HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/1997, 2 - RECONSIDERATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT CONDITION FOR FOODS 4 LESS (A 6-96); 154 TANK FARM ROAD rsDJe
council N1��
j acEnda Repout ".K..6"
CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development DirectorP7 For �3
Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manage
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of a previously approved use permit condition for Foods 4
Less (A 6-96); 154 Tank Farm Road
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Deny the request to modify general condition# 8 of the approved use permit thereby maintaining
the prohibition against left tum movements onto South Higuera Street from the T.K. commercial
center.
DISCUSSION
Summary of Applicant's Request
On June 18, 1996, the City Council on appeal, approved a use permit for T.K. Development for
the construction of a 51,000 square foot"warehouse" grocery store at the comer of South Higuera
Street and Suburban Road. The project approval included numerous conditions and mitigation
requirements. General condition# 8 states:
"The South Higuera Street driveway shall be limited to right in, left in, right out
turning movements. The use permit shall be reviewed one year after the grocery
store opens to consider how well traffic is moving in this vicinity and whether any
further limiting of turning movements at the South Higuera Street entrance is
necessary."
This condition was similar in nature and related to an earlier condition of the January 1996
Council approved subdivision (condition# 21) of the property which states:
"The subdivider shall enter into an agreement prior to recordation of the final map
for phase one that guarantees certain improvements and/or devices will be installed
as required by the City Engineer within 60 days of notification that left turns to and
from the project via the South Higuera Street driveway are causing unacceptable
traffic conditions. It may be necessary to preclude left turns into and out of the
site."
The applicants have requested relief from the use permit condition that somewhat advanced the
timing of restricted turning movements onto South Higuera specified in the subdivision approval
Council Agenda Report - T.K. Development Use Permit
Page 2
(see attached June 20, 1997 letter from David St. John). The applicants believe that their original
design, which allows unrestricted access to and from the center is based on "sound traffic
engineering" as supported by traffic studies that were prepared and reviewed during the
subdivision approval process.
Project
As pointed out in the applicant's correspondence, this project has had a long history dating back
to the 1980s. Originally, the County approved a master plan for development of the property
which included a central access road connecting Tank Farm and Suburban Roads, similar to that
which was approved as part of the City subdivision approval. Because of traffic safety concerns,
the County approved master plan restricted all access to and from South Higuera.
A. Annexation
When the request was made to annex the property into the City in 1993, the applicant's plans
showed a new access to the development off of South Higuera Street, in addition to the internal
access road. The applicants included a preliminary development plan and traffic study with their
annexation proposal. Early review of the traffic study by the City Engineer (October 1993)
resulted in a recommendation to eliminate all access onto South Higuera Street. At that time, the
City Engineer indicated that the traffic report bad not yet justified the need for this entrance to his
satisfaction.
When the Council approved the annexation and prezone of the property on October 4, 1994,
mitigation measures were specifically incorporated into that action. One of the mitigation
measures addressing traffic impacts called for:
"Elimination of direct access from South Higuera Street, or provision of an
alternative driveway location acceptable to the City Engineer."
B. Subdivision
The applicants, as part of their subdivision proposal, supplied the Public Works Department with
additional traffic information that justified a single entrance off of South Higuera that was offset
north of the existing intersection with Las Praderas Drive. Public Works, once again and after
reviewing the additional information, recommended against a driveway and therefore, left turn
movements onto South Higuera. The City Council found a middle ground that allowed the
driveway and left turns but added the condition that these movements could be ended at such time
as traffic safety issues became paramount. The subdivision was approved by the Council with this
restriction included as a condition of approval (see condition language referenced above).
Council Agenda Report - T.K. Development Use Permit
Page 3
C. Grocery Store Use Permit
Shortly after Council action on the subdivision, the applicants applied for a use permit that
would allow development of a Foods 4 Less grocery store on the subject property. When the
matter was initially scheduled before the Planning Commission on April 10, 1996, staff had
not recommended any restrictions on turning movements to or from the center due to previous
Council action on the subdivision. It was assumed at that time, that the subdivision restriction
alone would address any future traffic problems.
The Planning Commission hearing was well attended by concerned residents in the Las
Praderas and Los Verdes neighborhoods opposed to the proposed grocery store. In addition to
issues of noise and land use, the neighbors were concerned with traffic safety and circulation
impacts that the center would cause. Several residents expressed concern that they would be
unable to exit their subdivision due to increased traffic coming to and from the facility.
The Commission continued action on the use permit to May 8, 1996 in order to allow
additional input from staff. At this hearing, staff presented some modified and added
conditions of approval that attempted to address some of the neighborhood concerns. One of
those additions was the condition eliminating left turns from the center. This condition is more
restrictive than the condition of approval of the subdivision. The basis for the added restriction
was primarily due to input from the neighborhood regarding traffic safety (see page 9 of
attached May 8, 1996 Planning Commission staff report). Following extensive discussion, the
Commission ultimately denied the use permit.
The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council who heard the
matter on June 18, 1996. As an alternative to the Planning Commission's recommendation for
denial, staff provided the Council with a draft resolution for approval with the same conditions
offered at the second Planning Commission hearing. After a lengthy public hearing, the
Council upheld the appeal and approved the use permit with the more restrictive condition.
There was some discussion of draft conditions of approval by the applicants and their
representative, but no objection was given to the left turn restriction.
Following the Council meeting, the applicants reviewed the conditions in more detail and
discovered the restriction. They have now asked to come back before the Council to discuss
the condition and determine whether it can be removed.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department has reviewed the current proposal and feels that based on public
input and available traffic information, the condition should stand as it is. This would mean
that the applicant would be able to maintain an access onto South Higuera Street with left and
right turns in, but with only right turns out.
�3
Council Agenda Report - T.K. Development Use Permit
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES
Should the Council wish to support the addition of left turns out from the facility, then the
condition of the use permit restricting left-out movements should be eliminated. The recorded
subdivision restrictions will remain. However, it is recommended that such an action be
accompanied by additional traffic information to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Attachments
I. Draft Resolutions for Denial and Approval
2. Applicants Request
3. Project Site Plan/Vesting Tentative Map
4. Original Conditions of Approval
5. Public Works Memo on the Current Request
6. May 8, 1996 Planning Commission Staff Report
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE CONDITION # 8 OF
USE PERMIT A 6-96 RELATING TO RESTRICTED TURNING
MOVEMENTS ONTO SOUTH HIGUERA STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 19, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records from prior hearings and actions, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that eliminating the condition that prohibits
left turn movements out of the commercial center would result in potential traffic safety hazards
for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the applicants request
to eliminate general condition # 8 of Use Permit A 6-96 and staff recommendations, public
testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following finding:
The condition which prohibits left turn movements from the commercial center
onto South Higuera Street is necessary in order to reduce traffic safety hazards to
motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians in the vicinity.
SECTION 3. Denial. The request for elimination of general condition# 8 of use permit
A 6-96 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 , 1997.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/ty,(Illorey f J gensen
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE CONDITION # 8 OF
USE PERMIT A 6-96 RELATING TO RESTRICTED TURNING
MOVEM 94TS ONTO SOUTH HIGUERA STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 19, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records from prior hearings and actions, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that eliminating the condition that prohibits
left turn movements out of the commercial center would not result in potential traffic safety
hazards for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the applicants request
to eliminate general condition # 8 of Use Permit A 6-96 and staff recommendations, public
testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following finding:
The condition which prohibits left tum movements from the commercial center
onto South Higuera Street can be eliminated provided the applicant supplies
additional traffic information to justify full turning movements to the satisfaction
of the Public Works Director.
SECTION 3. approval. The request for elimination of general condition # 8 of use
permit A 6-96 is hereby approved subject to the requirement that additional traffic information
is supplied to justify full turning movements to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
In addition, this action in no way eliminates or modifies condition# 21 of Tentative Tract Map
TR 7495 (Tract #2211) which may result in restricted turning movements should future traffic
problems arise.
�=r
On motion of -- ------- - secondedby --_- ,
and on thd.following roll call vote:
AYES?
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this—day of -- ----- -- , 1997.
Mayor Allen Settle -
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Oawf
APPROVED. AS TO FORM:
Q41d-k-4 A;�
tto ey J J ensen . .
,I
DAVID ST. JOHN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
136 WEST CANON PERDIDO,SUITE B2
SANTA BARBARA,CALIFORNIA 93101
TELEPHONE(805)963-7722
FAX(805)966-1787
June 20, 1997
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Re: TK Project—Grocery Store Use Permit
Application to Amend Condition 8
To Allow South Higuera Street Driveway Left Turn Out
Honorable Members of the City Council:
The appli art, TK Development, respectfi:lly applies for City Courci1 amendment of
Condition 8 of the Warehouse Grocery Store Use Permit to permit left turns out from the
South Higuera Street common driveway. This application is made on grounds that such
turning movements are consistent with sound traffic engineering, and with the traffic
studies and approvals for the entire Tract Map.
The following is a brief chronology of the left turn condition:
1. Subdivision of this site was first reviewed and approved by the County of San Luis
Obispo in 1992. As part of that review/approval process, the following circulation
issues were resolved:
A. access to Tank Farm Road would be restricted to a single point of
connection from an internal street; and
B. an internal street would be required to connect Suburban Road to Tank
Farm Road.
2. Since early 1993, at the time of the annexation request, applicant's conceptual
plans for the project have shown the above County requirements regarding Tank
A-H'az,hmen+ Z J 4
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
June 20, 1997
Page 2
Farm Road, and have shown full access, with both right and left turns, onto South
Higuera Street from a common driveway.
3. In mid-1993, Associated Traffic Engineers prepared a detailed traffic study for the
project which included extensive analysis of alternatives with, and without, full
access onto South Higuera Street. The scope of the study was reviewed and
approved by the City Engineering Department. The final traffic analysis, dated
October 16, 1993, concluded "The applicant's proposed access was found to be
most favorable in terms of overall traffic and circulation operations in the
study area." (Executive Summary, page 1).
4. The applicant's proposed full access onto South Higuera Street from a common
driveway was incorporated into the design of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map
approved by the City. The Vesting Map was conditioned such that the City could
monitor the location and, if necessary, could require that left turn movements be
revised or eliminated at the property owner's expense.
5. The full access was shown on the schematic ARC drawings which were approved
by the City.
6. The full access was shown on the plans reviewed by the City Planning Commis-
sion. The initial staff report to the Planning Commission did not recommend
restricting turning movements in, or out, of the project. City Engineering Staff
did not require the restriction of turning movements as part of their review prior
to the Planning Commission hearing; they were satisfied with the Condition
imposed under the Vesting Map.
7. At the time of the Use Permit Application for the Warehouse Grocery Store, the
Planning Commission imposed Condition 8 limiting left turns out of the project,
in response to a neighbor's concern about possible left-turn conflicts with cars
turning left from Las Praderas Street. Notwithstanding the Condition, the
Planning Commission denied the project, and Applicant appealed to the City
Council.
8. The City Council did not discuss turning movements when it upheld applicant's
appeal of the Planning Commission, and approved the Use Permit.
ONO
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
June 20, 1997
Page 3
The prior approval of a Vesting Tentative Map which specifically delineated improve-
ments to be constructed off site within the South Higuera Street public right-of-way, and
which specifically addressed the matter of driveway placement and turning movements,
should take precedence over a subsequent minor use permit appeal, during which
driveway and turning movements were not discussed at all. Also the Vesting Map should
take precedence over the use permit since the use permit addresses on-site matters and
project operation matters - not off-site public improvements.
This application is based further on such other grounds, facts, presentations by applicant
and comments by interested parties, and on all the papers, records and other materials as
may be presented at the time of the City Council hearing on this matter.
Resp submitted,
DAVID ST. JOHN
Attorney for applicant
DSJ/dkm
c: applicant
City Attorney
Planning Director
07/29/1997 16:17 805965""'3 LAW OFFICES PAGE 0"
DAVID ft. JOHN
ATTOWMV AT LAW
a FAST FIOua1LOA.sura 210
SARrA BARBARA.CALdFOR11G 93101
(anS)967-7m•(103)963-1016
PAX 03)9661767
MdU: d yObSO AGM
July 29, 1997
Via FAX and mail
Mr. Arnold Jonas, Public Planning Director
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249
Re: T.K. Development Project - San Luis Obispo
South Higuera Street Driveway Left Turn Out
Dear Mr. Jonas:
I enclose a copy of the contract between the City and TK Development 11, recorded by
the City on March 29, 1997, as Instrument No. 1997-015264, in Official Records of San
Luis Obispo County. This mutually binding contract confirms that left turns out of Tract
2202 may be restricted only upon notice from the City Engineer that such movements are
causing unacceptable traffic conditions. The City Engineer has made no such finding,
nor given any such notice.
As set forth in my letter to the City Council dated June 20, 19977 the recorded
Subdivision Map establishes legal rights of ingress and egress for the benefit of the entire
Tract. The City approved the professional traffic studies upon which these rights were
granted, and integrated them into the design of the entire subdivision. These fundamental
rights cannot be separated out or abrogated by an erroneous condition attached to a minor
use approval.
My client respectfully urges that the City comply with the rights granted by the recorded
Subdivision Map, and by the recorded contract, with respect to left turns out.
Respec submitted,
Dn -/'�
Davi St.7ohn
DSJ:mn
07/29/1997 16:17 80596F"34 LAW OFFICES PAGE 03
rr
J
9
. DOC No: 1997-015264 us: moigon
Official 1lscords :RF 13.00
R�aoaR<oaRa tes0oss:so R1lt�k San Luta 001900 Co.
Julie L. ROOeeeld ;
•m 111m 2NC== R811L 20! Recorder
Mar 28. 1997 ;
City Cler1L lige: 08:00
City of San lain Obiape 9� _
:TOTAL ,a.00
990 pals street
San Zola Mine, CA 93401 a
n053-251 933
f Tlid so at is now Via day of Nasus. 1997 by and
bet -so !R priolopssut 11, aCaTi2amia General pastnerastp
('Shopping Canter`l and the City of sea Lain ObL(o ('Cita').
Ce er about aaaoarp 1111. .11110. the City Council of sae LaL
Obispo passed Resolution 9485 41990 series) appevstaa the
isolative ?rest sap for in 94-93, (Countyerr.os 220 ) paseetat
to the eenditleas tet forth in said SoselatLea 049S.
5
31. Condition 21 Of Resolution 9483 requires the shoppLoq Center
to gaarantse tM installation of certain isprovemate aaeedd//ar
devices (ohannalisatlee curbs, striping, and •no lett tore•
signals) it required by the City "gisssr ritsis it days of
sotifieation than eft s to and fsow the project v tae
2010th
hgls street away are cassiag unacceptable trattle
oondLtiI. ghoeld tM city dem that aorta" inpay.serete sed/er davits
cwt be installed, then shopping Center agsess to lastall, at the
sole Boat sed wpsase of shopping Costar, seas laprov s is
end/or devices par the epeoi tlese or the City. :•.t;;ry•i.:✓�+-
s. wpm pw1ritta wiles given to the shopping Center by 1 the City, :;.:�e
�ispsovsaweVdevites wcenter itthhiin design*
scfrroomm receipt of such mob
e. .
..
7. 29 the lsprow. sto and/or devices are sot installed witbin
60 days of notification tad should the Clty psrsee oepleties of 7.
the inpresaest and/or devices, the shopping Coster "go" to
eospsesats the City for all costa laearred by the Citl. 1t tae :;:• v ''
Cit has to Parana litigation to enforce this at@bwAft
"• =ti
Cee shell be liable for all reasonable attorneyfeesandnd
Litigation Oosto incurred by City. :c:.2 _j :--•.
�y �i
07/29/1997 16:17 00596E--14 LAW OFFICES PAGE 04
9 -
r :
a��GPINGStt zto a e lLford. y of s.n sofa GbL"o
Oscar" a
Bs.
►o .
a. Tim ba lapi" �
MAIN
JerraOSt =wtlopo'- -.
s!l • e;
#pA �+
Rxestaks fawaea»ata •
rt ;�
Arpnom As to yams
a
4
al�W; �x
2 of 2
J-W
07/29/1997 16:17 80596E--34 LAW OFFICES PAGE 05
'ALIIAAt111A ALL4PUFAN fs 11110
0�,.4� Sar► r3a�'lxtre.
aNlArch '3. Ig9'7 e�.a�.�.r�nHno.TbenF�n.l�blaCuaibt�.
v...�w�o.r.a N�lave E•Twrwv� rr...� ru f2ka.v�
Yo..a+nMl�de.
bah"welmmw� +hre
1 MuYlr mmmwme1nc is 10111�ht
M1MI.r►LAMOI
OrWu•�OOt ad hl Or oe�YM1A1.�
iMir.�w..�� 0«ss¢�.ahw'Af'�OMMdwf�hOr�
f womm4b nsmam .tb0.wa/�OhYre
cf qr Uns.ea dill..n
MAMWWftpC Z&-/
Ismaw -6
cow
POM
s
`� �aaeq o/A�eJa�popua�R
�al�elOm.�e•
y : •�enow.. ..�.eih..�Al r
. .Ms
—L i 1:pwftw+UTVAMM
y.AMwyR1 • .. ... .
�ll.
;s' :c:' � L4� MPwwrr� •:�;t t�
-------------
�•:. _ r4'r.w�1�•p��ti►O�A wr�r w eiM��.�. .�;�y.��:3�w!�j
1r D�NIJ
2 53 F5 gel S9 !
II WRY" F •C�� B ti�� S IP3� rz
t _ @ e :•!ec
zC
itI(I`•tfnANomAA; i7 1.y}j�,�J.:.r.a...g.p?i ®q.r r�a
rt S�40-'tle OCgill y o p
� l� OCyLp C
SW. E
C
I f � C� +l � ''d�AiI � � if � I � � �a�r e,,�2`0�'•> .'... -F•,. � $/ �-1
~
o� Y
Ell
_ I �k
.. ••.. 41„x.
i
g �
r m
co
F]f
T.
e N tj.Fij 9 et +r,.
C i f
L .v� r• t1 i'' art
.......:._. r
L; — .... ........
JEV\'Y WAY_ _
I
';a:• \ 1111
22 -CO
fla x
I.��Illl•1 I ,. -�' ��<awi.': ��,�7AFf/AC
.x<u _ •I.! -:r ~__ill; �b.•y'} \
-----�—..
:III 1 '• / ^i' ` '~ i� Y 4`O� ` .
"�
IIIJ , I s I' _vo -.fir _1'1;'a•II _;� I (,'••''...
�• r it r p nr r+ _�. S; �• f• '
.: I•_X ..i'.p.y � ,� •4 &o .'. go - J .o _ ! t.. a7 cm , .
I r pp a
..<�_.�� ISI
II 111 .• . —v}. — ,S ,
•.;_Illll, .,: ;¢�
=LI • .Mgo.,
--------'it
_ 11. I I ;
I. llll. ly4 i f IcI ---•,.-^--.�.e.L I : : -o
77
AM
n -
LOrIC
—+—
II{ vii'�" j• rr g a:- ^_^ c ^�a,:: s-ap: se• o
iij- -1n ("� i• LLL::: ipe •��a•
}1 s-V0 " 3 N �'•a qj..
BMW
fs-ttd
P`I i- N y - � �'•� w2VV .4 apA R� 1
7Q d � wa•
i 7 ��� F `iii •iia-'^ °r 9
X�: �' r / I /•r
i .24
•.5
RESOLUTION NO. 8557 (1996 Series) FG r a Pa
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR A WAREHOUSE GROCERY STORE
AT 154 SUBURBAN ROAD (A 6-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 8, 1996 and
denied a use permit for application A 6-96; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 2, 1996 and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby upholds the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny a use permit for
a grocery store at 154 Suburban Road (A 6-96), and approves the use permit based on the
following finding(s):
SECTION 1. Finding(s).
1. Food 4 Less is more of a warehouse store in character than a neighborhood-
commercial center and is therefore consistent with General Plan Land Use Element
Policy 3.5.2(C).
2. Warehouse stores are an allowable use in the C-S zone.
3. Food 4 Less has more of a regional serving character than a neighborhood-
commercial center and is consistent with General Plan Land Uses Element Policy
3.5.1.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. 51/.f;
1. Mitigation measures established for the Annexation and Prezoning(ER)3.0) and
Tract 2202 (ER 74-95) and the Circulation Element EIR .adequately address
potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of a
grocery store as part of a neighborhood commercial center at this location.
Resolution No. 8557
Appeal A 6-96
Page 2
SECTION 3. Conditions.
1. Provide a greater setback along the Suburban Road and Higuera Street frontages
with berms and landscaping for the purpose of screening views into the parking lof;
shielding pedestrians, nearby residents, and vehicles,.on surrounding roads from
headlights of cars in the parking lot; enlarging the buffer between pedestrians and
vehicles using the parking lot; and providing continuity in the pattern of frontage
landscaping along this portion of South Higuera established by other large
developments such as Granada, Hind, and the Telegram-Tribune building (similar
to what was submitted at the April 10 Planning Commission meeting).
2. Provide additional information / plans to show how the project's buildings and
lighting will comply with tentative map conditions of approval related to energy
conservation in conjunction with architectural review of the neighborhood shopping .
center (ARC 6-96).
3. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
4. The project shall post signs limiting delivery hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00
p.m. and notifying drivers that truck engines must be turned off when parked to the
satisfaction of the Director.
5. The project shall include construction of a wall along the eastern property line of
the Los Verdes residential area to shield the neighborhood from traffic noise and
pollution and for safety reasons to the approval of the ARC in conjunction with
architectural review of the neighborhood commercial center ARC 6-96.
6. Parking lot maintenance and sweeping shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
7. To minimize impacts on nearby residents and night time drivers along South
Higuera and to conserve energy, exterior lighting should be directed downward
only and average maintained footcandle levels should not exceed 1/2 footcandle
(Illuminating Engineering Society standard).
8. The South Higuera Street driveway shall be limited to right in, left in, right out
turning movements. The use permit shall be reviewed one year after the grocery
store opens to consider how well traffic is moving in this vicinity and whether any
further limiting of turning movements at the South Higuera Street entrance is
necessary.
Resolution No. 8557
Appeal A 6-96
Page 3
Public Works Conditions:
1. All conditions for tract 2202 shall be strictly adhered to.
2. Driveway ramps on Jenny Way shall conform to the City'.s Engineering Standard
Detail No. 2111 (ADA compliance).
3. Street type driveway entrances shall be designed with appropriate handicap access
ramps in accordance with the most current City of San Luis Obispo Engineering
Standard Details and Standard Specifications.
4. Any building located within flood zone "A" shall have a finished-pad elevation at
least one foot above the 100-yr storm water surface elevation.
Transportation, Circulation & Bicycles
5. Sidewalk Alignment: the sidewalk alignment should be meandered similar to the
detached sidewalks north of the project site.
6. Limit Lines: Limit lines or "stop bars" should be painted on the main entrance
driveway, set back a minimum of 2 feet from the proposed textured crosswalk.
7. Bicycle Rack Location: The bicycle racks should be relocated to meet the
standards set forth by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October 1993):
Be located as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and be
located at least as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking.
Be visible from the interior of the destination.
The proposed locations along the sides of Buildings A and B do not meet these
criteria.
8. Number of Bicycle Parkin Sg Races: Bicycle parking shall be provided to meet the
standards set forth by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October, 1993).
Specifically,the plan stipulates that bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the
rate of 15% of the required parking spaces; a minimum of 50% of these spaces
should be for short-term parking(bike racks) while a minimum of 40% should be
for long-term parking (bicycle lockers).
Resolution No. 8557
Appeal A 6-96
Page 4
9. Design of Bicycle Racks: The developer shall review and receive approval of the
design of bicycle racks with the public works staff prior to their installation. The
staff has information available for review at the Public Works Department that can
assist in rack design selection.
10. Transit Stop Design: Signage at the proposed transit stop and the design selected
for the transit shelter shall be to the approval of the City Transit Manager.
11. The plans must reflect the interim street and utilities phasing (e.g. - turn around,
fire flow/water main sizing, etc...).
Upon motion of Council Member Romero, seconded by Council Member Smith, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Romero, Smith and Williams
NOES: Council Member Roalman and Mayor Settle
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2nd day of July, 1996.
ATTEST:
A g lerk Kim Condon Mayor Allen Settle
By: Dodie Williams, 'Dice :layor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
*ittoey f J ensen
v24/
crty o
san Luis ompo
MEMORANDUM
July 25, 1997
To: Ron%isenand, Development Review Manager
From: Jerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
Subject: : TK Commercial Park-Higuera Street Drivew (T2202)
This department recommended that no driveways be allowed on the Higuera St. frontage
between Suburban Rd. and Tank Farm Rd., consistant with both City and County policies.
Subsequently, as a condition of the tract, the City Council (CC) allowed one 'common"
driveway, subject to an agreement that provided for closure of the driveway or limitation of left
turns(LT) ingress and/or egress,based on traffic safety and delay, etc., conflicts.
Later, the CC approved the Food 4 Less project with the conditions recommended by CDD in the
PC report, which deleted LTs out of the property onto Higuera St. The agreement was recorded
with the tract map (Unit 1), as required.
Since this department originally recommended against"any driveway"on Higuera St., PW staff
recommends that the CC requirement to preclude left turns out should prevail.
cc: mmcclusk, acablay, mbertacc, hbirlew
DevRev\...\T2202\HigueraCommon Driveway
A*ac.hrnen+ 5 d?��
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMIS ION STAFF REPORT rrEM u e2
BY: Whitney Mclivaine Associate Planner MEETING DATE: May 8, 1996
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manag r
FILE NUMBER: A 6-96
PROJECT ADDRESS: 154 Suburban Road
SUBJECT: Request for use permit approval of a grocery store in the C-S zone.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
1. General Plan Consistency: Determine if the proposed 51,635 SF grocery store at its
proposed location is consistent with general plan policies, which are identified and discussed
below.
2. Environmental Determination: If the Commission determines the use is consistent with the
general plan, the Commission must then determine whether the previous environmental
reviews conducted for projects outlined below sufficiently analyzed potential environmental
impacts resulting from the establishment of a 51,635 SF grocery store at this location.
Previous relevant environmental reviews were separately distributed to Commissioners and
include:
a) ER 54-93 conducted for the annexation and prezoning of the site,
b) ER 74-95 conducted for the subdivision of the annexation site, and
C) EIR conducted for the update of the Circulation Element as it pertained to noise
mitigation for widening South Higuera Street (mitigation measure #11 in Council
Resolution 8332).
Note: If the Commission determines the use is not consistent with the general plan and denies
the use permit, no environmental determination is required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA Section 15270). However, further consideration of the application on appeal
of a denial will be facilitated by adoption of an environmental determination.
3. Use Permit: Approve- with or without conditions - or deny the use permit request, based on
appropriate findings. Staff recommends approval of the use permit based on findings and
subject to conditions noted under Staff Recommnedation.
BACKGROUND
Situation
Zoning regulations require administrative use permit approval for grocery stores in the Service-
Commercial zone. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 51,635 square foot market as
part of a commercial center at the corner of Suburban Road and South Higuera Street. The
schematic plan shows another large tenant and some smaller tenant spaces. Although the
A+zchmen- - (o "* -.23
A 6-96
Page 2
application does not specify a particular grocery store, Foods for Less has been identified as a
potential tenant.
This item was originally scheduled for the Administrative Hearing on April 5. However, given
concerns expressed by nearby residents, the Director determined that the item should be referred
to the Planning Commission, consistent with Section 17.58.030A.3 of the zoning regulations.
Data Summary
4
Project Address: 154 Suburban Road
Applicant: Larry Kreutzkampf
Property Owners: M.Timm Development, Inc., Larry and Linda Kreutzkampf
Representative: Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group
Zoning: Service-Commercial (C-S)
General Plan: Services and Manufacturing
Environmental Status: ER 54-93; ER.74-95; 1994 EIR for Land Use and Circulation Elements
Site Description
The project site is relatively flat and currently vacant. To the north are agricultural fields, the new
Telegram-Tribune office and production building, and an expansion of San Luis Sourdough.
Industrial development, including a concrete block manufacturer, is across Suburban Road to the
south. Creekside and Silver City mobile home parks and the Meadows and Los Verdes housing
developments are across South Higuera Street to the west. The grocery store would be located on
a separate 3.84-acre lot within the proposed 8-acre shopping center. (See attached subdivision
plan.)
Previous Review/PWiect H
April 10, 1996 - The Planning Commission continued action on the use permit request for a
grocery store with direction.
February 20, 1996 - The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) granted schematic approval
to the overall site planning and building layout for a shopping center with direction. (See
attached letter notifying the applicant of ARC action.) Once major tenants have been
identified, design details finalized, and all required use permits approved, the project can
return for final architectural review.
January 16, 1996 - A tentative tract map, which subdivides the entire 22-acre annexation area
into 21 lots was approved by the City Council. The Council also approved a mitigated
negative declaration for the subdivision (ER 74-95).
December 13, 1995 -The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the
proposed subdivision of the site with a modification in lot design to include larger lots along
rJ7
A 6-96
Page 3
Tank Farm Road. (Council did not require the modification.)
May 9, 1995 - Annexation complete and recorded with the County Recorder.
October 4, 1994 - City Council approved the annexation and Service-Commercial prezoning, and
approved a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact (ER 54-93).
August 1994 - City Council adopted an update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the
general plan.
March 1, 1994 - City Council denied the annexation and prezoning request, finding it premature,
and inadequate with regard to open space policies and water resources.
December 7, 1993 - City Council continued action on the annexation and prezoning with direction
to the applicant to consider C-S-S zoning in lieu of C-N zoning and provide open space
dedication or in-lieu fees.
November 17, 1993 - The Planning Commission recommended approval of the annexation and
Service-Commercial prezoning.
In the review process for both the annexation and subdivision, the developer indicated he planned
to construct a neighborhood commercial center along South Higuera Street, with a site layout and
tenant areas similar to what is shown on the attached site plan. Therefore, for purposes of
environmental review, the project was defined to include development of a commercial center with
a 50,000 SF grocery store as proposed. Potential environmental impacts of developing a
commercial center were addressed as part of environmental review for both the annexation and
the proposed subdivision of the annexed area.
However, no approval of the commercial center or individual stores within such a center has been
granted. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council acknowledged that development
of a commercial center and certain proposed uses within such a center would require architectural
as well as use permit approval and that decisions regarding uses and site development would be
premature without submittal of more detailed development plans and applicable applications for
review. The applicant submitted a use permit application on January 17, 1996 and an application
for architectural review on January 26, 1996.
EVALUATION
General Plan Consistency
A. POLICIES WHICH COULD SUPPORT A FINDING OF CONSISTENCY
Locating a grocery store at this site could be found consistent with Land Use Element (LUE)
policies that encourage neighborhood retail centers to be within about one mile of all residences
A 6-96
Page 4
with access from arterials and policies that state convenience facilities serving daily needs should
be located in and near employment centers ( LUE Policies 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.6.2). To ensure
consistency, provisions within these policies should be applied to the project as conditions of
approval.
LUE policies 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 apply primarily to properties zoned Neighborhood-Commercial (C-
N). If the Commission supports a grocery store at this location, it may be appropriate to direct
staff to process a general plan amendment and rezoning to change the zoning designation from
Service-Commercial (C-S) to Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N).
1. LUE Policy 3.2.1 Neighborhood Commercial, Purpose and included Uses:
The City should have areas for Neighborhood Commercial uses to meet the frequent shopping
demands of people living nearby. ' Neighborhood commercial uses include grocery stores,
laundromats, and drug and hardware stores. Neighborhood commercial centers should be
available within about one mile of all residences. These centers should not exceed about eight
acres, unless the neighborhood to be served includes a significant amount of high density
residential development. Specialty stores may be located in Neighborhood Commercial
centers as long as they will not be a major citywide attraction or displace more general,
convenience uses.
2. LUE Policy 3.2.2 New or Expanded Centers:
New or expanded Neighborhood Commercial centers should:
A. Be created within, or extended into, adjacent nonresidential areas;
B. Provide uses to serve nearby residents, not the whole City;
C. Have access from arterial streets, and not increase traffic on residential streets;
D. Have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from surrounding service area, as well as good
internal circulation;*
E. Provide landscaped areas with public seating;*
F. Provide indoor or outdoor space for public use, designed to provide a focus for some
neighborhood activities.*
* - Approval of the use permit may need to include project conditions to ensure the grocery
store is consistent with the provisions of this policy.
�-a6
A 6-96
Page 5
3. LUE Policy 3.6.2 Convenience Facilities (applies to all commercial zones):
Convenience facilities serving daily needs, such as small food stores, branch banks, and child
and elder care, and amenities such as picnic areas may be allowed in centers of employment.
Space for such amenities maybe required within large commercial and industrial development.
4. LUE Policies 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 Neighborhood Traffic, Neighborhood Connections:
Public Works staff response to consistency with LUE Policies 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 regarding
neighborhood traffic and neighborhood pedestrian connections is attached. In their evaluation,
the project is, in part, not subject to certain policy provisions and otherwise consistent.
5. LUE Program 3.7.3 Neighborhood Uses:
The City will rezone to Neighborhood Commercial existing Service Commercial sites which
have become neighborhood convenience centers, if: (1) they primarily serve a neighborhood
rather than a citywide market; and (2) they are appropriately located considering access and
compatibility with other nearby uses.
B. POLICIES WHICH COULD SUPPORT A FINDING OF INCONSISTENCY
The grocery store, especially in the context of a neighborhood commercial center, may not be
consistent with policies that state such centers should serve nearby residents, not the whole City,
and that new specialty stores, department stores, or neighborhood commercial centers should not
be developed in Services and Manufacturing areas (Policies 3.2.2, 3.5, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.1.1,
and 3.1.2).
1. LUE Policy 3.2.2 New or Expanded Centers:
The full text of this policy is provided above. Provisions marked with an * denote areas of
concern with project consistency that may or may not be able to be resolved through project
conditioning.
2. LUE Policy 3.5.1 Services and Manufacturing, Purpose:
The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to meet most
demands of the City, and some demands of the region, for activities such as wholesaling,
building contractors, utility company.yards, auto repair, printing, bakeries, and retail sales of
large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors (vehicles, building materials,
plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants and
other activities primarily serving area workers.
��7
A 6-96
Page 6
3. LUE Policy 3.5.2 Appropriate Uses:
The following types of uses are appropriate in areas designated Services and Manufacturing.
Certain areas designated Service and Manufacturing may be reserved through special zoning
provisions for certain types of uses, to assure compatibility among the wide range of potential
uses, and to assure adequate land for certain types of uses.
A. Wholesaling, warehousing, and storage;
B. Vehicle sales and rental (other polices specify their location in the Auto Park area);
C. Retail sales of products which require outdoor areas or large floor areas for display and
storage, such as warehouse stores, lumber and building material dealers, home
improvement centers, furniture and appliance stores, and plant nurseries;
D. Repair shops, printing services, laundries, animal hospitals, sporting goods stores, auto
parts stores, and some recreation facilities;
E. Light manufacturing, research and development, and laboratories.
F. Large offices, with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet, and having no
substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services may be
located in the Services and Manufacturing districts, subject to approval of a Planned
Development zoning application.
4. LUE Policy 3.5.3 General Retail and Neighborhood Commercial Uses:
New specialty stores, department stores, or neighborhood commercial centers should not be
developed in Service and Manufacturing areas. However, existing uses such as supermarkets
and drugstores may be expanded if:
A. They are compatible with nearby residential uses;
B. The expanded use will not divert trade from other general-retail or neighborhood
commercial areas which are better located to serve the expected market.
5. LUE Policy 3.1.1 General Retail, Purpose and Included Uses:
The City should have areas for General retail uses adequate to meet most demands of City and
nearby residents. General Retail includes specialty stores as well as department stores, warehouse
stores, discount stores, restaurants, and services such as banks. Not all areas designated General
Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses.
��8
A 6-96
Page 7
6. LUE Policy 3.1.2 Locations for Regional Attractions:
The City should focus its retailing with regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area
around the intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101 - Madonna Shopping Center and
Central Coast Mall - and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road - Froom
Ranch. (Italics added correspond to areas designated General retail on the LUE Map)
C. CONCLUSION
The policy which best supports a grocery store at this location on a site with C-S zoning is LUE
Policy 3.6.2, which promotes small grocery stores and other convenience facilities in all
commercial zones to serve both nearby residents and employment centers.
Establishment of a neighborhood commercial center with a large supermarket may be consistent
with LUE Policies 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, providing amenities and other criteria noted in these polices
is incorporated into the neighborhood center. Consistent with Implementation Program 3.7.3,
the Commission should then direct staff to process a general plan amendment and rezoning of the
neighborhood center site to C-N.
The policies which most clearly do not support approval of a large warehouse-style grocery store
in the context of a neighborhood center are LUE Policy 3.5, which specifically discourages new
neighborhood commercial centers in the C-S zone, and LUE Policy 3.1.2, which states that
retailing with regional draw such as warehouse stores and discount stores should be located
downtown, or in the Madonna Road malls or in the area designated for General Retail along Los
Osos Valley Road.
CEQA Compliance
As noted above under the summary of previous review, the potential environmental impacts of
developing a commercial center with a 50,000 SF grocery store were addressed as part of
environmental review for both the annexation and the proposed subdivision of the annexed area.
Potential areas of impact which were identified and addressed include consistency with community
plans, land use, transportation and circulation, public services and utilities, noise levels,
topographic modifications, air quality, plant life, archaeological, energy/resource use and soil
contamination. Some additional project details have been submitted as part of the architectural
review application, but none that significantly change the project description utilized for purposes
of environmental review. Therefore, staff have concluded that the environmental review prepared
for the annexation and subdivision of the site meets CEQA requirements to prepare environmental
documents at the earliest possible time in the review process and to avoid duplicative paperwork
(CEQA Sections 15004 and 15006).
Section 15063(d)(5) requires an initial study to contain an "examination of whether the project
would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls." This
A 6-96
Page 8
same section does not require inconsistency to be treated as a significant environmental impact
(emphasis Added). The issue of whether this site should be developed with a grocery store or
some other use with similar environmental impacts is a land use decision beyond the question of
environmental impact significance. Ultimately, it is the role of the Planning Commission and City
Council to weigh various general plan policies relevant to a project and make a determination
regarding whether the project can or cannot be found consistent with the general plan.
Remaining Latitude, Given Previous Approvals
In addition to the environmental mitigation measures which are applicable to any development:
project on this site, the approval of the tentative map for a 21-lot subdivision establishes the
maximum number of lots and their configuration, access points, frontage improvements and
changes to the surrounding streets and intersections.
Attached is the Council resolution (No. 8485) which specifies All conditions that must be met by
the applicant prior to final map approval and which apply to development of individual lots. The
conditions in the resolution togetherwith the approved tentative map (also attached) constitute the
subdivision project approved by Council. The final map and all required physical improvements
must be in substantial compliance with the tentative map prior to final approval and recordation
(Subdivision Map Act Sections 66473 and 66474.1).
Previous actions did not convey any use permit approval of a grocery store or neighborhood
commercial center. This issue has always been identified as one to be resolved in conjunction
with the applicant's submittal of a specific development plan and associated land use applications
(beginning with pp. 6-8 of ER 54-93). However, if the Commission determines the use is
consistent with the general plan, and acts to approve the request, any use permit conditions should
be consistent with previous conditions of approval.
Zoning Regulations
Zoning regulations allow "Retail sales - groceries, liquor and specialized foods (bakery, meats,
dairy items, etc.)" in the C-S zone, subject to use permit approval. The purpose of use permits
is to allow flexibility in providing for, regulating, or preventing various uses, to achieve
compatibility with existing or desired conditions in a neighborhood. Use permit approval is
required for certain uses so that their detrimental effects can be reduced or.avoided and so
potential conflicts in land use can be prevented (Section 17.58.010).
If the Commission decides to approve this use permit request, it may be appropriate to condition
the following aspects of the project to improve compatibility with nearby residential land uses and
to achieve continuity in the attractive pattern of site planning and frontage landscaping along this
portion of South Higuera established by developments such as the Granada building, the Hind
building, and the Telegram-Tribune.
Hours of Operation: The applicant has not specified desired hours of operation. Nearby residents
�-30
A 6-96
Page 9
have expressed concern over a 24-hour grocery store at this location, because of the potential for
late-night noise and traffic and are requesting hours be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.M.
Square Footage: Limiting the size the store would improve consistency with LUE Policies 3.2.2,
3.6.2, and 3.1.2.b The average square footage of all existing markets, including the approved
Marigold Center Vons, is 25,325 square feet. The most recently constructed market, Scolari's,
is 30,000 square feet.
Circulation: The traffic study prepared in conjunction with the annexation request projected traffic
volumes and identified necessary changes to surrounding streets based on a development scenario
that included a 50,000 square foot grocery store as part of a 100,000 square foot shopping center.
Nearby residents are now concerned that turning movements into and out of the South Higuera
Street entrance to the shopping center, combined with the increased volume of traffic will make
it difficult and dangerous to enter and exit Las Praderas - the only point of access to the Meadows
housing development. Public Works staff have evaluated those concerns and their analysis
indicates that street improvements that will be installed as part of the subdivision will adequately
accommodate additional traffic and turning movements.
LUE Policy 3.5.4 states that in Service and Manufacturing areas, driveway access onto arterial
streets should be minimized.
The Planning Commission could limit turning movements at the South Higuera Street driveway
based on testimony presented by nearby residents. Alternatively, the Commission could require
the use permit to be reviewed at a specified time in the future to consider how well traffic is
moving in this vicinity and whether limiting turning movements at the South Higuera Street
entrance is necessary.
Pedestrian and Alternate Transportation Access: The project does provide bicycle lockers and
employee shower facilities and a new bus stop and pedestrian access from the bus shelter into the
shopping center. Crosswalks will be provided at the Suburban Road and Tank Farm Road
intersections which tie the site into existing pedestrian circulation systems in the area. A new
traffic signal will be installed at the Suburban Road intersection. In addition to environmental
mitigation already required of the project and recommended conditions of approval noted at the
end of this report, the Commission may consider other project conditions deemed necessary to
accommodate pedestrians and alternative modes of transportation. A site plan showing pedestrian
access routes in the area is attached as part of the Public Works comments.
Delivery Hours: One potential problem with additional truck traffic is their arrival time.
Delivery hours could be limited. For Scolari's Market, deliveries were limited to between the
hours of 7:00 am and 9:00 pm.
Los Verdes Wall: The Los Verdes Home Owners' Association is requesting that the project
J-3/
A 6-96
Page 10
include construction of a wall along their eastern property line to shield the neighborhood from
traffic noise and pollution and for safety reasons. The resolution approving the Circulation
Element update stipulates, as mitigation for traffic noise levels on street widening projects, that
the City will reduce traffic speeds through limits or physical features and require developments
to attenuate noise through setbacks, berms, or walls (Resolution 8332, Mitigation Measure #11).
The project could be conditioned to include construction of a wall along South Higuera Street.
Parking Lot Maintenance and Sweeping: Also to reduce noise exposure for nearby residents,
parking lot maintenance, sweeping, and trash compaction should be limited to between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
Parking t Screening and Setbacks: The ARC, nearby residents, and staff would prefer to see
additional landscaping and street setbacks to better shield views of the parking lot and vehicle
headlights.
Number of Parking_, paces: Parking for the grocery store would be provided consistent with
zoning regulation requirements of 1 space per 200 square feet or 258 spaces. Total parking for
the project would be roughly 450 spaces. The traffic study built in a 25% multi-purpose trip
reduction factor for the shopping center. It would seem logical to consider a mixed-use parking
reduction as well.
Lighting: To minimize impacts on nearby residents and night time drivers along South Higuera,
and to conserve energy, exterior lighting should be directed downward only and average
maintained footcandle levels should not exceed 1/2 footcandle (Illuminating Engineering Society
standard).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the use permit with or without conditions, based on findings of general plan policy
consistency, land use compatibility, adequate environmental review, public health, safety and
welfare, or other appropriate findings of fact.
2. Deny the use permit, based on findings of general plan policy inconsistency, land use
incompatibility, potential threats to public health, safety and welfare, or other appropriate
findings of fact.
3. Continue action to allow the applicant time to address specific unanswered concerns of the
Commission and/or to require preparation of an initial environmental study with direction
regarding issues to be examined.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other department comments are attached and recommended conditions are incorporated into the
staff recommendation.
�3�
A 6-96
Page 11
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the use permit, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Fines
1. As conditioned, the grocery store use will be compatible with nearby residential uses.
2. As conditioned, a grocery store in this location is consistent with general plan policies that
encourage the location of neighborhood commercial centers within about 1 mile of all
residences, serving nearby residents and not the whole City.
3. Approval of a use permit to allow a grocery store at this location is consistent with zoning
regulations since zoning regulations implement the general plan and provide for grocery stores
in the C-S zone with use permit approval.
4. Mitigation measures established for the Annexation and Prezoning (ER 53-94) and Tract 2202
(ER 74-95) and the Circulation Element EIR adequately address potential environmental
impacts resulting from construction and operation of a grocery store as part of a neighborhood
commercial center at this location.
Conditions:
1. Provide a greater setback along the Suburban Road and Higuera Street frontages with
berms and landscaping for the purpose of screening views into the parking lot; shielding
pedestrians, nearby residents, and vehicles on surrounding roads from headlights of cars
in the parking lot; enlarging the buffer between pedestrians and vehicles using the parking
lot; and providing continuity in the pattern of frontage landscaping along this portion of
South Higuera established by other large developments such as Granada, Hind, and the
Telegram-Tribune building (similar to what was submitted at the April 10 Planning
Commission meeting).
2. Provide additional information / plans to show how the project's buildings and lighting
will comply with tentative map conditions of approval related to energy conservation in
conjunction with architectural review of the neighborhood shopping center (ARC 6-96).
3. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
4. The project shall post signs limiting delivery hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
and notifying drivers that truck engines must be turned off when parked to the satisfaction
of the Director.
5. The project shall include construction of a wall along the eastern property line of the Los
Verdes residential area to shield the neighborhood from traffic noise and pollution and for
�-33
A 6-96
Page 12
safety reasons to the approval of the ARC in conjunction with architectural review of the
neighborhood commercial center ARC 6-96.
6. Parking lot maintenance and sweeping shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 9:00 p.m.
7. To minimize impacts on nearby residents and night time drivers along South Higuera and
to conserve energy, exterior lighting should be directed downward only and average
maintained footcandle levels should not exceed 1/2 footcandle (Illuminating Engineering
Society standard).
8. The grocery store shall be limited to a maximum area of 30,000 square feet.
9. The South Higuera Street driveway shall be limited to right in, left in, right out turning
movements. The use permit shall be reviewed one year after the grocery store opens to
consider how well traffic is moving in this vicinity and whether any further limiting of
turning movements at the South Higuera Street entrance is necessary.
10. The grocery store shall be developed as part of a neighborhood commercial center and not
as a stand alone use.
In a separate motion, direct staff to process a general plan amendment and rezoning of tentative
map lots 1 through 4 to Neighborhood-Commercial from Service-Commercial.
Public Works Conditions:
1. All conditions for tract 2202 shall be strictly adhered to.
2. Driveway ramps on Jenny Way shall conform to the City's Engineering Standard Detail No.
2111 (ADA compliance).
3. Street type driveway entrances shall be designed with appropriate handicap access ramps in
accordance with the most current City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standard Details and
Standard Specifications.
4. Any building located within flood zone "A" shall have a finished pad elevation at least one
foot above the 100-yr storm water surface elevation.
Transportation, Circulation & Bicycles
5. Sidewalk Alignment: the sidewalk alignment should be meandered similar to the detached
sidewalks north of the project site.
6. Limit Lines: Limit lines or"stop bars" should be painted on the main entrance driveway, set
back a minimum of 2 feet from the proposed textured crosswalk.
A 6-96
Page 13
7. Bigycle Rack Location: The bicycle racks should be relocated to meet the standards set forth
by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October 1993):
Be located as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and be located at least
as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking.
Be visible from the interior of the destination.
The proposed locations along the sides of Buildings A and B do not meet these criteria.
8. Number of Bicycle ParkinsSpaces: Bicycle parking shall be provided to meet the standards
set forth by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October, 1993). Specifically, the plan stipulates
that bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of 15% of the required parking
spaces;a minimum of 50% of these spaces should be for short-term parking (bike racks) while
a minimum of 40% should be for long-term parking (bicycle lockers).
9. Design of Bicycle Racks The developer shall review and receive approval of the design of
bicycle racks with the public works staff prior to their installation. The staff has information
available for review at the Public Works Department that can assist in rack design selection.
10. Transit Stop Desisn: Signage at the proposed transit stop and the design selected for the
transit shelter shall be to the approval of the City Transit Manager.
11. The plans must reflect the interim street and utilities phasing (e.g. - turn around, fire
flow/water main sizing, etc...).
Attached:
vicinity map
site plan
subdivision plan
comparative grocery stores
Council resolution
other dept. comments, including Public Works resonse to general plan policies
ARC 2/20 minutes
letters from Strong Planning Services
letters from the public received since April 10
• �3S
SETING AGENDA
TE 9-847 ITEM �#
ugust�Iql , T777 —
r=C,.0t!NCIL CDD DIR
" 00 [3 FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF
ORNEY ❑ PW DIR
CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ t77 ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
San Luis Obispo City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
QQ0 Palm Street
San Luis Obisro, California 03401
Re: Food 4 Less Use Permit Conalition !Agreement
To City Council of San Luis Obi-spo:
I live at 80 Mariposa Drive off of South higuPra Street across from the
proposed Food 4 Less Store . There is only one way in to the Meadow Tract .
There is supposed to be a Fire Lane at Chunarrosa Street in the Cul-d-Sac
but it is so nsrroiw I doubt whether a Fire Truck could get through there.
In the e� ent of P. fire if the traffic was blocked both ways on hiQuers
Street , there. ~,would be no chance of a Fire Truck to get through to nut a
fire out . Why doesn' t the Citv put another road into '.he mleadow Tract
or widen th^t Fire Lane to have a road intersect with Los Osos Road? I
have a big Drobl.em getting out on iiiguera Street now. Whit in the heck
is it going to be like w'k,.en that Shonning Center goes in beti.Neen Tank
Farm Road and Suburban Road? I am goinr,c to keen a cony of this letter
that I am sending you now. I don' t want it thrown in the garbane or
waste basket . I elan to be at the meeting on Tuesdav , }Aucust IPth. In
the el'e_nr of a fire on my nremises and the Fire ( ruck can't get in and
my house burns down, I am going to sue the City of San Luis Obisno.
Manuel Lewis
Manuel Lewis
80 Marinos6. Drive
San Luis ,Obispo , CA 93401
RECEIVED
AUG 1 3 1997
SLO CITY COUNCIL
J))YJAoA
--r-
104 A
ZLuisObispo
IVED MEETING "ENDA
DATE �IS G-97 ITEM #
4 1997 12 August 1997
COUNCIL For .
LUTIL
R
San City Council IEF
900 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo Ca 93401 CHF
R
RDear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: IR
This letter is in opposition to the proposed amendment to allow left turns from the T.K. Commercial
Center/Food 4 Less development, located at 154 Suburban Way, onto South Higuera Street,
southbound.
Please consider the following when you are making your decision:
1. Safety: South Higuera Street access from The Meadows via La Praderas and from the T.K.
Commercial Center are only 150 feet apart. Left turns from Las Praderas to northbound South
Higuera, and left turns from the T.K. Commercial Center to southbound South Higuera would be
coming broadside (perpendicular) to each other as the drivers cross South Higuera to get to their
desired lanes. Both sets of drivers would be vying for a very small "window of opportunity." Even if
signals at Tank Farm and Suburban were synchronized to create a window -- a concept that has
been suggested by staff but not guaranteed -- there would be the stragglers north and south on
South Higuera, soon joined by vehicles turning left from Tank Farm onto South Higuera south-
bound, plus vehicles turning right "on the red" from Creekside Mobile Homes at Tank Farm Road
onto South Higuera, southbound, plus vehicles turning right "on the red" from Suburban onto South
Higuera, northbound. Two opposing left turn exits so close to each other and with so short a window
of opportunity are potentially very dangerous.
A second point regarding safety is that if residents of The Meadows are overwhelmed by the
increased traffic and congestion on South Higuera, we must abandon surface streets as a route to
town and make right turns to the freeway. Entrances onto the freeway, with the merging of traffic at
high speed, pose an additional safety threat.
2. Traffic increase at Los Verdes Parks: If we are forced to turn right on South Higuera Street to get
to the freeway in order to go to town, residents of The Meadows will increase the traffic flow and
congestion along Los Verdes Park #1 on South Higuera, and between Los Verdes Parks #1 and #2
on Los Osos Valley Road. This compounds problems of noise, pollution, congestion and access for
those residents.
3. Uncertain data: We have stated from the beginning that the Traffic study is flawed:
3.1 Traffic estimates were based on tables developed for a typical supermarket, one of 6 or 7
in a city of our size, and expected primarily to serve one quadrant of the city. We have seen no
tables indicating that a large regional supermarket, drawing from all 4 quadrants of our city plus 7
additional communities (Morro Bay, Los Osos and the Five Cities) would generate the same traffic.
Developer's representative stated to the Planning Commission that "All supermarkets draw mostly
from their own neighborhood, with a preponderance of the remaining customers coming from a 3
mile radius." That is obviously not true in this case. Food 4 Less would not stay in business if their
management expected to get most sales from the smallest neighborhood in San Luis Obispoand
the "3 mile radius" for virtually all remaining sales would eliminate much of San Luis Obispo plus all
7 other communities.
3.2 Furthermore, the traffic study did not consider any development in the Froom Ranch area
nor in some other areas where you have since approved projects. These factors strongly support
our point that estimates of traffic congestion in the T.K. Commercial Center area are unreasonably
low.
3. Uncertain data - continued:
3.3 Also, we note that the request for access from the T.K. Commercial Center only names
Food 4 Less. The plans call for many more stores. Once the left turn access is granted, it will be
used by all customers, not just Food 4 Less customers. Please consider long range impacts of you,
decisions. Present, proposed, and anticipated projects will greatly increase traffic flow in our part of
South Higuera. Left turn exits from the T.K. Commercial Center would significantly add to the traffic
congestion in this area.
4. Psychology: We all know of the apathy of the American citizen regarding getting involved in
government. Often, less than half the voting public participates in national elections while state and
local elections and issues receive far less turnout. By coming back to the Council over and over, the
developer or franchise owners capitalize on this apathy. We have heard staff, Council members and
Planning Commissioners remark at times "Only 2 or 3 residents voiced their opposition. That's not
very much." Mr. Souza, of Food 4 Less, has already told the Silver City residents, "Food 4 Less. will
be open 24 hours," and we expect that sooner or later, he will come before the Council asking for a
variance on the hours. The developer and/or franchise owners have far greater financial resources
available to them than do the homeowners. We do not have copy machines or a budget for
gathering petition signatures or for hiring professional consultant/lobbyists to present our point of
view. We do not have means of communication with each other except for word of mouth with our
adjacent neighbors -- and in an area such as ours where the majority of both husbands and wives
work, even neighborly chats are at a premium. We are at a distinct disadvantage to a developer or
lessee who continues to "chip away" at established decisions, especially if decisions are influenced
by tallies of the number of opposing viewpoints rather than by the merits of the arguments.
5. Burden of Proof -- It has been suggested, "Why not start with unrestricted turns, then if that causes
a problem, it can be changed?" When we asked staff how they, in their downtown offices, would
know if there were a problem one candidly responded that a tally of accidents would indicate the
extent of the safety problem. That staff member was less clear about how often the city would
generate studies of waiting time for residents of the Meadows. "After all, those studies cost money,"
he responded. If you allow the developer to configure the T.K. access driveway for left turns out, the
burden of proof regarding safety issues falls on the hapless victims of auto accidents while the
burden of proof of excess waiting falls on a city budget that includes traffic studies and on residents
of the Meadows developing a clear, unified voice. If we were able to prove our point, who would
pay for re configuring the access drive and the center median -- the developer, or the City?
On the other hand, if the drive is configured to prohibit left turns, and the center median is likewise
configured, burden of proof that there would be no safety problem or excess wait time even with left
turns, would fall on the developer who has far more resources and lobbyist contacts with City staff
than we do. In this case, who would pay to re configure the driveway and center median if data
showed it to be feasible?
If, in spite of our objections, you decide to grant the developer's request for amendment, please
address these questions so that we will know where we stand, and.how to follow up:
1. Safety -- How will you determine whether or not the opposing left turns constitute a safety
hazard? How will residents of the Meadows know when this information has been generated and
where it is?
2. Convenience -- What is a reasonable "wait time" for residents leaving the Meadows and
wishing to turn left -- during "peak" hours? during other hours? How will residents of the Meadows
be made aware of follow up traffic studies, especially in a year or so, after other projects in the city
have begun to impact South Higuera traffic?
We believe that these concerns about safety, increasing the traffic past our Los Verdes Park
neighbors, inadequate traffic studv data, the i)svchologv of °chiopinq away' at decisions in order to
wear down a disparate opposition, the focus of burden of proof, and cost of revising driveway
configurations should result in a denial of the amendment to remove the left turn restriction. Food 4
Less customers are not usually "drop in" customers. They tend to be repeat customers who will
quickly learn that the Higuera Street exit provides "No left turn. For southbound Higuera, use
Suburban Road exit." Any early problems such as persons attempting U-turns at Tank Farm and
Higuera, or encroaching into Creekside Mobile Park will soon dissipate.
Please continue to prohibit left turns from the T.K. Commercial Center and Food 4 Less onto South
Higuera Street.
Thank you.
v LI
> �-
�
o?g s IC19 ri, 4,og �s
tX
991.E �� Z
30 .
'I
" c2stx 3a
wear down a disparate opposition, the focus of burden of proof, and cost of revising driveway
configurations should result in a denial of the amendment to remove the left tum restriction. Food 4
Less customers are not usually "drop in" customers. They tend to be repeat customers who will
quickly learn that the Higuera Street exit provides "No left turn. For southbound Higuera, use
Suburban Road exit." Any early problems such as persons attempting U-turns at Tank Farm and
Higuera, or encroaching into Creekside Mobile Park will soon dissipate.
Please continue to prohibit left turns from the T.K. Commercial Center and Food 4 Less onto South
Higuera Street.
Thank you.
�. 63 e //elj1-e I?esA v2
38 &,k P046R,a, b,,
38 /ccs Pft4ras —Dr, ;5L.0 93,go
3� L4s fay,,, _p,, Ste, 53 YO
IV
� / JNCIL CDD DIR
0 [3 FIN DIR
Y .,AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF M�'OrnryaG•Brudoey
IORNEY ❑ PW DIR Comrn�coon
I �R�{� 061apo,CA 97� 71p5_DA
�ERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF t�
idGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR DATE ITEM #_
C3UTIL DIR
� ❑ PERS DIR
Aug. 8, 1997
To Mayor Seblie & City Council:
Re. Food 4 Less
I see no earthly reason for another market. We have
become saturated with shoping centers, including markets.
We have enough now to take care of our needs for the next
10 years. I feel that we should hold off on any new markets.
We should also consider that there could come a time when
the. boom will be over and we will be saddled with empty
stores. I dont predict doom, but realistically, this could
happen.
We do not need a new market. I hope that their permit
will be rejected.
The traffic problem will be impossible to cope with.
Very ruly yo ,
Ge� dna
RECEIVED
AUG } 1 1997
SLO CfTY COUNCIL
A sib,
/ UNCIL CDD DIR
0 ❑ FIN DIR
.;AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Mr.George G.Brudaey
iORNEY ❑ PW DIR 68CoatwtaCoun
Obispo,CA 93gp�71p;DA
�LERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF AA LC�lCY1
QMT TEAM. ❑ REC DIR DATE - ITEM #
' ❑ UTIL DIR
� ❑ PERS DIR
Aug. 811997
To Mayor Settle & City Council:
Re. Food 4 Less
I see no earthly reason for another market. We have
become saturated with shoping centers, including markets.
We have enough now to take care of our needs for the next
10 years. I feel that we should hold off on any new markets.
We should also consider that there could come a time when
the. boom will be over and we will be saddled with empty
stores.I dont predict doom, but realistically, this could
happen.
We do not need a new market. I hope that their permit
will be rejected.
The traffic problem will be impossible to cope with.
Very ruly youafm,
Ge6rgeOa
RECEIVED
AUG 1 1 1997
SLO cirY COUNCIL