire Station.
3. At the norther comer of the tower a setback of 7 feet is provided where 9.5 feet would otherwise
be required This setback exception is minor in nature and may also be warranted to enable better
use of an irregular lot.
Alternative Actions on Setback Eacentions
1. Adopt a resolution approving setback exceptions for this project as requested or with modifications
(CAO Recommendation 4).
2. Continue action with direction.
3. Deny exceptions based on their inconsistency with zoning regulation standards.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other department comments are incorporated into recommendations.
Attached:
Resolution for approval of general plan amendment
Ordinance of introduction for proposed rezoning
Resolution for use permit approval
Resolution for denial of general plan amendment and rezoning
Vicinity map
Reduced plans
Traffic mitigation options A and B
Trip distribution and generation
Letter from Caltrans
Inventory of available C-S properties
Planning Commission minutes
Initial study
7'O
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION AT 2238 BROAD STREET
FROM SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING TO GOVERNMENT FACILITIES;
FROM SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING TO NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL;AND
FROM GOVERNMENT FACILITIES TO NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL.
(GP 32-96)
WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to conduct a public hearing on the project on
January 22, 1997, and therefore referred the matter to the City Council without a recommendation;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on April 1, 1997 and has considered
testimony of other interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed map amendment is consistent with the
policies of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS,the potential environmental impacts of the amendment have been evaluated in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration with
the recommended mitigation therein adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts
of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby
adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. A single land use designation of Neighborhood-Commercial for the entire project site enables
more functional and orderly development of the site.
2. Neighborhood-Commercial uses are desirable at this central infill site.
3. There remains sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing elsewhere within city
limits.
SECTION 3. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in the
documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use.
SECTION 4. The General Plan Land Use Element map shall be amended as shown on the attached
Exhibit A effective upon recordation of a parcel map for minor subdivision PM SLO 96-122 (City file No. MS
32-96).
GP 32-96`-Albertson
Page 2
On motion of —_—____ _ — _. ., seconded by ,and on the
following roll call vote: -
AYES:
NOES:.
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted.this _____.day of ___ _ __ _ 1997:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST.'
I
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED:
-rney a rSe- n
`7 �0
FROM
TO
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
FROM SERVICES•
GOVERNMENT
.FROM •
TO
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
uu.w:
Cif
OSOUTH
1 a� YI•�_...
••..•Y I'.- ••u..• � III II.If110■■ml
•........•.. ,•..• �� ^Imo..••••.Y e..
uwwulwauu■nu■
.••• .•• ':�..•• wig u.unl�lIIl■■■■��■■■I uo1■.�
u YY v. • . � •
........
Y.Y. .Y. ":::�:.--.u---�--. ---•t.
oow...•o
�I::: •11:::1:' .. Y�..w
i.E� ei.a►.n�•gj�•G-Yn
uo.YY •.i.•o.uio �w�
.o Y...Y.Y. --
•uuuuYY•
vu•u o.� -
•Iv
� r L
EXHIBIT A
DA -
SAN LUIS • : '
ORDINANCE NO. (1997 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM C-S to C-N; FROM C-S TO PF; AND
FROM PF TO C-N
AT 2238 BROAD STREET (R 32-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to conduct a public hearing on the project on
January 22, 1997, and therefore referred the matter to the City Council without a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on April 1, 1997 to consider appropriate
zoning for the site in accordance with the California Government Code and has considered testimony of
other interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revisions are consistent with the General
Plan,the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the amendment have been evaluated in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration with
the recommended mitigation therein adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts
of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby
adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. Zoning the entire project site Neighborhood-Commercial enables more functional and orderly
development of the site.
2. Neighborhood-Commercial uses are desirable at this central infill site.
3. Neighborhood-Commercial zoning will allow uses that are compatible with existing and
allowed land uses in the area.
4. The project's location and access arrangement do not significantly direct traffic to use local
or collector streets in residential zones.
5. The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M zoned land available for service-
commercial or industrial development within city limits.
6. The project will not interfere with the health and safety operations at the adjacent fire
station.
R 32-96-Albertson
Page 2
SECTION 3. The Council approves application No. R 32-96, thereby amending the Official
Zoning Map designation for the site from Service-Commercial (C-S) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-
N), from Service-Commercial (C-S) to Public Facility (PF); and from Public Facility (PF) to
Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) as shown on and described by attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting
for and against, shall be published at least five(5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune,
a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect no sooner than
thirty(30) days after its final passage and upon recordation of a parcel map for minor subdivision PM SLO
96-122(City file No.MS 32-96).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its
meeting held on the day of , 1997, on a motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
*e �n
2
7-/3
FROM C-S-S TO C-N
FROM C-S TO C-N
FROM C-S TO PF
FROM PF TO C-N
L HA�C11 _J
r
0 40
mum
O PF
NO
\O
.p
14
l F
dm
•h
o `
00
AVENUE Q„rC>�� `- :
EL
o :
EXHIBIT A
ENGINEERING CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ED.AZONINGASOCIA ES MAP
REZONE REQUEST 7,l
1320 MPouo sero SAN'LU*08jSP0;Ci s34010 W5 5094&
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR A SHARED PARKING
REDUCTION AND FOR SIDEYARD SETBACK EXCEPTIONS
AT 2238 BROAD STREET(A 32-96)
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on April 1, 1997 to consider
appropriate development standards for the site in accordance with the City's zoning regulations
and has considered testimony of other interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation
of staff;
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the use permit have been evaluated in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental
Guidelines;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration with the recommended mitigation therein adequately addresses the potential
significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment
of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. A 10% parking reduction is consistent with the intent of the zoning regulations
which is to consolidate parking and minimize the area devoted exclusively to
parking when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities.
In this case, approximately nine uses would share a common parking area.
2. The requested side yard setback exceptions for "the tower" and the grocery store
are reasonably necessary to allow more efficient use of an irregular site.
3. The sideyard setback for Building A should best be addressed by the ARC upon
final review of the development.
SECTION 3. The request for a use permit for a 100/a shared use parking reduction and
side yard setback reductions are hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant must record an agreement
governing the shared parking to the satisfaction of the Director.
2. Building setbacks for"the tower" and the grocery store, as shown on attached
Exhibit A, are hereby approved effective upon recordation of a parcel map
establishing the perimeter property boundary also shown on Exhibit A
A 32-96-Albertson
Page 2
SECTION 4. The request for a side yard setback reduction for"Building A" is hereby
referred to the ARC in order to determine the appropriate setback based on building orientation'
and location in relation to Broad Street and the Fire Station.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 1997.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�l
0rI ey Jor nsen
u r..e„•• u B
0too a p4a � y e t ggf
rO^ B � °� a jgY�%:�p(xcr a S h j •hv -9 � `� ��y:3 : �$ ,;CI C7 x
.�' u a3_ 0909000909 f3i`•w+ a5Y s 9s ela: ." _ - w • ' ' s
. � e .. S d f l 4 ��Y9: S••93 1-Y eegd � B 9d 9 as 9
1331Lts OSNOHJW i6FS
J
N
N
' r — ' •e Y I 1C 'I I I I
1 a o
MISSION
,—�'i•.
cn
10
cc I
W
�c ' 1. .�•i r ,Ifllllf' N
• .51� _... � IlII � � � I � � i it
Y '
m I
n• -,• FM
�•� I 1
`.Cal , Poi `r-7 J W
EM st*xc;_
,�. .'�.�• • W I'ifa�R
... � 2 t•x eY
•� w LI.
LU
''
/
•' 't• j Q I.8'nl
O v l T4
Lu eAfsly:7
Io1vI g +�3
Lo
7-17
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
FOR PROPERTY AT 2238 BROAD STREET
(GP/R/ER 32-96)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 1997 and has considered
testimony of interested persons and the project evaluation and recommendations of staff,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a request to amend the
General Plan Land Use Element Map and the official zoning map, thereby designating and zoning the
project site Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N), makes the following findings:
1. It is not desirable to have Neighborhood-Commercial uses occupy the entire site because of the
estimated volume of traffic these uses would add to a major intersection where long traffic
delays are already experienced.
2. The proposed project is not consistent with Land Use Element Policy 3.2.2.13 which states that
new or 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 the
surrounding service area.
(Coutrcil may insert different or additional f ndings.)
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the general plan map amendment and
rezoning described above is hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded by , and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 11997.
Mayor Allen Settle
7—Ld
GP/R 32-96-Albertson
Page 2
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
7-19
C
C_S I cI
0.1�R
Li
3 w, �: �I i0.11I7 ❑
CP
in
nee
,> �..�• vesar
Q O 5 AVE
rea..
ma —'•� P Iwr S�m Y.••,1..,,�•.,'•, -,inn
FF
f1 / eT PF .
W � alu i .l'Mfb 4l(II CLIRb!we •IIIIIIII.IIllrll lllr
IM \ rr rrl.rl r11r1 rrl. �T:
G_N�
N
Z
N AVc—rld UE � �
O ' f�
zl O o _ 5C M
Q 't � Imo, .�.•'�� °.•�•� ^iia
• a u+ �. -ro 41.1 t
GE STREET
L9 p
VICINITY MAP 2238 BROAD NORTH
GP/R, ARC, A, LLA, V, 32-96 ABAN 93-96
-7�o
O ' S
a s
o n _ i .
44
c m , - _ O
CL
FF
A L P N O N 5 0 S T fl E ET - i mar
a \
v i9
I A �f i ��FF gF� AoF �oE j_
6 �F3 �5 g3 5a a5 +]F
F Y
Ri
p;
7- 2t
-
_
�ƒ \ � -
«9 * `
» , � -
\ \ 7;
-
��/��% ADZ .
« \
Fill
&~
pr
-
� -
� » .¥
k
q ' f
_ -
�
� �\ Z i • ^ 2
«
a
c I
i
s ilr1•y; � O G e�e
p � i
r
DI
,
zV i
V• j y J
I
$n
v
a 1
I'� � ��: ::P� Ijll � 1, �fi i �Ga I � I' ....o•
fA •{' `fi `ii 'zP � IJ �= ��if g ��� j!lu� IIIhII
p i IT I�
Hill
inZ
s ,
m Q
•�d- I
ilJl m
o Eli
e j •,ti .
�± cy
• KiL
3
•fid ZZ _... . . �� �� ���
_
o
rn sttnr ST. AI /
•I. .4
, I •t•t- II
I 'Qt I I
IN
D
Ae
it
� aI
1 '
III
OFn
; 11 •C 11 / V y// / / !/ /
r
1 11 m
n^ B iE RIDM°NS° SiR9i
a s e � as 6+In.t
e F d R ,� AAFAFAFAA C28
..po
5 �
y ?� m
0 �D �Y �o
3;u m �a0 n3
JL mo ! m °'
1r a� ,
R
� °GTO
/1 r� i� y °oSF
Z���11 m t:' RO4o
'Z m I o
G%N r
's ,..
.o °gym -n- ;• �
0 :U
.Z 3 p ..
Zm Cl)
m SOST. CU O
_m T rrte�•....
CD I
CL `-
cn —
... `
.................
D �m -
Z c 1 = J
C
CD10
.,
I I I: � �♦ :e � � o ' m t
m
A
CD 0
0< •..: .,
Cl) O
�• `N �' I O • � � ' O
I ,
CD T p —
cQ W rn O I
CL
66 _
cn m I; cd
CD
m
� 0En ic
CD
I 7
,rw a tn•= a AIPHON50 STAEkT
i
I.
7-A�
CD�
n� '�
O�N� D O
3� Cl) =•0AL
I a nM
3 v� jp m 'D oCD ( DN
1rn o o °Gtipy -
to n WCD -4r °psF
.z VI Ocr
°
N \ r�
�rn yo o � :. ,
C. N
z mm CD 0) .... _ cnv
m —Zi m ---
_m 7C $Qunw
. ....._.. .
-Z
r
N CDO
Lr
D CDCL
I
�.•O I 1 1 I' I' \
r-
CD
ID Q
•.• �• 0
••• '� `SF10P5'A-r
(D
cn
N� Y
`p N 1
ICT
v (D
C a° I I
_ �...
CD
D_ LAW .._..___. .
O I
(ll I � O ;O. � � m
o I s
a) I L
00 -
9 I �.
_ m
.:CD
• �.
7O CDS I 1
CD
< r:
-CD
�-�
LUO-OCd
CD nN p O u
CD o C =�
8 0 � c a
OI
.� cn
A • C
a) _
V u :• ALPNONSO STAEET
ra
$ SON CD
PlH.HHH. j7
A m �.
-n d N
� j � � 710•
CD
CD ?
6
�I
1
o IN ��\a
V .
v)
d0 ca
�r a
`c
m 5�.
� OQ
c y
f6
��oo
a
J
Cn
of
Roundhouse —
� L
N V 45%
-<—> CO
South Sl.
Am Funston St. o
0 0
Cm
Q
c•,v p�` ms's` �o
^O
00,
S�
I t_e�c a"d
2�> Trip Distribution
Broad Street Plaza Figure
3-3
Project Trip Distribution
JL ccs
�� PLANNING ANO ENGINEERING c1projedk7996N95073\newVig3-3.Ih4
W m V V Ol 0, N m O V N .•• 1D V A w -� m .
N • Q0 mo op � mSD 'n-4 ammymov fATco (D3 � m [1-' < [D N •ncDD °
OV p_•C ° n a G c m j (G m p 7( n ? CO p O n C m r m T. 0 C ID e C IN p Q m
�vnxz -H4m O� o ' mr3 � ammmm � 9 oy -p-2r° �� �oAm3 on ,�n3a
+ 3T � 3IIm � = m mo � x amm$ x � ° m =. � 0.Q0 1 m °o � � m
(mv 3 c o m' Cr m N 'n `m = a ° ' m � ` ` m Oao m Z � m =r = C � ° 3 o - a N ° 0
V O k N 7 0 m O m a 1a, x O K v a 3 0 m m 0 0 O•O x 3- ,07
fmf
m 3 o m n 3 H m z 3 v c
M m °v �i, '^, 3 0
m N ('1 m 7 3 ° ' m m . m 0 m n .m0.
3 to 7 7 Ip 3 ] 0 7 0 m
a 'm v 3 - � m m
m m m m
h �0• m m n m
N —
n
c m a -
0 3D j x M 0 j nm D0Tyy r
a 0 O _ °• m 0 0 0. O• O C m (y)' 1G f0' m C 3 ° n 10' C (D ca.m.m 'C°
S3 m�5 m m 3 m 3 g �.° vv' m m �' n' 3M ° imv T �, m o.
° 9D m m O -. 3 m m m 310' 7 m m T -n 3 m ? .C5.. m T 0 m 00 m 3 m
O. m T @T m m n.10 71 0 T 0. m m
a -{ m
0 c39 3 X2. 003 = 3 CACD3 °. .o m o ..c m'
O, m C N m ,c-c m 7 d
N w 0 I F m =
N +
° t0 O m-
m
O
7 -n W w M U V to
— v
M W co A — O w 1D 0, N COw )D ut
W + A
a i O A O O) f0 O O A O O O A O �
(DOOM + OOG O N O o yC 00 ONE0 y I C
7 I O O O CIN) N O A W W A O O - 080 A A ( O w O
V)
Mo
000 V ON, SOSSND, O V O 00108ONOI I0 O O NtD OI Na^
0 > 0000000
T T T C C C
T T T T -1 IC li V
� N N �•
7
10 II
D
(l, d 1' 1D V (n N N W A — — Ql 0, - W N O) A 31 ry li
a Ol li Of 01 01 O Q! N N N O 1D —
—— O V N 0 (T A O O
�m w
Oi N im
- li V O A Ql O N W N w 01 01 N 0 O O O 01 w 0, (T• 0) N N
cr
N r C
c — _ _
CA Ol N — V a N O W —
,� N W — W O — > m N 0, N W N A w -� O N ut O) N A W N W W O) .0
I'' O O, A w w w — O 1D N A m V A W w O m O w A W A A 0, w CP ;� C r I
: 1D O) V t0 O w O OVOMWWCDO C:
Q.
O V ., N V O N) 10 w w o o - - O — ; w
c 1� W V — N N 1D f0 V W V N N O O — V aJ A N N O fA A W 0) Li Im L
W W 10 O 01 ID 0 N, (n - - V w O) A Y N N, O A W A
NI W A — A 0) -� QI -- A d
m w N W 0 A O (n N O N O 01 N A W W w N A O) Iii, y
10 V V cx
m I C
II 0 ae a
I a CA w a� traR
I c" ca ca a- + - _ to 10
;
N w Qt A A — w at Q, W N W 0 A N N O O N N A W W O) W 0 -
10 — 10 A N) 1D O O O W W O — V O — 01 V m w W W N W 01 N O)
T
000000000000000 Oo000000o 000
m
1.n Nut + — N1 d NI A D1 W O1 01 NI — N Ot U A 601 O) w N N 1r m
N O O O N N O m O W 0 0 w N O T O G O O) C N O O w V — X
I �
N 1 m:
IIwN +- CD _ .N. _ Ol — w CP w + N
W A 0) N N OOa W O V N t°i), OVi + A A W w w L w A O 10 O N 01 O ra m
000000000000000 000000000 0 0 0 CO •II
m N N N m m N to N N a a !4 fd 6 O) in O, 6 6 d 0 A :�,1 d L A
W 00000) ONONOOO, NO A OOONON OO
-4090
—
N — Ol + Co = _ IQ II
N -� m N N — O) (D W N N j
Qa + —
II f0 0 N N m V N, O O 01 ,O N V A V V W COAA (0 Ol W w
mmmAmAD mmmmmmmm T17771 AMMMTA MM y
D
S-a m N N j N m m m N N
m N — 3 O) N 01 W W N — 01 N w
O O y o n 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 X 0 0
a I
1 m
I
I
W
0,
02/28/97 07:55 V805 549 5077 CALTRANS 002
STATE OF CALIFOFHA-BUSINESS.TRANSPOFTrATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON,Gower
DEPARTMENT OF-TRANSPORTATION
bo WIGUGRA STREET -s
-- 6Mi U M OMSPO.G QUO-MI3
MMMNE I*U"I V 7
TCO m*S0aw '
February 28, 1997
File: SLO-227-R12.72
Broad Street Plaza
Traffic Mitigation
Mr. Gerald W. Kenny
Supervising Civil Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Kenny:
Let me first apologize for the delayed response to your letter dated January 17,1997. Departmental
priorities prevented us from responding to your request sooner.
In a meeting between Caltrans and City staff on November 6 ,1996 to discuss possible mitigation
measures for the Broad Street Plaza project,two additional scenarios were suggested that were not
studied earlier. They included:
• Adding an additional northbound left tum lane and converting the existing right turn lane to a
shared thru and right turn lane at the Broad Street and South/Santa Barbara street intersection.
This proposal is analyzed in the"Existing Plus Approved-With Mitigation"section of the
Technical Appendix to the final report for the Broad Street Plaza Traffic lmoact Analysis dated
November 26,1996.
The projected right tum movement(392 vehicles in the peak hour)indicates that the dedicated right
turn lane needs to retrain in any modification to the intersection. The analysis shows that the
queues projected for the'northbound movements are likely to exceed the available storage between
the entrance to the development and the South Street intersection. That being the case, the District
cannot support this suggestion.
• Converting the existing number one thru lane to a sbared left and thru lane(Mitigation option
A). This proposal is analyzed in the Existing Plus Approved Plus Project-With Mitigation"
section of the Technical Appendix.
A modification of this type would require four phase sequential operation of the existing signal
system. Our experience with this type of operation suggests that this would only increase delays
and queue lengths. Additionally,this type of operation restricts the flexibility of the signal system
by requiring that each leg of the intersection be served separately.. Again the analysis provided
showed that the available storage would be exceeded in the northbound direction.
7-�9
CA »
O CA N
m m n Z O O
m
n a
O
0
T O
O ° On
r (D O n
C
M T
C m
(D 0O O O ' O O O D
< CD
6
CD D <
wO -O c ( -o.- mnZ> ( O ZO
rc (D O O O -co O
a O O O O O O --q Z O
(C) Q T
H C rn �
CD V)
CA 0 0o o• c„ u, N �, O p rn
io 'o Cn �o M rn Z
0 3. Z
of D >
Dm �
Q � m
Q- O <
OD
c w Q Z
00 %°° cw„ a Ln o m D
CL Z
Z n
D
Q z
bo C!i O O QO No
ny
O —'
Z Cn
Cn C
O N C Z
w o o o ir, HT1
�_ M
O
z
0
n
7,30
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
January 22, 1997
Page 3 '
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. 2238 Broad Street: GP/R 32-96, ER 32-96, LLA 32-96 ABAN 93-96.
Request to allow(1) General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations
from Services and Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial and Government
Facilities and from Government Facilities to neighborhood Commercial; (2)
rezoning from C-S, C-S-S, and PF; (3) abandonment of a portion of South Emily
and Rachael Streets; (4) General Plan determination for proposed surplus of City
property; (5) tentative parcel map to reconfigure five existing parcels into four and
eliminate obsolete right of ways; (6) use permit for a 10% shared use parking
reduction and, (7) variance to allow a 40-foot tall building where 35 feet is
otherwise the maximum height allowed; Albertson's, applicant.
Commissioners Ready, Whittlesey, Senn, and Chairman Karleskint refrained from
participation due to potential conflicts of interest.
Commissioner Kourakis was designated as Acting Chairwoman.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated there is not a .quorum and the
Commission does not have the ability to hear this item.
Acting Chairwoman Kourakis noted this item will be automatically forwarded to the City
Council without a Planning Commission recommendation.
ADJOURNED at 7:25 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, scheduled.
for February 12, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the City/County Library, 995 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
Respectfully submitted,
Leaha K Magee '
Recording Secretary
7-61
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: Albertsons Broad Street Plaza
Application Numbers: ARC 32-96, ER 32-96, LLA 32-96, GP/R 32-96, ABAN 93-96
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, CA 9340..
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner (805)
781-7175
4. Project Location: 2238 Broad Street between Santa Barbara and Alphonso Streets
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Scott Thayer, Albertons's Inc., 1180 West
Lambert Road, Brea, CA 92622-7500
Property Owner: Mid State Bank Properties, 1026 Grande Ave., Arroyo Grande, CA
93420
Representative: Tom Courtney, Courtney Architects, 656 Santa Rosa Street, #3A,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood-Commercial, Services and Manufacturing,
and Public Facility
7. Zoning: Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N), Service-Commercial (C-S), Service-
Commercial with Special Consideration (C-S-S), and Public Facility (PF)
B. Description of the Project:
Albertsons and Mid State Bank Properties are proposing to construct 59,000 square
feet of commercial space for a grocery store, restaurant, and shops. The project
would incorporate the existing Mid State Bank branch office and roughly 300
parking spaces. To .accommodate this project, the applicants have applied for and
must receive approval from the City for:
• General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations at the rear of the site
from Services and Manufacturing to Neighborhood Commercial and Government
Facilities and from Government Facilities to Neighborhood Commercial.
1 �-3a-
• Rezoning from C-S, C-S-S, and PF to C-N; and from C-S to PF.
• Abandonment of portions of South, Emily, and Rachel Streets.
• Resubdivision resulting in 4 lots, created from 5 existing parcels with numerous
underlying lots.
• Architectural review of new buildings, parking area, and landscaping; setback
exceptions; and demolition of 7 existing buildings.
• The applicant will also need to apply for and receive approval for the following
items:
• Use permit for a 10% shared use parking reduction and various setback exceptions.
• Variance to allow a 40-foot tall building where 35 feet is otherwise the maximum
height allowed and less than a 10 foot street yard setback.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project would occupy approximately 7.5 acres on the east side of Broad Street
between Santa Barbara and Alphonso Streets with access also available from
Roundhouse Avenue. Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way adjoins the site to the
east. A newly constructed municipal fire station is immediately to the north. To
the south and west are offices, service-commercial uses, and houses.
The site is currently developed with an exterminator, a freight and shipping
company, and Mid State Bank. Vegetation consists mainly of weedy grasses except
for the ornamentals on the Mid State Bank property. A palm, several pepper trees
and eucalyptus trees are along the eastern boundary of the site. A small wetland
at the southeastern corner of the site supports willows, sedges, cattails, and
saltgrass.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement).
• Caltrans
• Air Pollution Control District
• Department of Fish and Game
• Army Corps of Engineers
• Regional Water Quality Control Board
2 ?-�3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
x Land use and Planning x Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral x Cultural Resources
Resources
x Geological Problems x Hazards Recreation
x Water Noise x Mandatory Findings of
Significance
x Air
Quality a ty Public Services '
x Transportation and x Utilities and Service
it
C c I i
u at on
Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, x
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
3 Z�J?
January 3, 1997
'97-gnaturfflDate
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific
factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may
be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
i
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 x
The project is proposing to expand the Neighborhood-Commercial designation to encompass the entire 7.5-acre site,
roughly half of which is currently zoned Service-Commercial. This raises a question of whether or not remaining C-S
zoned land is adequate to accommodate uses envisioned for that zoning by the general plan and zoning ordinance.
An attached City of San Luis Obispo land use inventory, dated August 14, 1996, indicates that the Service-Commercial
zone has more vacant floor area and more vacant land than any other zone. Furthermore, the site's proximity to the
center of town and residential neighborhoods argues for a less industrial zoning. Based on data from the land use
inventory and the site's location and surroundings, the proposed rezoning seems appropriate. It is also consistent
with Land Use Element policies related to commercial siting (LUE Policies 3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.0.3) and with Land Use
Element polices related to neighborhood commercial areas (LUE policies 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3).
To achieve consistency between proposed zoning and the general plan land use designation, the City Council must
approve a general plan amendment.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies x
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Loss of a wetland area has the potential for adverse effects on wildlife, and in this case, may be contrary to
environmental polices adopted by the State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Filling and culverting open stream channels, which this project proposes to do, requires approval of a Streambed
Alteration Agreement from the Dept. of Fish and Game. Because this project has the potential for adverse effects on
wildlife, it is subject to the a $1,250 Fish and Game fee which must be paid at the time the Notice of Determination
is filed with the County. Filling in the wetland as proposed will also require a Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps
of Engineers, prior to issuance of a permit for grading or building. Mitigation and alternative designs are discussed
under Section 7d below.
The air quality impacts resulting from additional traffic generated by this project conflict with environmental plans and
policies adopted by the Air Pollution Control District as explained in an attached letter from District staff. See
discussion and recommended mitigation regarding air quality under Section 5 and regarding traffic and circulation under
Section 6 b&e of this report.
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? x
The proposed neighborhood commercial uses should be more compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity in terms
of environmental health and aesthetics than the existing industrial uses. Architectural review will address land use
compatibility from the standpoint of aesthetics.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact x
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
The property is not zoned for agriculture and not used for agriculture.
5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an x
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
The project will not disrupt or divide any established community.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 1 x
projections?
Seventy-five percent of the new retail space would be occupied by Albertsons market, which will employ roughly 60
to 80 people. The total number of new jobs estimated to be created by this project (roughly 125) would be less than
.4 percent of existing jobs in the City. Most jobs are expected to be filled by local residents.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or x
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure? I F
This is an infill project. See discussion under 2a. Above.
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable x
housing?
None on site.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 1,7 x
There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity.
b) Seismic ground shaking? 1 x
The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking
should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code.
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 1,8 x
The site is shown on the Seismic Safety Element as underlain with Franciscan formation and recent alluvium. Recent
alluvium has a high potential for liquefaction. A geotechnical report has been prepared for this project by Converse
Consultants (Report #95-42251-04) which is hereby incorporated into this initial study. It contains recommendations
for site work and building design necessary to accommodate this project given existing geologic conditions,
underground utilities and storage tanks, and on-site soils and fill material.
Mitigation Measure:
Site development shall follow the recommendations made in the geotechnical report prepared for this project by
Converse Consultants (Report #95-42251-04).
6 7-31
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Leas Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance.
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? x
Not applicable.
e) Landslides or mudflows? 1 x
This site is not located in an area at risk for landslides.
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 1 x
conditions'-from excavation, grading or fill?
See discussion under 3.c. above.
g) Subsidence of the land? 1 x
See discussion under 3.c. above.
h) Expansive soils? 1 x
See discussion under 3.c. above.
i) Unique geologic or physical features? x
None on site.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 1 x
rate and amount of surface runoff?
All drainage from the site will either be connected directly to a storm drain in Broad Street or to the storm drain in
Alphonso Street. A minor amount of water may drain to Roundhouse Avenue but this amount is not anticipated to
be more than what currently drains to that street from existing development. Public Works Dept. staff have reviewed
the project proposal and note that the storm drain in Alphonso will have to be extended into the property to
accommodate proposed culverting of an open drainage channel that runs between a storm drain beneath the railroad
tracks and a storm drain in Alphonso Street. A general construction activity storm water permit will be required for
all storm water discharges associated with construction activity. Building Division staff note that storm drain runoff
calculations will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7 encourages the use
of porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater
recharge. Compliance with this policy can be monitored through the architectural review process. See discussion
below under Section 7d regarding the small wetland area.
7 7,�g
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Mitigation:
The project shall utilize porous paving, landscaping, or other design element to reduce surface water runoff consistent
with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.
Monitoring:
Architectural review and building permit issuance.
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards x
such as flooding?
The property is not in a flood zone.
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of x
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
See discussion under 4a.
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water x
body?
Culverting the drainage channel will eliminate surface water. See discussion under 4a and discussion and
recommended mitigation under 7d.
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water x
movements?
Not applicable.
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through 1 x
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
Surfacing most of the site with nonporous paving and buildings will reduce the site's capability of groundwater
recharge. Additional runoff will be directed into the storm drain system unless some of it is able to be retained on site
consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7. See discussion and recommended mitigation under Section 4a and
7b of this report.
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? x
Not applicable.
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? x
See discussion and recommended mitigation under Section 9a. Removal of soil contamination will significantly reduce
the potential for adverse impacts to groundwater quality. G�
8 ��� /
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Leas Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater x
otherwise available for public water supplies? LT I
See discussion under 4a and 4f. Well water use is not proposed as part of this project.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 1,3 x
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance
with APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
Site development will impact air quality as a result of construction activity and traffic generated by uses established.
Standard mitigation is recommended to reduce impacts resulting from construction activity and future site
development.
Short-term Impacts
During project construction, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and gradins
activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment. Air quality impact:
may also result from soil remediation. Depending on the method used, soil remediation can have adverse air quality
impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 7004 (b)), all graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected
or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following
measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of project
construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or offsite;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
9 ?-�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Soil remediation activities shall be subject to review and approval of the Air Pollution Control District.
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance.
Long-Term Impacts
San Luis Obispo County is a nonattainment area for the State ozone and PM,, (fine particulate matter 10 microns or
less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of nonattainment pollutants and their
precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for
San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that
requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial
and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element policy 1.18.2 states that the City will
help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a
significant source of PM,o. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control
measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The APCD recommends that
site development include the following mitigation measures to encourage transportation alternatives to the single
occupant vehicle and make the project attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians.
Mitigation:
The project shall include:
- bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use
- shared-use parking reduction
- on-site food facilities to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour
- extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles
- provision of a bus stop and shelter
- pedestrian friendly site planning to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission
10 � /
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lees Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Monitoring:
Architectural review and building permit issuance.
b) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause x
any change in climate?
Not applicable.
c) Create objectionable odors? x
Not applicable.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 1,2 x
The traffic impacts of the Broad Street Plaza project were evaluated in a report published on November 26, 1996
by CCS Engineering. The report evaluates the impacts of traffic increases on streets and intersections in the area
during the "near term" (within two years) and in the "far term" (within ten years).
The traffic report uses "Level of Services" (LOS) as the primary criterion to judge the significance of impacts of
near term and far term development. LOS provides a measurement of congestion levels and traffic delays ranging
from LOS A which represents free flowing traffic to LOS F which represents extreme congestion. The City's
Circulation Element establishes LOS D as the maximum acceptible level of congestion.
The traffic report for the Broad Street Plaza project concludes that under near term conditions, level of service on
Broad Street and Santa Barbara Street and at key intersections would not exceed LOS standards stipulated by the
Circulation Element (LOS D). However, under far term conditions the level of service would exceed City
standards (reference Table 3-5), with substandard conditions expected at the Broad-Santa Barbara-South.Street
intersection (LOS F) and at the Broad-Alphonso Street intersection (LOS E).
To address traffic impacts the traffic impact report defines two mitigation packages:
Option A: includes the installation of a traffic signal at the Alphonso-Broad Street intersection, restriping of Broad
Street to convert one of the north-bound through lanes to a shared through-left turn lane, and modifications to the
shopping centers driveway on Broad Street to preclude left turns into and out of the project (reference attached
Figure S-2).
This option is recommended by the City Public Works staff as an immediate response to near term traffic impacts.
The traffic signal at the Broad-Alphonso Street intersection is needed to enable safe and convenient access to and
from the project site. (Access to the shopping center via the project's Broad Street driveway is necessary limited
to right turns in and right turns out D y because of the driveway's close proximity to the South Street intersection
and the disruption in traffic flow that would be caused by allowing motorists to make left turns out of or into the
driveway.)
11 7 y pZ
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Option B: includes the installation of a traffic signal at the Alphonso-Broad Street intersection, widening Broad
Street to create an additional northbound left turn lane, and the construction of a raised center median on Broad
Street between South and Alphonso Streets (reference attached Figure S-3).
The report indicates that these changes will be needed to address traffic growth during the long-term. The Public
Works staff have recommended that the street widening be pursued as the future need arises and that traffic
impact fees (TIF) paid by the Broad Street Plaza applicants (estimated to be about $120,000) could support the
cost of widening the street if needed in the future.
It's important to note that the widening of Broad Street in the long term, as called for by Option B, is warranted
regardless of whether the Broad Street Plaza Project is developed; Table 3-5 in the traffic report indicates that level
of service would degrade to LOS F at the Broad-South intersection in the long-term - which exceeds Circulation
Element standards. If traffic continues to increase as development within the urban reserve continues, widening
of the Broad-South intersection will be needed to maintain LOS standards. The timing of this change will depend
on the extent and pace of growth and any traffic reduction impacts of changes in the utilization of alternative
transportation modes.
Recommendations From The California Department of Transportation
Broad Street is designated as State Route 227 (from South Street southward) and is under the management
control of Caltrans. As of the writing of this report, Caltrans has not completed its formal recommendation as to
which of the two mitigation options it supports as an immediate mitigation strategy - either Option A or B. The
design of the Broad Street Plaza, as shown on the most recently submitted site plans, will accommodate either
option - should Caltrans require that the street widening occur as a prerequisite to granting any encroachment
permits to gain access to Route 227. Buildings have been sufficiently set back from the street to include space for
the wider roadway; no structures would be effected by eventual widening although removal of some landscaping
north of the project's Broad Street entrance driveway would be required.
Mitigation:
Implement Mitigation Option A or B at the discretion of City Council and Caltrans.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp x
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
See discussion under 6.a.
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby x
uses?
See discussion under 6.a.
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? x
12 7- tO
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lees Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The project is designed with a 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. Zoning regulations allow for
this reduction where a parking area is shared by more than one use. Such a reduction is consistent with the intent
of City parking regulations which is to consolidate parking and minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking
(Section 17.16.060 A).
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists) IT x
Mitigation is recommended under discussion regarding air quality in Section 5a to enhance access for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative TT I I x
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? T_
The project will provide a bus stop and bicycle facilities.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility x
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)?
No aspect of the project will interfere with air, waterborne, or rail traffic.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 1,4 x
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
The City's informational map atlas indicates there are no sensitive plant or animal species on site.
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? x
None on site.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, x
coastal habitat, etc.)?
None on site.
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? x
There is a small wetland area at the southeastern end of the project site which the project proposes to culvert and pave
for a parking area. It consists of a drainage channel approximately 20 feet wide and 150 to 200 feet long, connecting
a drain under the railroad with a storm drain in Alphonso Street. This area is not shown on the creek map in the Open
Space Element. It supports a range of riparian plants-sedges, cattails, saltgrass, and willows, and is a wetland under
Federal regulations. Project designers should consider retaining this as a landscape feature which could be bridged
to connect parking areas. As small as it is the wetland provides suitable habitat for birds, amphibians, and small
mammals. Its removal without mitigation is potentially significant when evaluated together with other similar impacts.
If the wetland is culverted and filled, the project must include mitigation satisfactory to the Dept. of Fish and Game
and the Army Corps of Engineers. One possible means of mitigation would be enhancement of off-site wetland area:
For instance, wetland plants could be relocated to another suitable location identified by the City's Natural Resource
Manager. It may also be possible to create a small detention area at the far eastern corner of the property beyond the
employee parking area which could serve as a seasonal wetland.
13
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Mitigation:
Retain the wetland area at the southeastern end of the project or provide mitigation to the satisfaction of the
Department of Fish and game and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Monitoring:
Architectural review and building permit issuance.
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? x
See discussion under d above. Although wetlands provide valuable habitat, this wetland is probably too small to
support a significant animal population.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 x
The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy
for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including
the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement
of the California Energy Code which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential
construction. Buildings proposed as part of this project must meet those standards. The City also implements energy
conservation goals through architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum
use of passive means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying
on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. See recommended mitigation under 8.b. below.
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 1 x
inefficient manner?
To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation is recommended:
Mitigation:
Future site development shall incorporate:
• Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
• Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant operational reasons, buildings
should be designed to exceed energy conservation standards in the California Energy Code by 10%.
14 7-zl-�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Monitoring: Architectural review and building permit issuance.
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral x
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
None on site.
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous 5 x
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
An environmental site assessment was prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County in February 1996, which
is hereby incorporated by reference. The investigation revealed various subsurface structures and pipes associated
with Southern Pacific Railroad operations; hazardous concentrations of lead, asbestos, petroleum hydrocarbons (as
crude oil, diesel and gasoline), and other metals and volatile organic compounds in selected soil samples.
The report recommends removal of underground structures and abandoned pipes; sampling additional areas to better
determine the extent of contamination; further monitoring of ground water wells; and removal of some above surface
structures. It also states that the area with concentrations of petroleum compounds that exceed regulatory limits
should either be removed, treated in place, or a risk assessment performed to quantify the potential impact the soil
and/or vapors may have on the environment and/or human life.
Mitigation:
All recommendations of the environmental site assessment report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County
in February 1996 shall be incorporated into the project description in order to ensure against the accidental release
of hazardous substances and potential health hazard.
Accurate delineation of site contamination and resolution of all contamination issues prior to construction must be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance.
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan x
or emergency evacuation plan?
See recommended mitigation under 11.a.
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 5 x T- 1 .
hazard?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
See discussion under 9.a. above.
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 5 x
health hazards?
See discussion under 9.a. above.
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 1,4 x
grass or trees?
This site is not in a high fire hazard area.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? 1 x
The proposed uses are not noise sensitive as designated by the Noise Element. They are not likely to substantially
increase noise exposure for adjoining uses, which include a bank, a fire station, and the railroad - none of which are
noise sensitive uses.
,) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as 1 x
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element?
Proposed on-site uses and adjoining uses are not designated as noise sensitive in the Noise Element.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? x
This project has been reviewed by the Fire Department staff. Attached comments provide standards for compliance
with the Fire Code. Comments also address the need for an emergency preemption device in the new traffic signal
at the Alphonso and Broad Street intersection.
b) Police protection? x
This is an infill project which will not result in the need for new or altered police service.
c) Schools? x
Not applicable.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x
Caltrans has the maintenance responsibility for Highway 227.
) Other governmental services? x
Not applicable.
16 T-0
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? x
This project has been reviewed by Southern California Gas Company. The attached letter, dated June 28, 1996, notes
that the existing gas line will have to be relocated. Appropriate easement and quitclaim documents must be recorded
and accurately reflected on project plans.
Mitigation:
Relocation of gas lines and easements for such shall be to the satisfaction of the Southern California Gas Company
and the Public Works Director.
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance.
b) Communications systems? x
Public Works Department staff note that fiber optic lines are deficient in this area.
Mitigation:
Provide a 2" fiber optics conduit from the fire station to the comer of Alphonso to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance.
_T
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution x
facilities?
This project has been reviewed by Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to water
impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the
water supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to service it.
d) Sewer or septic tanks? x
The Utilities Department staff have reviewed the project and commented that the proposed on-site sewer must be
privately owned and commonly maintained under a recorded easement or that each parcel must have a separate
connection to the public sewer main. Certain existing on-site sewer laterals must be abandoned. The developer must
submit anticipated wastewater flows so that a determination can be made regarding the capacity of the existing sewer
system. If it is determined by the Utilities Engineer that the existing system does not have an adequate capacity to
handle added flows from this project, the developer must upgrade the public sewer system accordingly. Comments
17 7-x-9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigetion
Incorporated
also note that the project is subject to sewer impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays
its fair share of the cost of constructing the treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to service it.
A grease interceptor may also be required for food service operations.
Mitigation:
The proposed on-site sewer shall be privately owned and maintained under a recorded agreement, or each parcel must
have a separate connection to the public main.
Anticipated wastewater calculations shall be submitted for a determination by the Utilities Engineer of the adequacy
of the existing public main. If it is determined that the existing sewer system does not have the capacity to handle
the additional flows, the developer shall upgrade the public sewer system accordingly, to the satisfaction of the Utilities
Engineer.
The existing sewer lateral serving the Emily Street buildings to be demolished shall be abandoned consistent with City
standards.
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance.
e) Storm water drainage? X
See discussion under 4a regarding the possible culverting of the drainage swale and connection to the storm water
main in Alphonso Street.
f) Solid waste disposal? 6 x
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow
of materials to landfills by 50°x6 (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this
project, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated
on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be submitted
with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior and exterior recycling to
reduce the unrecycled waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling
Element.
Mitigation:
Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials, such as concrete,
sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the Community
`evelopment Director, prior to building permit issuance.
Future site development should incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
18 7�19
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Monitoring:
Architectural review and building permit issuance.
g) Local or regional water supplies? 1 x
The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land
use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the
regulations states that a water allocation shall be required to: 'obtain a connection to the city water system for a
structure or facility not previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit
is also required; obtain a construction permit."
The new use will increase future water demand. To receive an allocation, the owner of the new lot would need to
provide water offsets through retrofitting the plumbing of existing structures to save at least as much water annually
as the projected demand, or otherwise satisfy the requirements of the water allocation regulations through an approved
method.
Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the water impact fee program (discussed under
12c) is adequate to mitigate the effects of increased water demand.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 1 x
This section of Broad Street is designated as a road of moderate scenic value, with peak and treeline views of Cerro
San Luis and Bishop's Peak as well as the Santa Lucia Hills. Scenic Roadway policies in the Circulation Element state
that views of important scenic resources from major streets should be preserved and improved to the maximum extent
possible. Site development may partially obscure views of the Santa Lucia Mountains. However the proposed ratio
of building coverage to open area assures that views will not be wholly obscured.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x
The project is subject to architectural review largely to ensure against negative aesthetic impacts.
c) Create light or glare? x
The ARC Guidelines state that exterior lighting should be subdued and not create glare for occupants or neighbors.
It notes that tall light fixtures that illuminate large areas should be avoided. Zoning regulations state that no lighting
or illuminated device shall be operated so as to create glare which creates a hazard or nuisance on other property.
This site is overlooked by the Bishop Street neighborhood. Lighting levels and the duration of lighting will be reviewed
as part of the architectural review process to ensure that glare and reflected light will not be a nuisance for surrounding
properties.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 9 x
19 �7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lees Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
An archaeological survey was completed for this project in July 1996 by Clay Singer. That survey is hereby
incorporated into this initial study by reference. The report concludes that redevelopment of the area is unlikely to
affect any known or suspected archaeological resources and no additional investigation is recommended prior to
construction. To avoid significant adverse impacts, the following mitigation is recommended.
Mitigation:
If significant archaeological materials are discovered during grading and construction, all construction activities that
may damage those materials shall immediately cease. The project sponsor shall then propose specific mitigation based
on a qualified archaeologist's recommendations. The Director shall approve, approve with changes, or reject the
mitigation proposal (if found incomplete, infeasible, or unlikely to reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level). If
the proposal is approved, the project sponsor shall implement mitigation, to the satisfaction of the Director. A copy
of the archaeologist's recommendations and the Director's decision will be forwarded to the Cultural Heritage
Committee.
Monitoring:
Building permit issuance and inspection.
b) Disturb archaeological resources? x
See discussion and recommended mitigation under 14.a.
c) Affect historical resources? x
See discussion and recommended mitigation under 14.a.
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which x
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Not applicable. T7 I I
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the x
potential impact area?
Not applicable.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks x
or other recreational facilities?
Not applicable.
Affect existing recreational opportunities? x
Not applicable.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
20 7-V
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lose Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality x
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment by increasing traffic in the vicinity with related
impacts on air quality and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. See appropriate sections for discussion of proposed
mitigation measures.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, x
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
7
Short and long-term environmental goals are the same.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, x
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
The incremental effects of wetland removal; additional barriers to pedestrian and bicycle circulation; air quality
deterioration; and additional vehicle traffic are all impacts which are individually limited but considerable when viewed
in conjunction with the effects of other past, current and future projects. See appropriate sections for discussion of
proposed mitigation measures.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will x
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
The presence of various hazardous materials in the soils on site could cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings either directly or indirectly. See appropriate sections for discussion of proposed mitigation measures.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. - None
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 San Luis Obispo City General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Energy, Open Space, Seismic Safety, Water and
Wastewater Management Elements
21 7a-
2 Broad Street Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by CCS Planning and Engineering, July 1996
3 1995 Clean Air Plan
4 City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas
5 Site Characterization Summary Report (No. 95-42251-02) prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County,
February 1996
6 Source Reduction and Recycling Element
7 San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
8 Geotechnical Report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County
9 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment prepared by Clay Singer, July 1996
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
Geotechnical
Site development shall follow the recommendations made in the geotechnical report prepared for this project by
Converse Consultants
Jrainaoe
The project shall utilize porous paving, landscaping, or other design element to reduce surface water runoff consistent
with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.
Air Quality
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 7004 (b)), all graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected
or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following measures
shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of project construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or offsite;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
22 I-T�. 3
Soil remediation activities shall be subject to review and approval of the Air Pollution Control District.
The project shall include:
- bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use
- shared-use parking reduction
- on-site food facilities to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour
- extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles
- provision of a bus stop and shelter
- pedestrian friendly site planning to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission
Traffic and Circulation
The project shall implement Mitigation Option A or 8 as described in the traffic study prepared by CCS Planning and
Engineering at the discretion of City Council and Caltrans.
Bioloaical
Retain the wetland area at the southeastern end of the project or provide mitigation to the satisfaction of the Department
of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Fnerav Conservation
Future site development shall incorporate:
a. Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
b. Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
c. Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant operational reasons, buildings should
be designed to exceed energy conservation standards in the California Energy Code by 10%.
23 7 `f
Hama
All recommendations of the environmental site assessment report prepared by Converse Consultants Orange County in
February 1996 (Report No. 95-42251-02) shall be incorporated into the project description in order to ensure against
the accidental release of hazardous substances and potential health hazard.
Accurate delineation of site contamination and resolution of all contamination issues prior to construction must be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief.
Fthe
ation of gas lines and easements for such shall be to the satisfaction of the Southern California Gas Comp]must
ublic Works Director.
Provide a 2" fiber optics conduit from the fire station to the corner of Alphonso to the satisfaction of the City E
The proposed on-site sewer shall be privately owned and maintained under a recorded agreement, or each parc
have a separate connection to the public main.
Anticipated wastewater calculations shall be submitted for a determination by the Utilities Engineer of the adequacy of
the existing public main. If it is determined that the existing sewer system does not have the capacity to handle the
additional flows, the developer shall upgrade the public sewer system accordingly, to the satisfaction of the Utilities
I
engineer.
The existing sewer lateral serving the Emily Street buildings to be demolished shall be abandoned consistent with City
standards.
Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials, such as concrete,
sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the Community
Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
Future site development should incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
Cultural Resources
If significant archaeological materials are discovered during grading and construction, all construction activities that may
damage those materials shall immediately cease. The project sponsor shall then propose specific mitigation based on
a qualified archaeologist's recommendations. The Director shall approve, approve with changes, or reject the mitigation
proposal (if found incomplete, infeasible, or unlikely to reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level). If the proposal
is approved, the project sponsor shall implement mitigation, to the satisfaction of the Director. A copy of the
archaeologist's recommendations and the Director's decision will be forwarded to the Cultural Heritage Committee.
24
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Section
15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures
before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. I hereby agree to the mitigation
measures and monitoring program outlined above.
Applicant Date
Attachments
vicinity map
site plan
25 7-�
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 'x'97 ITEM # 7
To: Mayor Settle
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
From : Kathryn Keller
972 Buchon Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
p
Re: Proposed Re-Zoing at Broad and South Streets
March 31, 1997
Dear Mr. Settle,
encourage you to oppose the proposed re-zoning of the Broad
and South Street property. I'm not opposed to a grocery store of a
reasonable size being built on this property. It is true that the
people in that neighbor need a market for general grocery shopping,
not just convenience markets. However, the size and scale of the
proposed shopping center is excessive. Building a shopping center of
the proposed size will have severe and everlasting negative impacts
on the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of traffic and noise.
issue.Thank you for your thoughtful consideration on this important
Sincerely,
I�
V
Kathryn Keller
(,COUNCIL FrZEwbim -
g'CAO SIN DIR
It(ACAO O FIRE CHIEF
B9 ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
QKCLERKIORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
113 ® r�
R FILE ❑ U-1711.DIR f6n'g DIR
iV
❑ PERS DIR MAN s I IJ7/
/1r K CFTY CLERK
W. AVAW SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
FROM IOUMRN 8 ASSOCIATES PHONE NO. : 805 5411071 Mar. 31 1997 10:42AM P1
MEETING ' AGENDA
DATE /'9y ITEM #_...
flo+tJ
pool-5 c D em Lf T7i 6 p&✓e W' PS keq X65-r
To jAV a p Cort &-5710AJ , rftl 15 A 5PF4f.(A�
L eMC- . 04IC".....
95E...__ �1 T........
tt N Cr
P2lN c�J.N� UP A- _,A, sT 5 u c.
`TA N. c:&)ILS /1-,� c7 L 5 ►°c `c A d As
w->- kQ
C
1� o L4, Lff
-77a1 LE i' S� r,•' .
N.PATTORNEY
CIL . liS CDD UIR.- S �r `( V C Y
W'INDIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF
O PW DIR
[(CLBVWF IG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM O REC DIR
O c
eWfILE ❑ U]1L DIR
❑ PERS DIR
r
P 61
RUTH & LEONARD LENGER MEETING AGENDA
585 Leff Street DATE ITEM #
San Luis Obispo, CA.93401
Honorable City Council
City Hall
San Luis Obispo, CA.
Via fax 781-7109
April 01, 1997
Honorable Mayor and City4 ouncil,
On behalf of my mother and myself, I would like to take this opportunity to voice our objection
to the proposed Albertsons Center.
When the Mid State Bank was approved, we were under the impression that the balance of the
property was to be developed with office uses, further, South Street was to be connected to
Johnson Avenue through the Terrace Hill developments.
The traffic generated by a grocery store in this location, would make the traffic flow through this
intersection basically impossible.
Sincerely,
r
onard Lenger
I
I ZAO CAO C'11N DIR
2/3A ❑ FIRE CHIEF if,
9/TTORNEY ❑ FIN DIR k
" CLEAKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF i
❑ MGMT TEA&4 ❑ REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
���,iy.'?iiZ
1 14 7
�.�/fid/d e- APR :.
CITY CLERK ^ I�
GAN LUIS Uci5:=0,C A
I�
MEETIN� AGENDA
Mike Patrick
DATE ' ITEM #
197 Highland, San Luis Obispo 93405
544-6717
Phone call
Support Albertson's project. Makes a lot of sense to approve. It will serve the local community
and cut down on trips.
Also favors Spice Hunter annexation. Should retain C-S zoning and not M.
p.
Ud�COUNCIL
2T CAO Q FIN DIR
!�/�CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF :I
�/ TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C D r"� ❑ UTIL DIR
AFK
CITY CLERK
SRN LUIS OGIS? ),
ZET
DATE I*-147 ITEEM #.
T #
April 1, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Staff
FROM: Bonnie Gawf
SUBJECT: Albertson's
Petitions (1" thick) in support of the Albertson's project have been submitted by Albertson's Real
Estate Manager. Copies have been provided to the Council. The original is in the City Clerk's
Office.
iB'COUNCIL�-2"660 UiR—
i,. �V/CAO Q"FIN DIR
1tTORNEY
3 ACAO O FIRE CHIEF
O PW DIR
LERWONG ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM O REC DIR
❑ C RJcAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
CI PERS DiR
v
V//
04/01/1997 13:43 8055440813 MUSTANG MOVING & STG PAGE 01
MEETING AGENDA
DATElt-l-fl ITEM #
April 11 1997
APR
CITY CLERK,
City of San Luis Obispo 'SAN LUIS UoIS? , CA
Council Members
Re: Yes to Rezone!
I wish to express my support to approve the developer's request
to rezone the pooperty on the corner of Broad Street and South
Street to build a shopping center that will include a 413,000 sq.
foot Albertson's.
The opposition to this is b6ift- led by a consultant hired by
Scolari's market to fight this additional market for the San
Luis Obispo area, which we desperatly need. A vote to deny
the rezone is a vote to !0ave in" to special interest.
Please tote for the people of San Luis Obispo and vote "YES"
to rezone.
T?ndy
u,
walise
phone - 544-9626i� Uvcil ;
fax 544-0813 a CAO C5 FiN DIR
P40AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
VATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
I P CLERK'ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF=
❑ MGMT TEAA9 ❑ REC DIR
❑ C R
5EAD FILE ❑ UTL DIR
L c_pg
- //a.L(cia/A G
04/01/1997 13:05 605-5431831 SHERIS HALLMARK PAGE 01
io;tcTING AGENDA
DATE�ITEM #LZ
Twenty-five years ago we moved to San Luis Obispo,therefore feel somewhat qualified
to speak out on the proposed grocery store on Broad Street. A stroll down "memory
lane" has revealed to me how little the grocery store picture has changed. Twenty-five
years ago we had the following: (1)Jordans on Madonna,later a Scolaris and now
Luckys(2)Jordanos in the Foothill Shopping Center,later a Scolaris and now Luckys
(3)Williams Bros. across from Luckys on Foothill, now closed (4)Luckys on
Marsh now Kraagen Auto,Home Video, etc. (5) Safeway on Marsh, now Scolaris
(6)Giant Food on Broad, later a Williams Bros., now Vons (7)Williams Bros. at
Higuera and High St., now Smart and Final. We've really only gained ONE new
store- Albertson, formerly Williams Bros. in the Laguna Village Shopping Center.
Trader Joe's is really a specialty store and Smart and Final was already in existence
where Betty's Fabrics is located. From the growth in population that has taken place
in the past twenty-five years, it looks tike were long overdo for a few more grocery
stores. Those members of the community who do the most complaining about growth
and traffic seem to be those who have been here the shortest amount of time. Twenty-
five years ago the view from Galleon Way to the Irish Hills was spectacular,there
wasn't a house in sight. There were no houses west of Oceanaire at Los Osos Valley
Road. Those who think the Laguna Lake area is windy now should have been here
back then. A lot of us can play the "remember when" game. We've had to learn to
live with the changes that have taken place in San Luis Obispo, and there are plenty!
I wonder how many "really old-timers" remember the United Meat Market and Delite
Bakery right in the heart of downtown on Higuera Street. Those were the good old days!
All the nay-sayers don't mind traveling through other neighborhoods to get to
Luckys, Albertson or Scolaris to do their shopping. Let's use reason and common
sense for a change instead of all the emotion that people want to bring into
the discussion when the subject might affect their neighborhood. Maybe Alex
Madonna will have a creative use for the property on Broad Street if this project is
denied!
R E k i
Kathryn Beede
1890 Lima Dr. APR �
San Luis Obispo
CITY CLERK
SAN LU:J�i615�O,C:�
copies:Allen Settle-fax 781-7109
Dodie Williams-fax 781-7467
Dave Romero - fax 781-7416
Kathy Smith-fax 546-4886
Bill Roalman-fax 542-9874 — --
L./COUNCIL � liJ L�
CAO O'FIN DfR
VACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
GVJSTrORNEY ❑ PW DIR
CLERKORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ,
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
1 ❑ c FkEAEJ FU ❑ UTIL MR
04/01/97 12:54 1 E05 541 0596 FORDEN'S SAN LUIS CA. PAGE 01
MEETING ' AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
April 1, 1997
Re: Proposed zoning change at .Broad/South/Santa Barbara Streets
1. am against changing the zoning to allow the proposed Albert8OU"$
Center.
The area is already highly impacted by traffic and a center -of this
size .would make an already busy area worse. Although the property
owner should have the right to develop it is my understanding that
a smaller center would be allowed without any zoning changes.
I am in favor of keeping the development of this area of town to a
minis= and regwmt that. no zoning change be adopted.
Thank you for .your consideration.
sincerely,
Jean 8. Reno
1255 Orcutt Rd. Sp. A14
San Luis .Cbispo CA 93401
RZ s Z. L' �
CITY CLERK
�13V
Lu's Uo15=) rA
i / OUNCIL
nVAO 13 FIN DIR
i ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
VATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
C21CLERWORIG '❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ RECDIR
❑ C R D FILE O UT DIR
0 r=nS,
FROM RICHARD UON STEIN Dr— PHONE NO. : E055431E34 . Apr. 02 1997 11:4EAM P1
MEETING AGENDA 77
DATE ITEM
April 1, 1997
Dear Mr. Settle,
I am writing you to let you know ray feelings regarding the rezoning of property on the corner of Broad&
South Strect to accommodate a new shopping center. I have been a resident of San Luis Obispo for only
two and one half years and while I am definitely against the majority in regards to no growth I am very
much against this new shopping center. I live in the laguna area and from my home I can get to four
major grocery stores within six minutes. With the Food 4 Less going in that will make five. I cannot
imagine who this new center is going to benefit,except perhaps the stores going in. The neighborhoods
certainly do not need another grocery store,nor do we need any more fast foot restaurants. This is a small
town and I just don't believe you need a store on every corner..It will hurt the revenues at the existing
stores and I would expect that at some point down the line one or more of them will fold or move if we
saturate the area too much.
In addition,I had an office on Broad Street right next to Mid-State bank. I'm a Southern California
driver and even I had a hard time making a left tum out on to Broad Street. It is by far one of the most
congested areas in town right by that intersection and I feel you will be causing a lot of aggravation to the
drivers trying to get from the Lagaana area over to downtown or the Johnson Ave. area if you increase
traffic along Broad, South and Santa Barbara.
I am unable to attend the meeting tonight due to a prior commitment,but want you to know this is the
first issue in this town that I have felt strong enough about to write to you and consider changing my plaIns
to attend the meeting.
Yours a*,
Vicki L. Stickland to MUNCIE el'cuo Uil
2CAO 9--gN DIR
O"ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF '
P.S. I love your wife! She's my daughters teacher! Cd'ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
EfCLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF;
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE ❑ UT1L DIR
� ❑ pEtis rim
a�Yil�
REv� i: r�
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBIS'O,CA
MEETING w 7 IA
DATE #
Peter Canessa, P.E.
To: Mayor Allen Settle
Company:
At: 781-7109
From: Peter W. Canessa
Fax: 805544-1725
Voice: 805544-1725
Date: 4/1/97
Time: 12:15PM Notes: Dear Mayor: I am a resident of SLO, living at 3050
Pages Including Cover: 1 Rockview Place.
I have to use Broad Street everyday. It is now a
dangerous road. At morning, noon, and 5:00 peak
periods, people mostly have to move into the center turn
lane, then wait to merge. In doing so we take the chance
i'fCOUNCtL I�CCJ UIa i of getting blind-sided by"hidden" cars in the two lanes, or
dcno I3�FlN DtR playing "standoff"with someone who wants to turn left off
e'CAO ❑ FINFIRDiR EF of Broad. This is a particularly bad problem at the Staples
:eATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR entry.
If CLERKOPJG ❑ POLICE CHF It is bad planning to allow Staples-type developments in
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR before the needed traffic improvements. (All one has to do
❑IX AD FILE ❑ UM DIR is look at the Fourth Street, Teff, and Niblick Bridge
❑ FE. 1 Q fiascos in other parts of this County.) I cannot imagine
/ PVIA G what Broad will be like, even with additional stoplights,
once the new Vons goes in.
This will be a negative effect on a large part of SLO
population. I would be against a zoning change for the
proposed Albertson's project.
! @F ? •t,
uu
i 5 Peter Canessa
AYK
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OSISPO,CA
James D.Weir re:Tires It 805 783 1846 804/1197 M 11:15 AM 0111
TO TkE MEMBERS OF TILE MEETING AGENDA q
SAN Luis Obispo Ciry CouN DATE "l�_ITEM # /
I WOUId IIkE TO SAY M TO ThE REZONE OF ThE PROPERTY WHERE THE AERTSON STORE
LOCATION IS PROPOSEd. DURING T[IE 20'S ANd 30'S WIZEN I WAS GROWING Up, BROAd STREET
kAd SEVERAI MARKETS ON IT.
BONd'S MARKET WAS BETWEEN LEIF ANd CLIURCh STREET, EISWORTh hAd A MARKET ON TILE
CORNER OF UPhAM, WILSON'S WAS ON ThE CORNER OF SANdERCOCIC, SPURLOCI( hAd A MARKET AT
SANTA BARBARA ANd BROAd, SMITH'S GROCERY WAS ON BROAd AT MITCLIELI, ANd TILE HANdy
MARKET WAS AT ORCUTT ANd BROAd. THERE WAS TkE DEL MONTE GROCERY AT UphAM ANd
SANTA BARBARA, AS WEII AS ThE MARKET ThAT STILI EXISTS ON HIGH STREET AT CARMEL.
TOdAy WhEN SOME ONE IN TRIS AREA NEEdS GROCERIES, TkEY MUST TRAVEI TO SCOIARI'S OR
OUT TO VON'S OR TRAVEI ACROSS TOWN. THERE IS LITTIE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO WAIk TO A
MARKET TO pick Up AN ARMLOAd OF GROCERIES. I BELIEVE TkAT A GOOd PERCENTAGE OF ThE TRAFFIC
ThAT IS TAIICEd ABOUT FOR This PROJECT WILL ENd Up AT TkE SIGIiT RATTIER TkAN JUST dRIVING BY
TO GO ShOpplNG AT ANOTHER LOCATION.
I ALSO BELIEVE ONE OF ThE CAUSES OF VACANCIES AT MAdONNA PLAZA ANd ThE MAIL IS ThAT
TILE PLANNING COMMISSION FELT ThE NEEd TO MEdd1E WlTh ANd PUT TLIEIR 'SIGNATURE' ON ThE
PROJECT. TILE PEOPLE PROPOSING ThE PROJECTS KNOW NOW TO GET CUSTOMERS ANd MAKE MONEY
ANd dON'T NEEd MUddIE hEAdEd ThiNICING FROM PEOPLE THAT dON'T UNdERSTANd BUSINESS.
TIIANX FOR TAKING TIME TO NEAR MY CONCERNS
JIM WEIR
677 MORRO ST #3
5441693
id(COUNCIL '^ l3'CDO L,Ir1-
CAO CMN DIR
It(ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
VTTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
LERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑�C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS D(m
G1, va//JG
R E Q E:
ANN
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
FROM :MID STATE HANK ADMIN. SOS 473 7752 19Q'7.04-01 10:42 #91S P.01/02
n( 1 MEETIN "�'9y AGENDA 7
DATEITEM #
MD-STATE BANK
ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICES
1026 GrArm AnNua.AnaoYo GnANim CAuromL%93420 305/473-7700 FAX 9051473-7752
April 1, 1997
'eCOUNCIL jq[)D UIR
E(CAO O FIN DIR
Mayor Allen Settle I �f [3 FIRE CHIEF
Y r A RNEY ❑ PW DIR
City of San Luis Obispo Lf CLERWORIG O POLICE CHF
❑ MGVr TEAM O REC DIR
❑ C RFAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
RE: Broad Street Plaza f� ❑ PEFcS 7 t
Dear Mayor Settle: 41 A4WA4
Never in prior history have I seen such a blatant attempt by a small group of store owners to use
the planning process to control competition. What happened to free enterprise?
The proposed project is a well-designed plan in an "in-fill" location that will serve to preserve
the integrity of the "old town"neighborhood.
I ask you to please consider the merits of the project, and not be swayed by the massive large
dollar advertising campaign being conducted by the other store owners who are attempting to use
the planning and legislative process to stifle competition.
Cordially,
Carrol R Pruett
President
c.Cp/mW .R
via Fax: (805) 781-7109
ctrr CLERK ,c�
SAN LUIS OHtS.
FROM :MID STATE BANK ADMIN. 805 473 7752 1997.04-01 10:42 #918 P.02/02
F.
.
n. eter hoPJgi ,..::g
_ .H
0
C
�o l:w
The:oxfn proble s:
g:traffic 1.
s
Will'become
CH W®f4S !
• . . . . .. ; - ':.: ... ^� .. erg,. :}'.'�:.'. -
• 'Tbq$1:0 sty Cooncil•! QrCC.this g.,�aM. . A -
p t t a eco Broadl&South Streets ove
old Sanm'
developer s'regucat.to tAL4pG9c911Q�o -
"' ,developer's
SsieeQ io build a 59.000,aqualti foal shopping ceutcr to include a't7,t1g0 square foot
- Albatison's.a 3,000 oquare foot fast food restauiaink and 9,040 squute feet of shopping aPdt a 't'.:- •:. .:;;i,-`s i=
t . :..
'{tie you eoncorned
j. .,.: - d
The 29%lnacaxe in ttaffu that will oi:e&at the coiner of Broad&South StteeteT ;d+sl sl
thenei bborbood'eteeta.
_/::The ntsgari�e ttafftc.impai o diia''devclopIDent will!lave oa g ..,,.. -.. ,.. .
v:`
and old Towtl7
Over-building of shopping ecmero and t6c effect on vacuncies 5t both the new'.'.:;:,,'; .'":'.:-::-:•:^::.
®® Eix 4 f 24R
- Von's Madeeld Placa on Broad,and Tank Flim Rd.and the new esu --
. ,,,,.'- :. .. . .::,:::'..•..on.Soutb Hrgtresa near 7gilk Farm'Rd.7.
I[you are concerned;attend the City Cottticil eeting Micsday nlghg April lst,at 7 p.et�
•r:'
to.wiee youi opW.=and,support ether neighbors who will be speaking. Being rite lore,Item ;
c ,...
8
:• .. -: on rhe agsreda,.it should he heard at apprpsYrtaeefy 8:30 or 9:00 p-ra. )f you ctmnot attaed.
please call any of rbo following City Council memlren TODAY and leave a mesas :
• Mayorpllea Seale '7B1-7119 faz781-7109 - _::;:::a �.: ; ,.•:
781- 4 fax:781-1467 1 ;i +::
. .. - Dodre W;IHams• 766 _:, r:r':'-z-r J.• •a:,n,.a�;.:.:.
7817415 fax:781-7416
' Romam'
Dave 781=7468 fax:546=4886
Kathy Smith
'•781=7269 fax:$42-9874 <�::''.-;'..': •.:•;.1L:-- :".i.'c-.,
Bill Rodman ,
chert a ie~dehicd'ihe;propeity oa nerdHl still bare the right ltt 8evblop:':
Eveo if the zoning• B. -
"retail uses along Broad Street but to a smaller reale. Smaller retail uses Create loss eafae and':•:•`.r`: V:.,,•;., ..w'�,..,�y
provide a bettei transition intn.ibe osirov neighborhood. °{:::':;. ,,,,,F,:.,-
We httee7y✓O nazi high-Volutbe suburbao'shoppicg cttDms uodtiomLuuCRort no ah6orhaod'`
keep the high volume automobile ttpfftc at those„enttn—BEta F•"%r '' fir%
(Q]d�gy Let's lsrtp the zoning"ASIS. ';';:•:,y
i'bbor und!voice yoia ppinion barorr-AUS too heel We Will have to Gvewitlirt .+r'•;::,):: -•� :
Bring a etc g
ion[or the feat of oor lives! Say NO to the"MO
Tucp&y'night'a delis ; .c; _.:. •'e="•:':'
Attend the City
Council meeting Tuesday night,April 1st,at p-m. `y';a=' ':+�•_: � '
Voice your opinion and support othcrneighbors who will be vpealcing. (Acing
the Icor iter t on the agenda Ir should be heard or apprnurimaeely 8:?0 or 9:00 p.m) ' : ': ..; `+tiL
1eere call thq City COundi rremberx TODAY and leave 8 "''•' rt'.':: :• .
If you CWMot attend,p
message expressing your concerns.
.. . .. r r .: a;;;::�:. :. .;;:'�:t';';''`�.i•i::
.paid lbs byrtab Serm+g.fotx,c Geyer Sen Luh Ublye Cnw�mu 1)eadnra,eai Dlrtrta.m.aa tannin .. _.-..a;.
eonsvlunt tcpn,tX $aCnWition o(rcridans and Mui,ers eons.^Clfe4y ro the Alte,ta,is SI'rt+{+Ing Ceatec' .. -
EETING AGENDA
DATE y-i'97 ITEM #
Drakes Royal Farms
805 543-3271
683 Evans
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Cardornia Fresh Eggs
TO: The City Council of San Luis Obispo
DATE: March 31, 1997
FROM: John Drake (Drake's Royal Farms)
RE: Albertsons Market
I would like to express a favorable view regarding the purposed
Albertson Market to be located on Broad Street next to the Fire
Station in San Luis Obispo.
My personal experience with Albertsons is that they support local
producer suppliers. Drake Farms has distributed eggs and other
farm products in San Luis Obispo since 1957. So having seen many
changes over the years we would simply say Albertsons is a good
supporter of local products, and in general, an asset to the
community.
Thank you,
John Drake, 0 COUNCIL &'CDD Uia
President VCAO 2rFINDIR
VfACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
jwd/scd ,ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
L9'CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGAATTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ READ FILE [3UTIL DIR
r� 16. ❑ PERS Dip
ILI
-- -__ 4,tz //It°i
APR 11;;7
CITY CLERK
VtN LITS 005.70.CA
EML,IING AGENDA
Date: 3'/ 31 /97 D.fiTE . '//-9T ITEM 0
COM 3FINK STUDIO
ARCHITECTURE .
To: All Council Members 1432 Toro Street
San Luis Obispo. Ca.
Ref: Proposed Albertsons / Mid-State Bank Shopping .Center 544 -.4983
Broad and Santa Barbara Streets
Dear Council-Member,
I feel-.strongly. compelled :to write you regarding .the proposed Albertsons /.Mid;-
State,Bank Shopping Center
Regarding :the'A.R.C. decisions. on this project, were two).
Chaired both meetings and -after considerable debate. we reached a unanimous .
decision on both occasions to:"continue° the project. The main reason-for, our decision
was•simple: the project.-.Was- and still is out of scale with the neighborhood:.The .
project.. is a "suburban" type shopping center. next to the "old town". . As:'a-reference
the.closest shopping center is the Payless/Scolaris center which-is 4.5.:kres. In
comparison, the completed Albertsons/Mid-State Bank center-is 7.54.acres. That is a
75% larger center than Payless/Scolaris.The Scolaris. is 30,000 s.f. while .the
proposed Albertsons is 47,000 s.f. That is a 60% larger store. Again, our unanimous
decision (6 - 0) was to "continue",- with direction to substantially scale down the
project (which they, have :refused to do).. =-
Second: as a concerned'citizem.
Besides the size,..scale and "type" .of shopping center that is proposed.Lam
bewildered'at the.,.;mitigation,'measures for.traffic problems! . :.With .a new light just
one, short block .from one of the :largest intersections in the city and the:widening of
Broad St: -(another,lane o.n each side at, that short block) Broad .St. will graduate into a
big city congested thoroughfare: The mitigation measures will not work. 1 :.am also
amused that t, according 6. the applicant's ,marketing. analysis -we. are ....
uriderserved As. far,;as `full service';grocerystores relative .tdit a riational:averagel Is
that what we want for the city, of San Luis;Obispo to _be closer -to "the .national
average": The "national average" is :what.is wrong with-many other cities.
There are many more smaller;scale; less impacting projects or_ comb'inabo'hs of,
projects' that 'could :be proposed for,hese sites: I would urge you to 'deny this -project
and'ask for`something much better: for our.-.`Old Town' and:city as ,.whole:
V''CouriCIL r�cc�uEri
O'nc 9t8�CAO C3'FINDER
r. �..-��.a �1 �ACAO . . •.❑ FIRE CHIS
• L� JU ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
OmbMk, WCLERIUORIG O POLICE Cl'
1432 Toro St. bPlj 1 . 11/.
❑:MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
San luis Obispo elr+�eI eEal< ❑ c D FILE ❑ urn DIR
❑ PERS DIR.
7MM,
From:Reaann 6albcntln Faa:{tlWl aaltlaaa vo¢a:lam/ a[:ury waan Awa vurspv =e-.-•. •-----n^r•••- _.�._
MEETING AGENDA
DATE �-/-�ITEM #
Tuesday, April 1, 1997
Dear Mayor Settle/City Council Member:
My husband and I are responding to an ad on page A-5 of today's Telegram
Tribune, which exhorts those of us who are concerned about the proposed project at Broad
and South Streets to voice our opinion.
This past Friday, 3/28, I stopped at the Broad Street Vons and was accosted by
two women at a card table who were collecting signatures on a petition to stop the
Albertson project. I asked them for whom they were working (I had previously read in the
paper that Rob Strong was on Scolari's payroll.). They told me they were working for the
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission and Mayor Allen Settle. When I told them that
wasn't possible, they responded that they were temporary employees, hired by Kelly Girl,
but that they were in fact working for the Commission and Mayor Settle. My point here is
that, if in fact signatures were collected under this guise, this petition is hardly valid, and
whoever is in charge of it ought to be reprimanded at the very least.
In addition, I question the assertion that there will be a "28% increase in traffic" if
the proposed project is approved. Are we to believe that this 28%will simply stop .
driving? It seems to me that a good deal of the traffic on Broad from South Street to Tank
Farm is on its way to and from Von's.
My husband and I are not associated with any of the "grocery store" establishments
or their employees. We do, however, believe in free enterprise. We also pass through this
intersection several times a day, sometimes to go to Scolari's. If there were a nearer store,
our car would constitute a reduction in traffic. The proposed site now is an eyesore. We
live in the "neighborhood" and would welcome any aesthetic improvement.
I wonder if there would be such a hubbub if the proposed project did not include a
grocery store. Who would pay for this expensive negative campaign then? We trust that
the City of San Luis Obispo will oversee any new building project with an impartial eye
and the best interests of its citizenry as its foremost concern. Our family does not oppose
the proposed project.
Sincerely,
Jaime and Rosann Lopez-Balbontin and family
570 Stoneridge Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805 544-4923 COUNCIL ■ADL'DIR
( ) ; L(CAO Q'FIN DIR
(805) 541-9459 FAX R"ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
2�ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
I YGELERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
`w == ❑ CC FILE ❑ UTiL DIR
AI'H I I: : �-
CITY CLERK
SAr,/� /�SAN LUIS CA ��l/
✓ u "
Het21rl IN docurnert for
k.ture Council meeting
Gate, agsnd°=_ed
T �
March 13, 1997 COUNCIL CDD DIR
'CAO e'FlN DIR
t'rAGAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Ms. Kathy M. Smith �ATTO��' �'PW DSR
Councilwoman EeGLERK ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTE4M ❑ REC DIR
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
990 Palm Street t� ❑ PERS DIR
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Re: Proposed Albertson's #678 /�•lle • RECEIVED
NEC Alphonso & Broad 1yy�
San Luis Obispo, California MAR `'
Dear Kathy: ^&Kl I couN f,4
Thank you for taking the time in meeting with Carrol Pruett, Dan Lloyd, Tom Courtney
and me to discuss the proposed Albertson's project at Alphonso & Broad. During our
discussion, you raised issues concerning traffic as well as the need for another
supermarket. I would like to respond to your concerns in this letter. With respect to
traffic, the City contracted with CCS, a traffic consultant, to prepare a two phased traffic
report. The first phase addressed the circulation element's connector alternative to Bishop
Street, while the second phase analyzed the proposed shopping center's impact on the
adjacent and nearby streets. In early 1996, the City Council approved Roundhouse
Avenue as the preferred connector to Bishop Street, if or whenever this connector occurs.
This approval made it possible for the second phase of the traffic study to move forward.
The second phase was submitted to the City and after numerous challenges by Caltrans
and the City, CCS finalized the report. The traffic report included future residential and
non-residential projects to the year 2005; and even after including these projects, the level
of service did not deteriorate from that which exists today. In summary, the proposed
Albertson's project could operate effectively provided . the recommended street
improvements are constructed.
Another concern of yours related to need. I faxed to your attention last Friday (copy
enclosed) my analysis of the present and proposed competitive environment of San Luis
Obispo using data collected from both the April, 1996 issue of Progressive Grocer
Annual Report and the population figure provided by 1995 Strategic Mapping, Inc. The
analysis shows that even with the new Vons and Food For Less, which are currently under
construction, and the proposed Albertson's at Alphonso and Broad, the City's average
square foot per person would be 3.17. The national average is 3.22. If the drug store
portion of the supermarket, video department and other non-typical supermarket
categories were eliminated, as they should in making a true comparison of supermarkets,
ALBERTSON'S,INC./SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION/1190 WEST LAMBERT ROAD/P.O..BOX 75M/BREA,CALIFORNIA 92822-7500
714971-6100
o - O
March 13, 1997
Ms.Kathy M. Smith
Page 2
the average square foot per person in the San Luis Obispo area would be below 2.7, well
under the 3.22 national average.
There is a need for an additional supermarket. The data suggests that San Luis Obispo and
its surrounding area is under-served by supermarkets compared to the national average.
The location of our proposed neighborhood Albertson's provides a grocery store walking
distance to the immediate neighborhood. Scholari's is the closest food store these families
have and it is approximately one mile away, hardly walking distance to pick up a loaf of
bread and a gallon of milk. I hope you can support this project come April 1. Please call
me if you should have any further questions or concerns.
Very truly o S.
Scott R. Thayer
Real Estate Manger
Enclosure
CC: Via E-Mail - Mayor Allen K. Settle
Councilwoman Dotie Williams
Councilman Dave Romero
Councilman Bill Roalman
Dan Lloyd, Engineering Development Associates
Tom Courtney, Courtney Architects
Carrol Pruett, Mid State Bank
Bob Banks/Dave McKinney
SRTJps KthySmth
PRESENT and PROPOSED COMPETITIVE
ENVIRONMENT
(January 21, 1997)
STORE LOCATION TOTAL AREA SELLING
(Sq. Ft.) AREA (Sq. Ft.)
Lucky SWC Foothill & 19,250 13,475
Broad
Albertson's NEC Los Osos & 33,742 23,619
Madonna
Scholari's SEC Johnson & 30,000 21,000
Marsh
Lucky SEC El Mercado & 29,200 20,440
Madonna
Von's (under NEC Tank Farm & 52,391 36,674
construction) Broad
TOTAL 164,583 1159208
The population in the primary trade area is 54,168. This area includes the City of San
Luis Obispo and the immediate outlying unincorporated area. The average square foot of
selling area per person is 2.13, or 1.09 under the national average of 3.22 as indicated in
the April 1996 issue of Progress Grocer Annual Report.
When the proposed 47,235 sq. ft. Albertson's (33,064 sq. ft. selling area) located at Broad
and South is added into the above equation this statistic increases to 2.74 which is still
0.48 under the national average: The proposed 50,000 sq. ft. Food 4 Less, because of its
more regional destination character, draws from a much larger geographical area and as
such is discounted in the above analysis a conservative(33%). Adding both the Food 4
Less and Albertson's stores into this equation increases the average square foot per
person in the San Luis Obispo area to 3.17 which is still under the national average of
3.22.
r I '2 r-.
11 4ST
19. 1'P
St peat'by 3.6%.to
total of$311.7 ioil
1;017c more limi in 19S5 (1U.S.population
about. I
same tinct Pt',"Od:irflWiQll Ltnd in-
Fact -------- n'll." SLYO in the q JJ'Arip.)Of tile 1993
, RrCQUnc for ,lost of the c
J.'JJ2 mease- "111i* �vjjh 71ifwwr,the
AveraaLl SUP morkor. chains,con'POLMd
r 28,077 ta-.Ull 77'Z-,_%,,
19,620 Liq II erleratz.� ollar salts pe!'110LISChold
A eraike s+ f;, F211il""' itr" c pl-evious vmv ind 06,9�7c in 1955. D . :K3.218.
% 7.0 5 fat.a 1905 totw 0, -
AyArcl-Ce # Of JErew 10�' 39%?sirlee 198: f sel"ilir area in a SU-
11, -quiValent a
Mtrz'�-�6# Of iLill-t' a 43.0 55.6 The SYVASe numbacr of it"Jare feet 0 1
geadliy during the Pst de-arti,perllj,,�rlrwt has 1yown .1.
Avera a
8004 -8729 C�,T, it advanced by
n I iLl�4�__1, ing 29.077 in 1995.In jLiit the past y
9:�28rsu'superstar 2,967, -3,241
"it,'t'erast;households per izavr t nearly 1,400 'qUlra fr;el- Since
a „1a%;e COMIant
But some facto's I;I
6.61. 8.66 11935-tire avers-,e*Opula'.ion Pel, average nuill
qtore. avtracae KICS PdT sclugw'e' '(;c)t
L_�,-of houiehoof 9L07C!
Average onn"'91 porformanCe rjUlTthel
employee.The tota
and avcrrae sale; P41
$10,4�"_!sales per aq.sales Her s+tpet UF�ket Q ci-r that in !`
.00, is just slightly un
1 1;1 !995 (21
9,.-49.94 -
.q S-les yeampla YCe r $159 �175,396 Is spent
9;980'
salcs par C,fleeArDW "s,
1373 $1,2.32,236 HOW
$1,1901
A%versge supermarkot
sales per household ft------- ...... .. ........$49,50
.... . . ...... ..... ').05
t�vytrage wo.ekly pf-cforma= bakery fokidi.pL;k,
S.24
,alk�s peir quv!�rmarkdt D;:ir\, products.. ............ ....
ocli .................... . ..,. ....... . .•..
5.41 53'C' $q, 73 plurals......... ... . ...... ....... ...
sales nor emplorse ...... ... . .....
$lg.q TO
,.53 $13,7018 Frozen food;..... . ... ..............
$16,50 $23.05 1'.a crt"IM..... . . .... ...... ..... 1.85
S44.5'fl) $62.01 In-mor: ,slkel`Y .... .... ........... . .
$.sale$ per 11Gusz-bold . �'d ........ ...... ...... ..... ......
Meat & se:�fo" 10.04
.... .. ..... ..
Source: Produce ..... .. ... ...I.... . ..
:........I.,...1110.09
dible rfo=%--p'IPM PlngliC. INON-ED.WLE GROCER'%. ...... _77. ......cg-39
ht alnount sPOTIT On ncn-t C ---
b1dr,,--rits. t:lean cf 5-63cl 1 lied rimm, r SCELLANBOUS Gncwj�ky .......... ...
Tfilm, Poli, pe! foodm" 66. j.0 k.) 0434.__ 6
,q (ov, (if S I 01�. indic' ..........S9.3..
. 73 - V
f"'Vr, S 1 wS I(
ill 199 1% V", Over thg�l 0MRAGES...
the: (lIt \v.,? ane clib
pro.duw I%,, fLkr firorn over. spe.1di;Ig en bVia'afle." al,.w rose . ..........
SNACK FOODS. ..... .... .. .
ic $9.36 fr0- '19 09 tll('79 vlou.'�
INIApN coURSES & ENTREES
......$3.98
er'10011 of jrN.ER,i.J.MERCHANDISE..........
Health and cam S;PcPndi,'1P. 'apined cgroolld ir, 191,5. C .
& is are) 5011le PF0J;CqN' ;11 HEALTH &RE;9,UTY CARE
-.uc -,,, r
gsitin.- th, pparmarl r:
cli-i- banle wi(h chain drug outlets-Particu';;ITly in .401MI UNCLAssIFIED.. ..... ...... ... .
recent Px-(STC .4witell
0 sip$ Sson
wage 109irels
Anticl7nate(i tl*clidj for 1996 ...... - ffr ch-mae I'm.
tta flampe Vq. ravluus scot
ire wagil exQqMt
znluus�tal'
+1I 27e.
4.1
7.1%
Ch!iinr
7217,; ..
l,,CImaasa(1 pre., that unions have ba'!"
Ls - "I
�U m
M T,
7. 'iV0.4 cil:611N,iii "and,
;o-1:Zed vhnilp: weil a
3-07-1997 4:OOPt'1 FROh1 E I DER-CU-IHER I CAL-RE 805 9574`0 P. 1
Conquest NlarketData
Market Stats Report
Page 1 of 9
_.;a 1 = South&Broad, San Luis Obispo 1 Mile Ra 4/9/96
Area 2- South &Broad San Luis Is 3 Mile Ra
nwa - Suu &151UaJ-Sau Luls vbl5po Wille na
Description Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
1995 Socio-Economic Measure: 59 63 64
1995 Employment: 10,838 24,229 26,064
Population:
2000 Projection 12,935 45,422 54,542
1995 Estimate 13,194 45,153 54,168
1990 Census 13,657 45,452 54,376
1990- 1995 %Change(Growth) -3.5% -0.7% -0.4%
1990 Group Quarters Population 382 4,254 11,086
1995 9'n Pnni larinn by Rare
White 88.60/9 86.6% 82.7%
Black 2.5 % 2.11/6 6.7%
omrdran Indian, FiVimn 8r o innr 1 '14(. Al V1 03 qr
Asian or Pacific Islander 3.9% 6.6% 5.6%
Other 3.7% 3.9% 4.1 %
Hispanic 12.7% 11.5% 17.4%
1990 %Population by Race:
White 89.5% 88.2% 83.9%
.Black 2.2% I.9 0/0 6.3 %
American Indian, Eskimo& Aleut 1.1 % 0.8% 0.7%
Asian or Pacific Islander 3.5 % 5.5 % 4.7%
Other 3.7% . 3.7% 4.3 %
Hispanic 10.9% 9.7%. 14.40,/o
1995 %Population by Sex:
Male 49.7% 51.5 % 5 7.4"o
111 1 "A 4A 1 elk 117 11 4A
1990 %Population by Sex:
n4'alr 411.4 4. 51.5 Pry 57.4 Ph
Frmalr 5n 1 °rh rI3 5°r° n7 r,
1111 IWI UVIns, nnu %1 391+ i,ru�n,�f Lt1�1.0 .IJJ.V ]]J.n
Inn[ nnl ill 11111111 1 11*11 (I'll n 'I I I nn] 1 Ill I ani i
IRRn Inn nd Snllnrn Min(Rnn Nunim) 1 Rid (Ti 1 -1i 1
Area(Square Miles) 7.4 99.8 163.6
. -- ' ----- io _ oc° c All u
MEETING GENDA
DATE #
G�COUNCIL CDD DIR S+
To: Allen Settle, MayorCAO ❑ FIN DIR
�ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
From: Mark Buchman eATTORNEY R'15W DIR
d °'1%
�' L
CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF o�G2�
Re: Albertson's 13MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR 4ot — Q
❑ C RPD—FILE,,, ❑ UTIL DIR 0
3/26/97 l� 7— ❑ PERSDIR
I guess I am confused.
c� /Q'�"v
1. Is traffic volume more important than traffic ow?
2. SLO does not have the average number of supermarkets—since when did SLO strive to be
average.
3. Are developers the only ones guaranteed of making a profit on property investments or is the
city going to listen to every property owner who feels a special exception or zoning change will
preserve their investment?
1. I contacted both the planning and public works departments with questions about Albertsons.
They were helpful, but...
When asked about traffic,I was quoted the line appearing in the paper each day—there will be
only a 28 percent increase in traffic.
It is not only the increase in traffic, but the quality of traffic. Let me explain. More cars flow now
on 101 than ever before. The only change between now and eight years ago when I was driving to
Santa Maria everyday is that there are more of them—probably more than a 28 percent increase.
However, given no increase in traffic at all, another high volume use on Broad will effect the
quality of traffic. Staples, the bakery, and Leemos probably did not increase traffic, but they
certainly have had an impact.
On widening Broad, yes this time the land will come from the east side. But in the future will the
city ask businesses to close for widening or will they confiscate homes?
2. My good neighbors of 10 years—Albertson—never saw fit to contact me in the four years I
have lived in the neighborhood. They did send a slick petition around for my signature the week
before their big hearing and they called a public meeting that we learned about only one day before.
Then they announced that SLO is not average enough. To be more average we need more
supermarkets, like the one they want to build. Could we have a study of comparable communities,
like Carmel, Ashland, Oregon, St. Michaels, Md., Olympia,Washington, and other small cities
with thriving tourist trade and vibrant downtowns? They, of course, are not average either. What is
an avearge—all it means to me is that some communities have more stores and others have less.
OK, so what? Were focus groups conducted in SLO or market studies?Do people here want more .
markets?Do people here want a market at what is becoming the most difficult intersection in town?
If the numbers had said we were average, then what would be reported is that we were not at the
median or that average distance to a market was off or any of another statistical games.
I can not remember waiting more than just a few minutes in a check out line at any supermarket in
SLO. What need is there for another market?The need seems to be other communities have
overbuilt and allowed too many markets and so should SLO. Have citizens come to the city council
complaining about the lack of markets, the length of lines? Or have citizens come complaining
about traffic flow, safety and over development?
more
3. lam continually amazed that developers have the ability to talk about their rights and
expectations as investors. "I invested in this property 10 years ago and ..." Investing in anything is
full of risk, especially property. I know many SLO residents who have lost money on their
property investments—their homes. There is nothing that I know of that guarantees people with
more property, bigger investments, and more lawyers the right.to special consideration by cities. If
land investment is not working out, maybe they should buy US Savings Bonds or better yet keep
their money in a bank account.
Cities are charged with protecting the health, safety and welfare of their citizens. In the course of
accomplishing those tasks, property might be up zoned, down zoned, re zoned or even
appropriated. There are no guarantees.
In this case gaining one traffic light, while jeopardizing an entire neighborhood does not seem in
the best interest of the citizens. If approved, Albertsons will accelerate the use of side streets near
Broad and South. This will change the character of those neighborhoods. It will mean those who
invested in homes, rather than speculated on property, will loose money. But then those folks
don't have the resources to mount PR campaigns for the city council's benefit. They just live and
work here.
Albertson should be limited to the originally planned size. If that is not enough for them,well,I
guess they can do what I did when I couldn't afford to keep my big home in town—move into a
smaller one. If that won't work, then move out of town.
As always I appreciate your willingness to listen and your personal integrity,
1!WkBuchman
FETING AGENDA
P
�� ITEM #
r a v-�
Jkp
i
H H UNCIL
March 24, 1997 cDpDIR V
YOST �I� FIN DIR
CHIEF
MANAGEMENT I** DIR
5 POLICE CHF
CJ� 41G
San Luis Obispo City Council C� � p RECDIR
990 Palm Street p c �C
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 + IQ U11LDIR
p,PERS DIR
Re : Albertson' s General Plan Amendment
I an strongly against the addition of Albertson' s at the 'ii���/�(i
location noted in your letter dated March 20, 1997. The /1C
reasons for this statement are as follows :
1 . The existing traffic on Broad Street is now severely
impacted by the use to Highway 227 as a major artery to
and from San Luis Obispo .
2. The new housing developments in the Country Club area
and east Tank Farm Road have already increased the
traffic on Broad Street substantially.
3 . Consider the proposed location. The new Scolaris is
only about 1 mile away. There is, in addition, the new
Marigold shopping center now under construction. The
new market there will be about 13z miles away. Is the
implication these markets are too far away?
4. There are at least 8 markets in San Luis Obispo. They
include, but are not limited to, Lucky (Madonna) , Lucky
(Foothill) , Kaneys , Scolaris, Trader Joe ' s , Vons,
Albertson' s, and Foods for the Family. Plus, there are
a number of convenience stores, like 7-Eleven. No
matter where you are in the City limits there is a
market close by.
5 . There is a fire station and an ambulance company within
a few yards of the proposed shopping center. The
increase in the traffic will hinder the ability of these
important services to gain access to Broad, South, and
Santa Barbara Streets.
6. Mr. Thayer needs to reconsider his opinion on what a
friendly, neighborhood market is in San Luis Obispo.
Kaneys is a friendly, neighborhood market - Albertson' s
will be an obvious antagonist of that concept . Besides,
there is no reason for the City to be somehow held
accountable and hostage for being below Mr. Thayer' s
"national average" , as implied in today' s
Telegram-Tribune article. Dont be taken in by someone
who cares little for you or this town.
2251 Broad Street, Suite C, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Phone (805) 543-8321
City Council
March 24, 1997
Page 2
Don' t you think there are enough shopping centers and
markets now? Is it the Council ' s intent to fill up ever bit
of open space in the City with unnecessary stores? Have you
ever stopped to consider the local market owners that rely
on your support and good judgement?
Please, take the time to visualize what is really happening
to this once beautiful town. Another malignant expansion
into the local environment will not contribute anything to
the neighborhood. Try something positive for the City by
saying NO to Albertson' s.
Respectfully,
Frank Y
Tra ey Bu
Laura Drake
MEET
DATES./_IN .4GENDA. �
ITEM #
v V
a
v
i COB UNCIDU UIR
C�CAO IFIN DIR
PCAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
I'CLE] ORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ D FlLE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
Arr•
iviatkt.
MELS ANG ,AGENDA
DATE—h`�STEM # o�
Stacey A. Stack
Box 14703
San Luis Obispo , CA 93406
April 4 , 1997
City Council
San Luis Obispo , CA
Dear Council ,
I am writing as a concerned member of this San Luis .Obispo
community. I am also aware of the some of the many issues
that are currently facing you asa new board.
You have been given a wonderful opportunity to serve this
community and ;.Y .4r actions will speak for you for many
years . I encourage you to look very carefully at this
beautiful area before you make your decisions , whether they
be about shopping centers , residential housing, golf
courses , or any other debilitating development . You .can , as
a Board , make intelligent , environmentally sound decisions
that will positively affect all of us , and our children , in
the years ahead.
Recently, I have seen shopping plazas started that use none
of the natural environment in the radical bulldozing of
development . I am seeing many store closures throughout
town . I see housing developments all around -- who is going the
to buy all these homes in this community? Please look
around before you just blindly follow the leader to sell us
all out .
I strongly urge you to think of the character of San Luis
Obispo as well as your own when deciding our future .
Actions do indeed, speak louder than words and many of us
are concerned that you take the right actions . How nice it
would be to be proud of our San Luis Obispo politicians .
Sincerely,
j(Z CGL
� 0 COUNCIL ifCDD UIR Stacey A. Stack
YCAO GKIFIN DIR
C� CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
dCLERKAORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIA
O C ,D FILE ❑ UT1L DIR
r D PERS DIR
-MAH
� AALO ITY CLERK
SAN CU S OB SPO CA