HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/1998, 1 - RECONSIDERATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PERMIT CONDITION FOR THE FOOD-4- LESS/TK DEVELOPMENT (A 6-96) RELATING TO AN OFF-SITE SOUND WALL; 154 SUBURBAN ROADcouncil
Meet n, Dete
I—lo'�18
j acEnc)a Repo12t Item Number
C I T Y OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O
O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manage
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of a previously approved use permit condition for the Food -4-
Less/TK Development (A 6 -96) relating to an off -site sound wall; 154 Suburban
Road
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Deny the request of the applicant to eliminate condition no. 5 of the Council approved use permit,
but approve a modification to the condition specifying the applicant's level of responsibility for
construction of this off -site improvement.
DISCUSSION
Background/History
On July 2, 1996, TK Development obtained use permit approval from the City Council for the
construction of a Food -4 -Less `warehouse style" grocery store on property at the corner of South
Higuera and Suburban Road (See attached Resolution No. 8577). That use permit, which came to
the Council on appeal from an earlier denial by the Planning Commission, contained several
conditions of approval that ensured compliance with City standards and provided mitigation to
lessen potential neighborhood impacts. Condition No. 5 reads as follows:
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.
The condition was created as a result of neighborhood input obtained from Los Verdes Park I
residents concerned with excessive traffic and project related noise along South Higuera Street. In
addition, mitigation measures identified by the City's Circulation Element EIR propose sound walls
as a technique to mitigate the noise impacts of road widening projects on established residential
neighborhoods. Finally, policies contained in the City's Noise Element support the importance of
minimizing and mitigating noise impacts to residential neighborhoods. All of these factors resulted
in the above condition language that was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council.
During the Planning Commission and City Council hearing process, it was determined that a sound
wall constructed along the South Higuera Street frontage of Los Verdes Park I, would reduce
existing and anticipated project related noise levels along this major City arterial. Staffand the ARC
had envisioned the construction of a six foot concrete block wall near the sidewalk in the
Council Agenda Report - TK Use Permit Modification
Page 2
approximate location of the hedge that currently separates Los Verdes Park I from South Higuera
Street.
Applicable City Noise Standards
The City's Noise Element sets a maximum exterior noise level for residential neighborhoods at 60
decibels (dB). This level is established in order to protect people from harmful and annoying effects
of noise exposure. Currently, there are several noise sources that expose the Los Verdes Park
neighborhood to noise levels that could disrupt the General Plan goal of "tranquil residential
neighborhoods." These noise sources include traffic on US 101, traffic along Los Osos Valley Road,
traffic along South Higuera, the airport, and Air Vol Block manufacturing plant at the comer of
South Higuera and Suburban Road. The primary noise source that was evaluated during the use
permit process was traffic on South Higuera Street (both existing and project related). The condition
was established specifically to address sound concerns along South Higuera Street. Los Osos Valley
Road noise was not determined to be a significant problem.
The May 1996 Noise Guidebook supplement to the City's Noise Element, provides noise contour
information for South Higuera in the vicinity of the proposed project. Based on 1990 data, the 60
dB contour line falls approximately 170 feet interior to the nearest travel lane of South Higuera. As
can be seen from the attached exhibit, approximately 25 homes are already exposed to noise levels
in excess of the General Plan maximum.
The Noise Guidebook also provides an estimated noise contour at "build -out" which is assumed to
be the year 2010. The increased traffic, associated with "build -out" projects such as TK that will
occur in this area, are predicted to extend the 60 dB contour by an additional 14 feet and the 65 dB
contour by 7 feet. A few more homes would be affected by this build =out scenario but to not as great
of a degree as.presently exists.
Sound Wall Resnonsibili
As can be seen from the tabular and graphic noise data, additional commercial traffic on South
Higuera is expected to create added noise impacts to the residents of the Los Verdes Park I
neighborhood. However, it is important to note that "acceptable" General Plan exterior noise levels
are currently being exceeded without the TK center being in operation. The question then comes
down to an issue of equity between the level of impact that will be caused by the TK development
and the nature of the mitigation measure being requested.
One way to approach the impact/equity issue would be to look more closely at the relationship of
traffic volume and the associated change in noise levels. Figure 3 of the Noise Handbook provides
a logarithmic relationship between increased traffic and increase in traffic related noise. Based on
the project traffic study, the total TK development at build -out (including over 200,000 square feet
of planned neighborhood and service commercial related uses) would generate a 15.4 percent
increase in traffic on South Higuera Street. Based on Figure 3, this would amount to less than a 1
dB increase in noise exposure to residents along South Higuera.
Council Agenda Report - TK Use Permit Modification
Page 3
A typical sound wall constructed of concrete block to a height of six feet, will attenuate
approximately 5 dB of sound. If placed at the edge of the South Higuera Street right -of -way,
exterior noise levels along the eastern edge of Los Verdes Park I would approach the acceptable 60
dB level. The attenuation value of such a wall would however exceed the impacts that are attributed
to the TK development (< 1 dB). Despite the fact that TK would only be responsible for less than
115 of the walls attenuation potential, it would not be effective to construct anything less than a six
foot wall if noise attenuation is the goal (i.e. have TK construct a one to two foot high wall to
address one fifth of the noise impact). Shared construction therefore appears to be in order.
Because of the noise impacts that the neighborhood is currently experiencing and the fact that the
TK development will certainly increase those impacts, staff believes that a sound wall is appropriate
at this location. Based on the above analysis however, staff believes that increased traffic generated
by the TK development does not "tip the noise scale" from acceptable to unacceptable due to the
existing substandard conditions. The question then comes down to who should be financially
responsible for the improvement.
During early hearings before the Planning Commission, the applicants representatives agreed with
the condition to construct a sound wall. However, this acceptance was based on an assumption by
the applicants that the Los Verdes Park I Homeowners Association would participate in the project.
It has since become apparent from more recent correspondence from the Homeowners Association
Board of Directors, that the association does not want to share the construction costs of the
conditioned South Higuera Street sound wall equally.
Waiver Request and Construction Cost Estimates
The applicants have requested relief from the sound wall condition. In attached correspondence, the
applicants point out issues with the cost sharing arrangement they felt that they had with the
association as well as problems with ownership and easements that they feel will prohibit
construction of the wall as conditioned. The letter contains a chronology of their attempts to come
to agreement on a shared cost sound wall.
The homeowners association strongly opposes any removal of the condition and would request that
the wall be constructed at TK's expense (see attached correspondence). They believe that their offer
to remove existing landscaping and re -plant after completion is sufficient. The association also feels
that they will need to construct a sound wall along Los Osos Valley Road and therefore will
ultimately be responsible for more than half of the sound wall.
The association also states in their correspondence that there are no problems with easements that
the applicants contend would prohibit them from placing the sound wall along South Higuera Street
as conditioned. Public Works staff is not aware of any limitations that would prohibit placement of
the wall at the edge of the City right -of -way. They do note that there is a PG &E easement that runs
parallel to the right -of -way on Los Verdes property but this should not be an issue provided the wall
is placed on the property line. Depending on design and location of the wall, the Public Works
Department may even be able to grant some encroachment into the City right -of -way to install the
wall, provided a reasonable setback is maintained from the sidewalk to accommodate landscape
screening.
/-3
Council Agenda Report - TK Use Permit Modification
Page 4
The second and perhaps larger issue is one of financial responsibility. Based on estimates provided
by the Public Works Department, a "Caltrans standard" sound wall would cost between $46 and $53
per linear foot to construct. Given the sloping terrain, this estimate would likely approach $55 per
linear foot. Given the 900 linear feet of sound wall that would be required, the cost could approach
$50,000. It is important to note that this cost estimate would not include removal of existing
vegetation, site preparation, and re- landscaping.
The applicant, in their correspondence with the homeowners association, has proposed the
construction of a pre -cast concrete wall. Cost estimates provided by the applicant's representative
estimate the cost of this type of wall at $60 per linear foot. Total cost for construction would be
$54,000 again not including site preparation and re- landscaping. Adding in an estimate of $8,000
for preparation and re- landscaping (provided by a resident of the Los Verdes Park during the May
8, 1996 public hearing), the cost could approach $62,000.
Cost Sharine Recommendations
As stated earlier, staff believes that there is a need for a sound wall to be constructed along South
Higuera Street where it borders the Los Verdes development. However, staff believes that the TK
development should not be responsible for correcting the current substandard situation. An equal
sharing of the costs should be born by both parties. Based on the estimates provided by staff, the
applicant, and members of the association, staff anticipates that construction of the sound wall will
cost between $52,000 and $62,000.
Considering the circumstances, the applicant's continuing commitment to share in the cost of the
wall at a 50150 basis should be approved. However, it appears that the Los Verdes Homeowners
Association may not be prepared at this time to participate in construction of the wall. Making the
applicant wait for the association may not be considered fair, especially in light of the fact that the
Food -4 -Less store is slated to open in the very near future. Staff therefore recommends that the
applicant's obligation for the wall be made in the form of a $31,000 letter of credit or certificate of
deposit to be held by the City for a period not to exceed five years. When the homeowners
association is able to proceed with their share of the construction, the money can be released to the
association for that purpose. If the wall is not constructed within the five year period, the guarantee
will be released back to the applicants.
ALTERNATIVES
If the Council finds that the applicant has exhausted all possible remedies, or that the sound wall is
physically impossible to construct, or that the sound wall is not needed to mitigate elevated sound
levels associated with the project, then the Council can waive the applicant's obligation to construct
a sound wall.
If the Council determines that the sound wall is needed to mitigate impacts caused by increased
traffic from the TK/Food- 4-Less center and that the responsibility for the sound wall is solely with
the developer, the condition should remain unchanged. Note under this alternative, the Food -4 -Less
i- y
Council Agenda Report - TK Use Permit Modification
Page 5
store could not receive a Certificate of Occupancy to open until the sound wall is complete.
Attachments
A. Draft Resolution approving a modified use permit condition
B. Draft Resolution denying the modification thereby retaining the condition language
C. Resolution approving Food -4 -Less use permit
D. General Plan noise information
E. Applicants statements
F. Homeowner association correspondence
G. July 2, 1996 City Council staff report
H. Planning Commission meeting minutes
I. Planning Commission staff report
/'J
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE CONDITION NO.5 OF
USE PERMIT A 6 -96 BUT MODIFYING THE CONDITION TO SPECIFY
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SOUND WALL WITH
THE LOS VERDES PARK I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 6, 1998 to considered
testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.
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 applicants request to
eliminate the required sound wall condition, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The sound wall along the South Higuera Street frontage of the Los Verdes Park I is
warranted in order to mitigate existing and planned traffic along South Higuera
Street; and
2. Due to the. existing above standard noise levels currently experienced by Los Verdes
Park I residents and the increase in noise that can be attributable to the TK
development, the responsibility of the sound wall should be shared equally between
the applicants and the Los Verdes Park I Homeowners Association.
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for deletion of condition no. 5 of Use Permit A 6 -96 is
hereby denied. The Council however amends condition no. 5 to read as follows:
5. The applicant shall submit an irrevocable letter of credit or an assigned certificate of
deposit to the City of San Luis Obispo in the amount of $32,000 to be payable to the
Los Verdes Park I Homeowners Association upon completion of a sound 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. In the event
the wall is not constructed in 5 years, the letter of credit or assigned certificate of
deposit shall be returned to the applicant.
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
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 , 199_.
Mayor Allen. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
mm F
1-7
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE CONDITION NO.5 OF
USE PERMIT A 6 -96 RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF A SOUND WALL
ADJOINING LOS VERDES PARK I
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 6, 1998 and has
considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
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 applicants request to
eliminate the required sound wall condition, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The sound wall along the South Higuera Street frontage of the Los Verdes Park I is
warranted in order to mitigate existing and planned traffic along South Higuera
Street; and
2. That due to the increase sound levels that are directly related to increased traffic
along South Higuera Street, the project applicant shall be responsible for construction
of the wall regardless of the homeowners association's willingness to contribute to
its construction.
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for deletion of condition no. 5 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 , 199_.
Mayor Allen Settle
/ ' c7
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
76, MA M�
�- 5
If ,
RESOLUTION NO. 8557 (1996 Series)
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. Findine s .
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. 5y -j3
1. Mitigation measures established for the Annexation and Prezoning (ER�) 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.
/---/D
Resolution No. 8557
Appeal A 6 -96
Page 2
SECTION 3. Conditions.
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- Tiiliurie 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:
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 Parking Spaces: Bicycle parking shall be provided to meet the
standards set forth by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October, 1993).
Specifically, the plan stipulates that bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the
rate of 15% of the required parking spaces; a minimum of 50% of these spaces
should be for short-term parking (bike racks) while a minimum of 40% should be
for long -term parking (bicycle lockers).
/�1(
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:
Kim Condon
ill!'PROVED AS TO FORM:
Wi1ttoo ?ey fr-J ensen
I/ Mayor Allen Settle.
By: Dodie idillians, 'Dice _layor
/ -/3
City of SLO
3
Q
O
0
W�
.7
N W F0F
�UZ
O
F a
F O
W �
W
W
U
F
Q
Noise Guidebook
�p 00 ' O t- en to 00 O Ot en N at N t- H .. tO N 00 00 N N
cn00 �—c1 — N• NM NNa H v toN en .%n00
�} r4 N to h b 00 N O Ct to en 0o t- 00 O g O N cn W to
.•, oo t+ N t� In � C N `cr t- C to Ot ... Ot ... t0 0o -, Go to
Ot t0 ..+ ... 00 cn ....•. t, N MO t- cn of O M 8 M 0O N t- en en CO
N "., � e j .�.. a0 Ot 00 to .-. I„ � . � N N N N N — .•, N en ^"
t, st to r- t` 00 b 0o y n .. •tt .•. -e en t` en 00 N en O
�Ntn 'tt N -+b `0 .. NN Mena cn. N le %0N
Ot t` t- to O\ co M -e V. Ot t- h • tD 00 en N . 00 O — t- en
to Ot� - ^to M• M MM cnv en tOn01 00N b Otfn it
rn r — 00 N � M 0o e1 O v °t Ot 00 °t a t� er v O 00 to ee en
N ^ N N en N co N t- M 0o r t� Ot O— ^ ^ � �-. \0 N-e C\ N C�
'.
y
m
0�a r..-
_ , m
d >
T _
V T m
m ? O
Do
° In o
ai rn o m C .. >, o y v' a w E
$
> ' R S
�D; w r.o °O aeOi.. pm
Q w' 7 3 A"
o cn r2 x x •G —n x ° ° a
Q r°n y F o m °o
x O G1 O O O fs; 3 .+ rn N
S o o 0
y v] y w tO.. .O •e7
o v] mo
v v �a T Z' m C1 `` T T •'T. .G
oa�aa
to � °° d 3 „aid rnri
4
Nxe0 0.xoa ca 1.. ; ; VV vV �� y7
V V V V
N m m �+ V 'bC Q Q en [n y h to 07 [: 63 0 0 Lt T
N en en ='E •E 0 0 N m 0 O v v v E — w 3 y m C 0
0 m n m t — _ 0 0 r� H C 7 7 7 7 7 � �0 0 '°p C
°0 0 0 0 ° — ° ° 0-0 °O.Sc t C-0 to 0-o t0 ew
aw`C`a ocwU UUU xx� °xx xxx
N t0
00 O N
00
C, t0 Oo
O N et
\0 00 O
N of t0
00 Cl
N
N
't t0 00
N N N
00
00 00 00
00 Ct Ct
�••+• -�
1* Ot
�-•� -'
O O O
NNN
O O;•
C14 C14
•••�
N N N
� N
NN
N
NNN
... r+..
Pf h
Qt
"'
a
r. eh II1
['� Ot
eh tit t�
Ot + Ni
V1 [� Ot
(�
[�
CM
00 00 00
0000 D\
Ot Ot at
C\
NNN
NN
N
NNN
NNN
v
13 l,� /
City of sLo Noise Guidebook
FIGURE 4
EXAMPLE OF STATIONARY NOISE SOURCE CONTOURS
N LUIS OBISPO
�\ \ \\�`� \ \ \\
0 200 400 :00
23 ���
TAX AREA COL JO•. 53 -262
£AST 749.96
0 9 3 a LOS
E. 95 m 4•iB7 R,,67 EArr t9
's 40 00 0 48. 7 9'2i3 ' w a, i 3 +5.7 t 45 oo 4# 40 20.7
_ '�'' ]3 ° 0• ,. 34.33
5B 57 56 i 55 55 ^? s 39
m ,o �� E' m 9039 o I"= 100
F 9U o 38 37 36 35 0° ¢
a 58 57 56 a
°v.ve ° 54 54 0 40 40 g a 3 0 7 36 35 4 ^'D^
° >.i0 G 62.46 : .`i 2/0 '
of
t0 6
99' g +5390 53 $icn $ 4/ 0 41 "
98 9 x n33 0
`—z
h 52 07� Ji9 42 ® `
59 0a V5290 14.96 lk " .27 04.48 9 ° °32 9 ,�. SUBURBAN RD
v
Jli S • >• • > 99.24 roP 90 �60 51 51 1 a 4
Q ti 631
9 ' mo► ° 4
IW . ,•.aa
° m 90 30 4 or
r po
b
�76 61 n
{`\ /
23 30
O • y. 4'g 75.90 29
62 z •�. so ae ti 8 N
90 0 •e a 29 p ��"'
$7 4o m 9. 4 mac/ 1 HIS MAP IS PREPARED FOR
/4y t. ro n -v ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLt
63 0 50/ a8 / / 4128 V 28
64, err 47 \// s °W 1 27 •4.. P r
16'H r�, 6J 3').
0 19 9o's 45 0 r a o26
tu
0 0 18 n O h 25 /
009 hh __... - - - --
\ 20 2
3 w
v/ o •j9 • ,t 1' / PO 2
916 ', /7 `? p O 2 ", 30 0
-it 0, 23 j •ate.\ /b o;b �i+ �.�� C�'�., 'r 24
\7 • z, 2 0,�� ti6 a p .b LL.1
90 15 0 p •� n 2� 9 �o ,>G • J
` U
R,9
tiG •t` I p.. 12 ap O m IL 13 I
If
4 12
>05/ / •,o. , °° 1� tom 0 N J�
°/ N.J ,, 10 s �C�
ro.0`
l'
ry 0,;
ml/ O8 X-1-1 >
,•° / 76 ` 8
�a N M1
e�.u6
EY
s
A` O,tQ
zb ROgO ,:i.
9,.
TRACT 467, UNIT I
HOW IN CLES SAN LUIS O815P0 COUNTY
PG. 35 CALIFORNIA
f a
S 92 Tn• /O/
(Sty of SLO
Noise Guidebook
FIGURE 3
RELATIONSHIP OF TRAFFIC VOLUME CHANGE AND NOISE LEVEL CHANGE
+8
m +7
+6
J +5
+4
+3
-, +2
CD y +1
z 0
-2
F -3
c -4
d -5
c -6
-7
s
U
--8100 -50 0 +300 +350 +400
+50 +100 +150 +200 +250
Percent Change in Annual Average Daily Traffic
Source: Brown - Buntin Associates
DAVID ST. JOHN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8 EAST FIGUEROA, SUITE 210
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
(805) 965 -1016 • FAX (805) 965 -7134
email: d-3tjohn@rnsn.com
November 12, 1997
Mr. Arnold Jonas, Public Planning Director
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis nbiv o rniifrr-nio GIA I -T)AQ
Re: TK Food -4 -Less Project - San Luis Obispo
Sound Wall Condition
Dear Mr. Jonas:
Via FAX and mail
RECEIVED
NOV 13 1997
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TK Development has been unable to obtain sufficient title or interest in off -site property owned
by the Los Verdes Homeowners' Association for construction of a sound wall. As you know,
a sound wall condition was imposed by the Planning Commission on the Food -4 -Less project
at the time of its meeting on April 10, 1996.
The condition was based on an apparent agreement between TK and the Homeowner's
Association, entered on the record, that TK would have access to the off -site property with TK
and the Homeowner's Association equally sharing the cost to construct the wall.
Notwithstanding this agreement and condition, the Planning Commission denied the project.
The sound wall condition was carried over, without further discussion, into the City Council's
approval of the project. The Homeowner's Association subsequently repudiated the cost sharing
access agreement which, in turn, invalidated and waived the condition. Nonetheless, TK
attempted in good faith to reach a new agreement with the Homeowner's Association. These
efforts have been unsuccessful.
The Homeowner's Association has further failed to demonstrate that it has sufficient title and
interest in the off -site property to allow access for construction of the wall. The off -site area
is encumbered throughout by numerous utility easements. The interests of these third parties
conflict with construction of a masonry wall as requested by the Homeowner's Association. The
Homeowner's Association acknowledged its obligation to demonstrate clear title at the time of
the parties' last meeting on September 8, 1997, but it has failed to do so.
Neither TK, nor the City of San Luis Obispo, has sufficient title or interest in the off -site
property for the improvements described in the condition. More than 120 days has passed since
/-/Of
Arnold Jonas, Planning Commission Director
November 12, 1997
Page 2
imposition of the condition, and accordingly, the condition must be deemed waived.
If you are unable to provide TK with confirmation of such waiver, I ask that you kindly restore
this matter to the next available City Council agenda for further action. Please accept this letter
as TK's application to the City Council to find the sound wall condition waived. Please advise
as to any applicable fees for restoring this matter to the City Council calendar.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
David St. John
DSJ: mt
c: Jeff Jorgenson, Attorney for the City of San Luis Obispo
Douglas Hilton, Attorney for the Homeowner's Association
client
DAVH) ST. JOHN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8 EAST FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 210
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
(805) 965 -1016 • FAX (805) 965 -7134
email: d stjohnQmsn.com
December 4, 1997
Director Arnold Jonas
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 -3249
Re: TK Food -4 -Less Sound Wall
Dear Mr. Jonas:
Here are the Planning Application and fees for the deletion of the referenced sound wall
condition, on grounds of impossibility caused by repudiation of promise and breach of agreement
by the Los Verdes Homeowners' Association, and for insufficient evidence of need. As you
requested, I am providing further written detail of TK's good faith attempts to satisfy this
condition.
My client will be ready for the Food -4 -Less Certificate of Occupancy within a few days, at
which time rent will commence under the Food -4 -Less lease. Delay in issuing the Certificate
of Occupancy by reason of this condition will cause substantial damage to my client on a daily
basis, and possible breach of the Food -4 -Less lease. The condition has been rendered impossible
because of the Association's wrongful conduct of agreement. Any damages suffered by TK in
this matter will be the responsibility of the Association.
As described in my letter to you of November 12, 1997, TK was induced to accept the sound
wall condition in reliance on the promise and agreement of the Association to equally share the
cost of the wall. The Planning. Commission minutes of April 10, 1996, reflect the following:
"Randall Murray, 43 Del Sol Ct., stated he is one of the members of the Board
of Directors for the Homeowners' Association of Los Verdes Park 1. He
demonstrated the location of the proposed wall to the Commission on the
overhead. The developer participation in the construction of the wall needs to be
defined more clearly. He asks that it be a 50150 split for the cost of the wall
and that the color, materials, and dimensions be negotiated between the
homeowners' and the developer."
--00
Arnold Jonas
December 4, 1997
Page 2
TK accepted this offer, as follows:
Mr. Montgomery (on behalf of TK) stated the split for the cost of the wall at
50150 would be acceptable."
The parties had previously agreed to other terms, as follows:
1. the Association would obtain all permits;
2. the Association would verify that no easements would conflict with the wall;
3. the Association would remove existing landscaping and prepare the site for construction.
of the wall; and
4. the Association would escrow funds for its share of the cost.
Notwithstanding the wall condition, the Planning Commission denied the project. TK appealed
to the City Council.
While the appeal was pending, TK and the Association had a meeting on October 10, 1996. At
that time, Ms. Needelman, Association president, informed TK that it would be difficult, if not
impossible, for the Association to raise any money for its share of the wall; and that, according
to its attorney, the Association could renege on its promise. TK offered to pay the entire cost
of a 540 lineal foot Precast wall if the Association would not oppose the project before the
Planning Commission. The Association rejected the offer.
The City Council approved the project. However, there was no opportunity at that time to
review conditions previously imposed by the Planning Commission. The City Council made no
specific findings regarding the sound wall.
TK has continually informed City staff of the Association's repudiation of promise and
agreement regarding the wall. Nonetheless, staff has requested that TK continue efforts in good
faith to come to an agreement with the Association, prior to seeking relief from the City
Council.
On April 9, 1997, TK directed a letter to the Association containing three offers, as follows:
1. equal cost sharing per the original agreement;
2. TK would pay the entire cost of a Sierra Precast Stamped Adobe wall; or
/ 2�
Arnold Jonas
December 4, 1997
Page 3
3. TK would pay the Association $32,000.
These offers are described in more detail in TK's letter of April 9, 1997, attached hereto. Ms.
Phyllis Needleman, Association President, flatly rejected these offers. Instead, she sent a letter
dated May 27, 1997, which falsely confirmed and misrepresented an "agreement" of October
1996 whereby TK would pay the entire cost of any wall desired by the Association without
regard to cost. The true facts of the October meeting are as stated above.
In a final effort to resolve the matter, TK arranged a meeting with the Association as set forth
in correspondence dated August 6, 1997. To eliminate any doubt as to its good faith, TK
requested that
1. each side invite one member of the City Council to attend;
2. Association's members be invited to attend; and
3. TK be permitted to furnish a statement to Association members in advance of the
meeting.
The Association's attorney refused these requests per correspondence dated August 7, 1997,
attached hereto.
The meeting took place at 7:OOpm, September 8, 1997, at the Los Verdes Clubhouse. The
Association Board was represented by its attorney. The parties toured the site, and observed
markings for numerous underground utilities throughout the area. The Association's attorney
agreed to provide TK with a preliminary title report and site plan showing all utility easements
of record, with copies of recorded easements and legal descriptions. The Association was
adamant that TK pay the entire cost of any wall desired by the Association without regard to
cost. The parties remained at an impasse.
The Association never furnished the title report, as promised. After TK requested relief from
the condition, the Association's attorney claimed an unnamed "engineer" had determined that
a masonry wall would not conflict with underground easements. No verification or documenta-
tion was provided. There has been no movement by the Association in its demand that TK pay
the entire cost of any wall desired by the Association without regard to cost.
TK respectfully requests that the condition be deleted in its entirety on grounds of impossibility
as stated above. TK accepted the condition based on 50/50 cost sharing, and on the implied
good faith of the Association, both of which the Association has violated.
/ 02Z
Arnold Jonas
December 4, 1997
Page 4
In addition, there has never been a study, factual findings, or evidence of impacts from this
project justifying imposition of this condition. The Planning Commission imposed the condition
during its negative review while denying the project, without any meaningful discussion.
A casual walk on Higuera Street shows an existing level of traffic near only a few homes in the
Association. This project is not even near those homes. Immediately across the street is a
cement factory, yet the homeowners have never felt the need for a wall. Ninety -five percent
of the Association homes are entirely unaffected by Higuera Street, which is why the vast
majority of homeowners have no desire to help pay for a wall.
For the above reasons, this condition should be waived. TK reserves the right to raise additional
issues at the time of the hearing on this matter.
ZuRelly submitted,
David St. John
Attorney for TK Development -II
DSJ: mt
Enclosures
c: Jeffrey Jorgensen, Esq., City Attorney
Douglas Hilton, Esq., Association Attorney
x-23
a K DEVELOPMENT
C/o M. TIMM DEVELOPMENT, INC.
233 E. CARRILLO ST., SUITE D, SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
(805) 9630358 O FAX (805) 5643499
SAN LUIS OBISPO PROJECTS
JOBSITE OFFICE
154 SUBURBAN RD., SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93401
(805) 546.0235 O FAX (805) 5460254
April 9, 1997
Phyllis Needelman, President
Los Verdes Park 1 Homeowners' Association
92 Los Verdes Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Screen Wall — Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo
Dear Ms Needelman:
This letter is TK Development's written offer to the Los Verdes Park 1
Homeowners' Association to construct a six foot high, 540 linear foot Sierra
Precast Stamped Adobe screen wall along Higuera Street (see enclosure), on
the following terms and conditions:
All costs shall be shared equally between TK and the Association, including,
without limitation, all design costs, permitting fees, relocating of underground
utilities, if any, supervision, workers compensation and general liability
insurance, overhead, labor, and materials. The Association shall be solely
responsible, at its own cost, for removing the existing landscaping and installing
any replacement landscaping after the wall is constructed. TK estimates the
Association's share of such costs will be $25,000, which the Association must
deposit into .an escrow account subject to TK's control before the work
commences. If the Association fails to make the deposit by August 1, 1997, this
Agreement shall terminate and TK shall be released from any further obligation
to participate in constructing the wall.
The foregoing offer is consistent with all discussions between TK and the
Association; however, in a good faith effort to come to an acceptable agreement,
TK would also offer the following alternatives:
Second Alternative: When the site is ready for construction, TK shall be solely
responsible for constructing the Sierra Precast Stamped Adobe wall, at TK's
cost, as shown on the enclosure. The Association shall be solely responsible, at
its cost, for making the site fully ready for construction, including without
limitation, removing the existing landscaping, designing the wall, designing and
installing a gate, if required, obtaining permits, relocating underground utilities, if
/ -2�
_ rK DEVELOPMENT
Pace 2
Phyllis Needelman, President
Los Verdes Park 1 Homeowners' Association
April 9, 1997
any, providing workers compensation and general liability. insurance, and for
installing any replacement landscaping after the wall is constructed. If the
Association fails to obtain necessary permits, or to otherwise make the site
ready for construction by August 1, 1997, this Agreement shall terminate and TK
shall be released from any further obligation to the Association to participate in
constructing the wall.
Third Alternative: TK shall pay the Association $32,000 prior to the opening of
the Food 4 Less. grocery store, which shall fully discharge TK from any further
obligation to the Association to participate in constructing the wall.
Upon the Association's selection of one of the above alternatives, TK
Development will pay the cost to have a formal agreement prepared for
signature by TK and the Association, subject to City approval of full satisfaction
of Condition(s) of Approval relating to the wall. If we cannot come to an
agreement, TK will be required to seek relief from the City to terminate the
condition and to release TK from any obligation to participate in constructing the
wall.
We would greatly appreciate your prompt response.
Very truly yours,
TK DEVELOPMENT
By:
Larry K. McGee
Project Coordinator
:pku
Enclosure: Picture of Sierra Precast Stamped Adobe wall
Cc: Mike Timm, M. Timm Development, Inc.
Larry Kreutzkampf, TK Development
Matt Easter, M. Timm Development, Inc.
David St. John, Attorney at Law
1G� '� y< .i '. t... °r *It •�:f hC4t F. /''4 r^w r yw�i 4 �
r
• 7 -.i 1 • � tit .r +a �� , tl ` ;` 1 ,t
1 ) 1 a.. r..•1 r ~" i a— 1
loll
f.
all 1,
oc
' t� ��t iK'f!jYr•r 'fir: vr`l j��4 r} Stu T � { l � � ' `_E t -�r:
DAVID ST. JOHN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
8 EAST FIGUEROA, SUITE 210
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
(805) 963- 7722 (805) 965 -1016
FAX (805) 965 -7134
August 6, 1997
Phyllis Needelman, President
Los Verdes Homeowner's Association
92 Los Verdes Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: TK Project
Sound Wall Issue
Dear Ms. Needelman:
Via FAX and mail
This letter will confirm our telephone conference of today. TK Development has
requested a meeting with the Los Verdes Homeowner's Association to fully discuss and
resolve the Sound Wall issue.
We have agreed to a tentative time and place for the meeting, as follows:
7:00pm
Monday, September 8, 1997
Los Verdes Clubhouse
You advised that the Clubhouse can accommodate up to fifty persons in attendance.
The following persons will attend the meeting:
For the Los Verdes Homeowner's Association:
1) A quorum of Board Members;
2) Two members of the Association's Architectural Committee;
3) Douglas Hilton, Attorney; and
4) We also request that Association Members be invited.
1-.27
Phyllis Needelman
August 6, 1997
Page 2
For TK Development:
1) Vic Montgomery of RRM Design Group;
2) Larry McGee, Project Superintendent;
3) Milan E. Timm and /or Larry Kreutzkampf, Principals of TK Development;
and
4) David St. John, Attorney.
For the City of San Luis Obispo:
We will invite two members of the San Luis Obispo City Council to attend, one
to be selected by TK Development, the other to be selected by the Homeowner's
Association.
With your Board's permission, TK Development will provide a separate statement of its
offers directly to the Members of the Association. The statement can be included in a
packet from the Los Verdes Board, with any editorial comment the Board may desire.
You said these matters will be taken up by your Board at its regular meeting on August
121 1997. Please advise me as soon as possible of their decisions regarding the above.
Finally, you advised that the Association has retained attorney Douglas Hilton of San Luis
Obispo. You asked that this correspondence be sent directly to you with a copy to Mr.
Hilton.
If any of the foregoing is incorrect, please advise. I look forward to hearing from you
after your Board meeting on August 12.
Sincerely,
David St. John
DSJ:mt
c: Vic Montgomery, RRM Design Group
Arnold Jonas, Planning Director
Douglas Hilton, Esq.
client
August 7, 1997
David St. John VIA FACSIMILE
Attorney at Law AND U.S. MAIL
8 East Figueroa, Suite 210
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
RE: TK Development
Dear Mr. St. John:
Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to Phyllis
Needelman; I look forward to meeting with you on September 8,
1997. However, it would not be appropriate for TK Development to
provide a separate statement of its offers directly to the
members of the Association. It is the responsibility of the
Board to negotiate with you, not the members at large, and the
Board will communicate its actions to the members. It is also
inappropriate for the meeting to be attended by two City Council
members. Although I have not researched the matter, such a
meeting probably violates the Brown Act. I am not aware of any
exemption which applies simply because each "side" invites a
council member. In any event, their presence is unnecessary
because it is TK Development and the Association which must reach
an agreement, and I do not believe the presence of council
members will aid the process-at this point in time.
I am pleased the parties will be getting together to discuss
the sound wall, and look forward to meeting you in person.
Very truly yours,
h6�
Dougla- Hilton
DH:rj
cc: Phyllis Needelman, President of
Los Verdes Homeowners Association
Arnold Jonas, Planning Director
Vic Montgomery, RRM Design Croup
-�2y
AA A C.
DOUGLAS HILTON
DOUGLAS HILTON A LAW CORPORATION
NANCY P. MONROE 1457 MARSH STREET. SUITE 200
TELEPHONE (805) 544.7170
PARALEGAL SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93401.2921
FACSIMILE (605) 564.0297
August 7, 1997
David St. John VIA FACSIMILE
Attorney at Law AND U.S. MAIL
8 East Figueroa, Suite 210
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
RE: TK Development
Dear Mr. St. John:
Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to Phyllis
Needelman; I look forward to meeting with you on September 8,
1997. However, it would not be appropriate for TK Development to
provide a separate statement of its offers directly to the
members of the Association. It is the responsibility of the
Board to negotiate with you, not the members at large, and the
Board will communicate its actions to the members. It is also
inappropriate for the meeting to be attended by two City Council
members. Although I have not researched the matter, such a
meeting probably violates the Brown Act. I am not aware of any
exemption which applies simply because each "side" invites a
council member. In any event, their presence is unnecessary
because it is TK Development and the Association which must reach
an agreement, and I do not believe the presence of council
members will aid the process-at this point in time.
I am pleased the parties will be getting together to discuss
the sound wall, and look forward to meeting you in person.
Very truly yours,
h6�
Dougla- Hilton
DH:rj
cc: Phyllis Needelman, President of
Los Verdes Homeowners Association
Arnold Jonas, Planning Director
Vic Montgomery, RRM Design Croup
-�2y
RECEIVED
DEC 12 1997
DAVID ST. JOHN
ATTORNEY AT LAW CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
8 EAST FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 210 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
(805) 965 -1016 • FAX (805) 965 -7134
email: d_.stjohn@msn.com
December 10, 1997
Via FAX and regular mail
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager
Planning Division, Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
Sari Luis Obispo, California 93401 -3249
Re: TK Food -4 -Less Sound Wall
Dear Mr. Whisenand:
You have asked for additional information concerning the sound wall. This condition was
triggered by neighbor request. It was not a condition of annexation or of Tract 2202. It was
not included in the mitigation agreement for Tract 2202.
During Planning Commission review of the Food -4 -Less, a neighbor association complained of
pre- existing traffic on South Higuera Street. The neighbor association realized they were at least
50% responsible based on personal daily experience of the location, and offered to pay half the
cost of the wall. TK's acceptance was, and is, a generous agreement based on traffic statistics.
Costs are estimated at $60.00 per lineal foot assuming the association obtains permits, prepares
the site, and assuming footings for the wall can step around easements. These figures and a
description of the wall were previously provided to the association.
Respectfj& submitted,
av . John
Attorney for TK Development -II
DSJ:mt
c: Douglas Hilton, Esq.
Jeffrey Jorgensen, Esq.
-.�?v
DOUGLAS HILTON
NANCY P. MONROE
PARALEGAL
DOUGLAS HILTON
A LAW CORPORATION
1457 MARSH STREET. SUITE 200
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93401 -2921
November 20, 1997
TELEPHONE (805) 54-7170
FACSIMILE (605) 541 -0297
RECEIVED
NOV 21 1997
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Arnold Jonas, Public Planning Director
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
990 Palm Strict .
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
RE: TK Food -4 -Less Project
Sound Wall
Dear Mr. Jonas:
I represent the Los Verdes Park Unit One Homeowners
Association, and recently received a copy of a letter dated
November 12, 1997 sent to you by David St. John. I would like to --
correct some statements made in his letter.
TK Development promised the Association it would build the
sound wall at its expense, and one of the conditions of approval
of the project was that TK Development must build the wall. In
an effort to avoid its obligation to build the wall, TK
Development now argues that it would interfere with existing
easements. TK Development was fully aware of the nature and
location of the easements when it made its promise to the
Association and obtained project approval conditioned upon
construction of the sound wall; consequently, its present
argument appears to the.Association to be less than candid. In
any event, it is factually incorrect.
The Association retained the services of Robert Vessely, a
Civil Structural Engineer with offices at 743 Pacific Street,
Suite B, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. He contacted the City to
determine where the wall should be located (namely, four feet
distant from the edge of the existing sidewalk), drew a plan
showing the location of utility easements extending from Higuera
Street into Los Verdes Park Unit One (i.e., easements that would
be crossed by the sound wall), determined that a sound wall could
be built, and prepared a plan showing there is sufficient space
for the sound wall within the Association's boundary. In other
words, he confirmed that the wall can be constructed on
Association property and in compliance with City requirements,
without interfering with existing easements.
-31
Mr. Arnold Jonas
November 20, 1997
Page two
The sound wall is of great importance to the residents of
Los Verdes Park One. The Association has always insisted that TK
Development abide by its promise to build the sound wall. The
delay in construction of the wall is not due to any purported
waiver by the Association, or by the City, but is attributable
to foot - dragging by TK Development which is making every effort
to avoid its responsibility in this matter.
The Association is adamantly opposed to TK Development's
application to the City Council to have the sound wall condition
waived.
Very truly
/6114
M
Douglas Hilton
DH:rj
cc: Los Verdes Park Unit One
Homeowners Association
David St. John, Esq.
San Luis Obispo City Council
-3ZI-
LOS VERDES PARK UNIT ONE
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION INC.
92 Los Verdes Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
December 5, 1997
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Council Members:
C NCIL
aKDD DIR
AO
❑ FIN DIR
❑ 0
❑ FIRE CHIEF
Eff iv;P; '!
❑ PW DIR
❑ CLI= 1WOR2
❑ POLICE CHF
❑ t.IGMT TEAM
❑ REC DIR
❑
❑ UTIL DIR
❑
❑ PERS DIR
Retain this document for
future Council meeting
-40-- 9s'
Dale, i' agsnd`-red
The Board of Directors for Los Verdes Park Unit One feel that a recap and of the
events regarding the TK project and the sound wall along the Higuera St. frontage of Los
Verdes Park, is important so that the City Council can keep abreast of the latest
developments.
A meeting in October of 1996 to discuss the construction of the wall was attended
by Larry Kreutzkampf, Larry Mc Gee, Vic Montgomery all representing the developers,
and me, Randy Murray, and John Hsu, all members of the Board of Directors representing
the Association with the authority to make commitments. This meeting was held in our
Clubhouse. During the course of the discussions an agreement was worked out that was
acceptable to the Association and TK Development.
At this meeting it was agreed that the following would be done.
1. Los Verdes Park Unit One (LVP 1) would remove the landscaping and sprinklers, and
trim the hedge to just above ground level and remove the trimmings.
2. TK Development will remove the roots of the hedge and construct a six food high
meandering sound wall on S. Higuera extending from the corner of Los Osos Valley
Road to the end of our property. The wall would butt up to the wall at the Meadows.
3. The construction of the wall will take place at the same time as the masons work on the
Food 4 Less building.
4. LVP 1 would be able to select the color and type of materials to be used.
5. The wall would be set back from the sidewalk on S. Higuera so that plants, vines and
trees could be planted. It will be meander to accommodate the existing power poles and
new trees.
6. The wall would have a solid gate the same height as the wall with a key lock both
ways. LVP1 will supply the lock, and TK Development will install the gate and lock.
7. LVP 1 would be responsible for all the landscaping, irrigation and maintenance of the
wall after construction.
RECEIVED
DEC 0 8 1997 1-3-3
SI n rITV r.nl Wr..n
LOS VERDES PARK UNIT ONE
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION INC.
92 Los Verdes Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
This was the agreement that was reached that night. Randy Murray asked Larry
Kreutzkampf if he would build the wall. He replied yes. Randy said " you will build the
wall" and Larry Kreutzkampf said "Yes, I will build the wall." He said that he would run
it by his partner and also have Larry McGee check for underground utilities. We had an
agreement.
The Board of Directors hired Bob Vessely to survey the site where the wall will
be built to determine if in fact the underground utilities would be a problem. He has
determined that a wall could be built on our property and not on the city's easement and
would not interfere with the underground utilities.
Los Verdes Park will be contributing more than half the cost of sound protection
in our development since we will be solely responsible for the cost of the construction of
a sound wall on our Los Osos Valley Road frontage which will be greatly impacted by this
development.
We believe that TK Development never had any intention of honoring the
agreement reached over a year ago and would appeal to the City Council to have the
condition removed. We know that when you are called upon to hear their appeal, you
will make the right decision for all concerned.
Sincer�ly,
Phyllis Needelman
President
Los Verdes Park Unit One
Homeowners' Association Inc.
cc: Douglas Hilton, Attorney at Law
I .3 �
� I _
Amy
92 Los Verdes 1)ri%e • San Luis Obispo, California 93401
May 27, 1997 4(�
hj�- d E'
-)_9
19Q e.
Mr. Larry Kreutzkampf
TK Development
c/o M. Timm Development, Inc.
233 E. Carrillo St. Suite D
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Dear Mr. Kreutzkampf:
This letter will serve as confirmation of the agreement we
reached regarding the construction of the sound wall along our
S. Higuera property at our meeting in October of 1996.
At the meeting attended by you, Larry McGee and Vic Montgomery
representing TK Development and me, Randall Murray and John Hsu
representing Los Verdes Park Unit One Homeowners Association,
Inc., we agreed that the following items would be handled by
each as set forth below:
1. Los Verdes Park One (LVP1) will remove the landscaping and
sprinklers, trim the hedge to just above ground level, and
remove the trimmings.
2. TK Development will remove the roots of the hedge and
construct a six foot high meandering sound wall on S. Higuera
extending from the corner of Los Osos Valley Road to the end of
our property. The wall will butt up to the wall at the Meadows.
3. The construction of the wall will take place at the same
time as the masons work on the Food 4 Less building.
4. LVP1 will select the color and type of material to be used.
5. The wall will be set back from the sidewalk on S. Higuera so
that plants, vines and trees can be planted. It will meander to
accommodate the existing power poles and new trees.
6. The wall will have a solid gate the same height with a key
lock both ways. LVP1 will supply the lock, and TK Development
will install the gate and lock.
7. LVP1 will be responsible for all the landscaping, irrigation
and maintenance of the wall after construction.
At the meeting you felt that the wall would be constructed
around February. Since the construction has been delayed, we
i
i i., _., ...i -L- (', .,:, :; n;.,.. „( 5in •I: I am iI I In171 C1
would appreciate your giving us the approximate date that the
wall will be constructed so that we can co- ordinate the date on
which the hedge will be trimmed to prevent further LPV1 exposure
to the noise and dirt from the project.
Because the permit to occupy the Food 4 Less is conditional on
this agreement and the construction of the sound wall, it would
be in everyone's best interest that the wall construction not be
delayed further. I am enclosing a copy of a letter from Mrs.
June Leach to the LVP1 Board of Directors describing the
problems she has had to endure since last August. The meager
attempt at replacing the damaged hedge does little to protect
our residents from the construction problems.
Please sign and date this agreement where indicated and return
one copy to LVP1.
Sincer ly,
L/
P yll's Needelman
President
Los Verdes Park Unit One
Homeowners Association, Inc.
>r Z--
Date
Phy is Neede man
Lo2f Verdes Park Unit One
Homeowners Association, Inc.
Date
Larry Kreutzkampf
TK Development
CC: Douglas Hilton, Attorney at Law
Mayor Allen Settle
Bill Roalman, SLO City Council
Kathy Smith, SLO City Council
Dave Romero, SLO City Council
Dodie•Williams, SLO City Council
Arnold Jonas, SLO Community Development Director
Ron Whisenend, Architectural Review Committee
/ -3G
A4 1 Cni eA� C
council M. .6.g °u.
'A aGEn6A nepont It.. N..he
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
e
FROM: Arnold Jonas, �iity Development Director
Prepared By: Whitney McII aine Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission action to deny a use permit for a grocery store
at 154 Tank Farm Road (A 6 -96)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action.
DISCUSSION
Situation
On May 8, the Planning Commission denied a use permit for a 51,000 SF grocery store, finding the use
inconsistent with the general plan. (See attached resolution and meeting minutes.) Seven members of the
public spoke against the project, some of whom acted as spokespersons for others in the audience - mostly
residents from neighborhoods across South Higuera Street, many of whom had spoken against the project
at the April 10 Planning Commission meeting. Two people spoke in favor of the project. Those objecting
did so primarily on the grounds that the scale and format of the proposed store would cater to a broader
regional market than described by the general plan as appropriate for neighborhood centers, leaving nearby
residents to bear a disproportionate share of project impacts.
The property developer is appealing the denial. The appellant's statement is attached. Also attached are
the Planning Commission resolution, the May 8 Planning Commission staff report, and minutes of both
the May 8 and April 10 public hearings. In addition, each Council member has received a reading file
with background information on the annexation, prezoning, and subdivision of the TK property. The
same information was provided to the Planning Commission during their consideration of this
application.
Issue
The controversy over the proposed grocery store centers around three main issues:
► Compatibility with existing develop
Public testimony, as recorded in the minutes of the April 10 and May 8 Planning Commission
meetings, outlines residents' concerns about the proposed land use and project impacts.
► Consistency with the general plan
A discussion of relevant general plan policies is provided in the May 10 Planning Commission staff
1-37
Council Agenda Report - Appeal A 6-96
Page-2
report. The Commission based its denial specifically on Land Use Element Policy 3.5.3 which
states that new neighborhood commercial centers, including grocery stores by definition, should
not be established in the Service Commercial zone.
To achieve consistency with adopted land use policies, the Council could direct either staff or the
applicant to initiate a general plan amendment and rezoning of the project site to Neighborhood -
Commercial.
P. Implications of revious approvals for the TK Annexation proper
The appeal statement suggests that denying the use permit is a "wrongful breach of contract" since
the annexation and subdivision applications had indicated the applicant's intention to build a 100,000
SF neighborhood commercial/retail center along South Higuera Street.
Commissioners pointed out that although the applicant had indicated his plans to construct a
commercial center in conjunction with previous reviews of the property's annexation, and
subdivision, no application had ever been made for use permit approval. Therefore, the question of
whether or not a grocery store and neighborhood commercial center are appropriate at this location -
based on general plan consistency and public testimony - had not yet been squarely before the
Commission and the public, and had not already been decided. Furthermore, testimony and
discussion at previous hearings indicated that members of the public, the Planning Commission, and
City Council had concerns with the proposed use.
CONCURRENCES
Other department comments are attached to the Planning Commission staff report.
ALTERNATIVES
Uphold the appeal and approve the use permit. If the Council acts to approve the use permit,
the Planning Commission staff report of May 8, 1996 lists potential findings and recommended
conditions of approval.
2. If the Council determines that a grocery store is an appropriate use at this location, but not in
conformance with adopted general plan policies, deny the use permit (based on inconsistency
with current general plan policies related to Service - Commercial areas), and direct staff or the
applicant to process a general plan amendment and rezoning of the project site to Neighborhood -
Commercial.
Attachments
Draft resolutions for denying and upholding the appeal
Appellant's statement
Planning Commission resolution
Planning Commission staff report (May 8)
Planning Commission minutes (May 8 & April 10)
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5180 -96
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California, on
May 8, 1996, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under City File: A 6- 96,Timm & Kreutzkampf
Development, applicants.
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REVIEWED:
Administrative Use Permit to allow a grocery store in the C -S zone.
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
154 Suburban Road.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Service Commercial.
PRESENT ZONING:
C -S
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made
by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the following
circumstances:
The project as proposed is inconsistent with the following General Plan Land Use Element
policy:
4. LUE Policy 3.5.3 General Retail and Neighborhood Commercial Uses:
39
Resolution No. 5180 -96
A 6 -96
Page 2
New specialty stores, department stores, or neighborhood commercial centers should not be
developed in Service and Manufacturing areas. However, existing uses such as supermarkets
and drugstores may be expanded if
A. They are compatible with nearby residential uses;
B. The expanded use will not divert trade from other general- retail or neighborhood
commercial areas which are better located to serve the expected market.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Use Permit A 6 -96 is hereby denied.
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Veesart, seconded by Commr. Kourakis, and upon the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Veesart, Kourakis, Jeffrey and, Whittlesey
NOES: Senn, Ready
The motion carried.
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
L: \PC,5180.96.pc
I-7
i p J w. c .A I 1
Draft
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1996
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The regular meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
on Wednesday, April 10, 1996 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
The Planning Commission Meeting was video taped without objection for the purpose of an
upcoming retreat.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Pat Veesart, Janet Kourakis, Charles Senn, Mary Whittlesey, Paul
Ready, David Jeffrey, and Chairman Barry Karleskint
Absent: None
Staff
Present: Associate Planner Whitney McIlvaine, Development Review Manager Ron
Whisenand, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Clemens, and Supervising Civil Engineer
Jerry Kenny
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES:
The Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 28, 1996 were accepted as amended.
The Planning Commission meeting minutes of March 13, 1996 were accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS:
No public comments were made.
ELECTIONS:
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 3
them either. She asked staff about the appropriateness of resting the decision of a negative
declaration on the information, or lack of information, that has been available to the Commission.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated she was not aware that the Commission had not been
provided with the previous documents. She suggested that the Commission not take action until the
documents have been seen. She is concerned that an initial study may need to be done to determine
that all the environmental impacts have been addressed in the previous environmental documents.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated a second environmental review was done at the
time of the subdivision. In the environmental review all potential land uses including a grocery store,
were discussed. Staff felt the environmental analysis at that time was specific enough to address the
project to include the subsequent development. Staff did a more detailed environmental review at
the subdivision stage to specifically avoid having to do 21 separate environmental reviews.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated she is concerned about what is referred to as tiering.
Commissioner Kourakis stated she is not questioning the competency or the thoroughness of staff s
decision. She is concerned about information available to the Commission to make a decision, as well
as information being available to the public.
Commissioner Kourakis is also concerned with other parts of the General Plan that were not
mentioned in the staff report, specifically Land Use Element policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.3.2, and 2.2.4
regarding traffic and neighborhoods.
Commissioner Veesart asked staff how this item relates to the square footages of existing markets
in San Luis Obispo.
Associate Planner McIlvaine displayed an overhead to the Commission showing the square footages
of various markets in San Luis Obispo.
Commissioner Veesart asked staff what kind of development is being proposed for Lot 5.
Associate Planner McIlvaine stated there aren't any applications for any kind of development at this
time.
Commissioner Veesart asked where the sound wall is being proposed.
Associate Planner McIlvaine said it is being proposed inside the hedge on Higuera.
l --�z
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 5
size as the proposed Albertson's. The grocery store is bigger than the existing grocery stores in town.
Grocery stores do want to be bigger.
Mr. Montgomery stated an extensive traffic analysis was performed. The analysis includes a number
of mitigation measures and they agree to them all. The City's Engineering Dept. actually selected the
locations of the entries. They feel traffic was addressed quite adequately in great detail.
Mr. Montgomery stated there was a long discussion at the subdivision map level about preservation
of the trees. Where they could, they have preserved every single tree. There are eight trees proposed
to be removed in a single location at the City bus stop. The location of the bus, stop was made by the
City.
Mr. Montgomery stated what is proposed for this project is equal to or exceeds the Telegram Tribune
standards. They will have a meandering sidewalk lined with trees. The parking lot setback will be
36' -80' for this proposal, along with variable setbacks along the frontage of the project. The ARC
requested that in the setback a berm be built for screening. He displayed a cross - section . of the street
showing the placement of various facilities. The closest parking spot to Higuera St. is approximately
36' away from the curb line. -
Mr. Montgomery did a phone survey of hours of operation of local stores in town. He stated the
hours vary from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight.
Mr. Montgomery believes they have met Condition #1, and, therefore, it is acceptable. Condition #2
is acceptable. They request that the hours of operation be from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Condition
44 is acceptable. Regarding Condition #5, they had a meeting the previous night with members of
the Los Verdes Park #1 Homeowners' Association and their Landscape Committee and have agreed
to participate in the construction of a wall along the frontage of Higuera St. He would like the record
to reflect that they have reached an agreement with the homeowners' association. Condition #6 is
acceptable is they have the hours of operation as requested. Condition #7 is acceptable. Public
Works #1 -94 are acceptable. Transportation, Circulation, and Bicycle Conditions #5-47 are
acceptable. Mr. Montgomery noted, referring to 0, the visibility of the location of the bicycle racks
from the interior of the grocery store will not be possible because of the limited access into the store.
The bicycle racks will be located in the front of the store but they will not be able to be seen from the
inside of the store. Conditions #8411 are acceptable.
Mr. Montgomery stated the store and its layout and size has been indicated as what they will do for
the last three years. It is not an unusually big store. They have tried to keep their neighbors informed
all the way along. They believe the project is compatible with the Land Use Element and consistent
with the General Plan, the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, and Energy Elements. This
project puts the services where the people are. He asked the Commission to approve the use permit
conditions as were noted. He offered to answer any questions.
/ -4f3
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 7
Tun Slaught, 3 Francisco Dr., Santa Barbara, stated the demographic study looked at a series of rings
at one, three, five, and ten miles. The study also establishes a percentage draw from each ring. The
rings at one and three miles will draw the most customers.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked Mr. Montgomery to address the contamination at the site.
Mr. Montgomery stated a portion of the site at the northeast corner has been identified as
contaminated by Unocal during their fire in 1926. Unocal is responsible for cleaning up this
contamination. They have been put on notice twice in the last 90 days that this subdivision map has
been approved. The City has imposed a timeline by which this cleanup must be completed.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the subdivision was done in phases with the idea
that the applicant could proceed with the first phase, which is quite a ways from the area of
contamination.
Commissioner %ittlesey asked if there is the possibility of contamination underneath phase one.
Mr. Montgomery stated there has been testing done and none has been identified above the levels that
staff has set.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if the testing was done at the initial study stage.
Development Review Manager Whisenand replied yes, at length.
Commissioner Veesart asked if they are planning on drilling wells for irrigation.
Mr. Montgomery stated the wells already exist and have been tested for contamination and were
negative.
Acting Chairman Senn asked if Mr. Montgomery is at liberty to say who the tenant will be.
Mr. Montgomery stated they do not have a signed lease.
Randall Murray, 43 Del Sol Ct., stated he is one of the members of the Board of Directors for the
Homeowners' Association of Los Verdes Park 1. He demonstrated the location of the proposed wall
to the Commission on the overhead. The wall is needed for safety and security. This will be the
second largest grocery store in San Luis Obispo and they are expecting a heavy increase in the
amount of traffic. The developer participation in the construction of the wall needs to be defined
more clearly. He asks that it be a 50/50 split for the cost of the wall and that the color, materials, and
dimensions be negotiated between the homeowners' and the developer.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 9
Commissioner Jeffrey asked how many times a month she travels to Food 4 Less.
Mrs. Weinstein stated not that often because she doesn't care for driving over the grade and Santa
Maria is too far away.
Acting Chairman Senn asked how many units there are in the Silver City Mobile Home Park.
Mrs. Weinstein stated there approximately 300 units. The Creekside Park has approximately 215
units.
Robert Strong, from Strong Planning Services, Palm Desert, representing Robert Strausbaugh, stated
there hasn't been any developer contact with the commerce park. He doesn't have any argument with
development or with the basic concept of a neighborhood center. He has very definite concerns about
the apparent attention to mitigation measures and details of design and traffic compromises on a use
that isn't even permitted, based upon the adopted General Plan policy and the intent of the General
Plan. Neighborhood centers are not to be considered large - scale, community -wide centers. There
is a conscious effort to reinforce existing centers instead of creating new ones. This residential area
is the smallest neighborhood in San Luis Obispo. There are larger neighborhoods with smaller
markets and they're doing just fine. This will be a regional shopping center. The 1993 EIR that has
been referred to in the General Plan and the Circulation Element looked at the possibility of additional
commercial beyond what was proposed on the General Plan and concluded that Los Osos Valley Rd.
between 101 and Higuera St. would have to be widened to four lanes. There are two absolutely clear
policy statements in the General Plan which contradict this proposal which say that neighborhood
centers of this magnitude should not locate in the service commercial manufacturing areas. He is
amazed that the Airport Land Use Commission approved this because shopping centers are not
appropriate in this area. He is not happy with the extended environmental analysis. He does not
accept the negative declaration. He offered to answer any questions.
Elizabeth Mott, 14 Mariposa Dr., feels that all of the residents in the area are in the dark. She is
amazed that someone would think that they could come in and build. the size of store that they have
in mind without having some idea of who a potential tenant might be. She understands why they are
not sharing that information with them; however, it allows neighbors to stay in the dark. There hasn't
been any talk on what is planned for Los Osos Valley Rd. by Mr. Madonna for a possible Costco.
If we are able to visualize ahead and plan for what the potential might be, they should be thinking of
a draw from potentially a 25 -mile radius. Traffic will not only be increased on S. Higuera, but also
on Los Osos Valley Rd. These regional -type centers have a huge draw. There is the potential for
a very large problem. Right now she has to get on 101 to get downtown. There is a traffic problem
already and she only sees it getting worse. If the developer could assure that this will not be a Food
4 Less she still would not be satisfied because the size of the building would have the permanent
potential for an atypical commercial situation to come in.
l —S6
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 11
Mark Fraughman (Inaudible), 39 Chuparrosa, feels that the traffic study is not recent and does not
take into account the current planned development. He concurs with Mr. Strong and the Mott's.
Traffic in this area will be increased heavily. This project needs to be looked at in terms of how it's
going to affect the neighborhood. The environmental report needs to be looked at again.
Commissioner Ready asked for this thoughts on a traffic signal at the Las Praderas intersection.
Mr. Fraughman feels Tank Farm Rd. should be modified properly to make an entrance on Tank Farm
Rd. The trees should be preserved. He would prefer an off -set entrance. The problem of lining up
the street would be headlights shining into the homes at night. There may also be people mistakenly
entering his neighborhood.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if there is a traffic calming plan for Las Praderas
Mr. Fraughman stated there is, but he doesn't know the status of it.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariners Cove, stated he is concerned with traffic for this project. As a former
Commissioner, he has sat through the environmental review for this project in detail. There may be
some concern over the way the public is notified. Legally, the City meets the notification
requirements. The City has reviewed the annexation and the development plan for this project with
very little input from the public, but now there is a tremendous amount. He cautioned the
Commission with regards to the wall because the design has not be defined. The Commission has
never determined what neighborhood markets are. He feels that a Food 4 Less is an atypical store.
Margaret Wallace, 52 Mariposa, stated she is a new resident in this city and has lived here for seven
months. This is the first she has received notice of this project. Her Realtor did not inform her of
this plan. She feels she has been left in the dark about the project. She concurs with the comments
of the Mott's. She chose to move to this city because of the beauty and the harmony of the
neighborhood. She is concerned with traffic and the children playing in the streets. She is from Los
Angeles and has seen projects like this go in. She is really unhappy with this project.
Mr. Montgomery stated the split for the cost of the wall at 50/50 would be acceptable. The idea of
cutting back the median north of Las Praderas is acceptable. They have been prohibited from having
any entry on Tank Farm Rd. The locations of the accesses is a condition of approval of the map with
the County and City.
Mr. Montgomery stated they have in place an approved vesting tentative map with a set of conditions.
That map and the conditions reflect many of the traffic issues that have been mentioned tonight. He
asked the Commission to talk with the City's engineers, planners, and attorneys.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 13
Development Review Manager Whisenand suggested scheduling this item for action on the meeting
of April 24.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens and Commissioner Whittlesey stated they would be absent on the
meeting of the 24th.
Lang Kreutzkampl; one of the owners, 1706 Las Tunas Rd., Santa Barbara, stated the Commission
and staff came to the meeting unprepared. He feels discriminated against because one of the
Commissioners and the City Attorney can't be at the next meeting. He has been working with the
Planning Commission and staff and has followed through on everything. A two -week delay or even
longer is very disappointing.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated she understands Mr. Kreutzkampfs frustrations. The main
purpose for delaying the meeting is that proper documents were not in front of the Commission,
which may jeopardize approval of the project.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated she has concerns for the Supervising Civil Engineer to address
regarding the bus stop location, the tree preservation issue, the amount and speed of runoff into the
culvert, a pedestrian crossing at Los Osos Valley Rd., a current traffic count, the contamination issue
with Unocal, the possible water table issue, the left -turn median being shortened, the right -turn only
egress, the noise issues, and a description of the wall.
Supervising Civil Engineer Jerry Kenny stated, regarding the bus stop location, the Transit Manager
feels this location is appropriate for buses re- entering the flow of traffic and for the needs of the
residential area and the shopping center.
Mr. Kenny stated the drainage issue is a minor diversion of about four acres of property to fit into
a pipe that was designed for a 100 -year storm.
Mr. Kenny stated the pedestrian crossing at Los Osos Valley Rd. is signalized and he is not aware of
any problems here. If there is a problem with the timing, it can be adjusted. Pedestrian refuge islands
are a possibility at this location.
Mr. Kenny stated the traffic study that was done is a current study of the neighborhood specific to
this project. A sound wall is a consideration that might help address the noise impacts at the corner.
Mr. Kenny stated there is a provision in the approval of the subdivision for an agreement that would
require the subdivider to provide for closing or modification of the South Higuera Street entrance and
exit regarding left turns if traffic safety problems occur.
/ -7/
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
April 10, 1996
Page 15
Commissioner Ready stated he would like to hear from the City Attorney regarding the ramifications
of the prior approvals that have been given to this project to date and the ramifications and
qualifications and other concerns with respect to previous conditions and restrictions that have
already been imposed on the applicant and on the development, and whether or not those have any
bearing on what is now presented to the Commission and what latitude the Commission has.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated she would like to make sure that both during and after construction
that all materials that can be are recycled.
Acting Chairman Senn asked staff to present a synopsis of the issues and the latitude the Commission
has at the next meeting.
Commissioner Ready made a motion to continue this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of
May 8, 1996. The motion was seconded by Commission Whittlesey.
AYES: Commissioners Ready, Whittlesey, Veesart, Kourakis, Senn, and Jeffrey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chairman Karleskint refrained from participating and voting due to a potential conflict of interest.
COMMENT & DISCUSSION:
Chairman Karleskint rejoined the meeting.
2. Staff
Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the forecast for items on the agendas on the
meetings of April 24th, May 8th, and May 22nd.
3. Commission
Commissioner Senn requested staff to forward all information relative to tonight's item to
Commissioners.
Commissioner Kourakis requested 1996 CEQA Guidelines be available to the Commission.
---4
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996 n
Page 10 f'� r
�NQt /I f�
2. 154 Suburban Road: A 6 -96: Request to allow a grocery store in the C -S Zone-,
Timm - Kreutzkampf Development, applicant.
Chairman Karleskint refrained from participating due to a potential conflict of interest.
Commissioner Senn was designated as Acting Chairman.
Associate Planner McIlvaine presented the staff report, recommending approval of the use permit
based on the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens presented an overview, recommending discussion of the issues as
outlined in the staff report. After explaining that the grocery store use was included in the project
description for the previous mitigated declarations, she stated that environmental review was satisfied
and the issue before the Commission is General Plan consistency.
Both Commissioner Veesart and Jeffrey indicated they reviewed all of the previous information
relative to this item which was provided to them by staff.
Commissioner Kourakis asked if the way to reconcile conflicting General Plan policies is by choosing
the more specific policy over the general one.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated that although policies don't directly conflict, but provide the.
The more specific policies do prevail over more general policies.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the size of the proposed grocery store is up for discussion.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated if the Commission could find the grocery story use
consistent with the General Plan by conditioning it, then it would be appropriate. The condition has
to be related somehow to the general plan consistency issue or some other issue relating to the use
permit.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Victor Montgomery, representing the applicants, 3026 S. Higuera St., stated written testimony dated
May 7, 1996 from David St. John was submitted to the Commission by fax today, as well as a letter
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 11
from Mr. Montgomery dated May 3, 1996. Mr. Montgomery said in his letter of May 3, 1996 he
.attempted to address the issues raised at the last hearing relative to circulation policies. The new staff
report offers some additional evaluations and lays out policies supportive of the project. Mr.
Montgomery stated Land Use Policy 3.5.3 in essence says there can't be a neighborhood center in a
C -S Zone. Land Use Element Policy 3.1.2 says there can't be a regional draw on this site. Zoning
Ordinance Section 17.30.030 sets a limit for what is defined as a neighborhood grocery store at 2,000
square feet or less. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a grocery store with a Director's use permit,
although it doesn't define what a local grocery store is or what is a regional grocery store. It appears
the dilemma is they can't make the definition for any options relative to the project, which has been
going on for two and one half years or more. Mr. Montgomery has looked in the definition section
of the Land Use Element. On page 89 there is a definition for "neighborhood commercial." They do
want to follow the definition of neighborhood commercial and be a super market. If the solution to
them not being a neighborhood center is having a drug store, they will accept a condition to delete
drug stores from the list of allowable uses. Mr. Montgomery cited findings #l, #2, #3 of the City
Resolution 84/85, 1996 series for the Vesting Tentative Tract TR 74 -95, Tract 2202 and stated these
are findings which this Commission and City Council approved.
Mr. Montgomery stated, referring to Page 11 of the staff report, Conditions #1 and #2 are acceptable.
Regarding Condition #3, they would like to have the same hours of operation as Scolari's, which is
6:00 a.m. to midnight. Condition 94 is acceptable. Regarding Condition #5, they had a meeting with
the homeowners' association and had an understanding that the sound wall will not be constructed
if this project is not built. Conditions 96 and #7 are acceptable. Condition 48 is not acceptable. Mr.
Montgomery stated as a result of Condition 99, turns out of the center would be deleted from the
project. They do not believe this is an appropriate condition and there are no findings or evidence
presented in this staff report to support this recommendation. Regarding Condition 910, Mr.
Montgomery stated they are not proposing a stand alone grocery store.
Mr. Montgomery feels the statement after Condition #10 regarding a separate motion for a General
Plan amendment is disconcerting.
Mr. Montgomery stated Public Works Conditions 91 - 911 are acceptable.
David St. John, attorney for the applicant, believes the Commission has discretion when it comes to
the determination of the consistency of this project with the General Plan. . The Commission
determined at the point of annexation that the General Plan was consistent with a grocery store of
this size. None of the factors that are presently before the Commission is any different. He feels that
if there were a change in the approval, the change would have to be based on some new reason which
has not been presented. Mr. St. John submitted a letter today explaining the history of this project
and how, at each step of the way, the Commission and the public have been aware of the project. The
consistency on the part of the applicant has been very important in this project. Likewise, the
5C
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 12
applicant would expect the Commission to act in a consistent manner. There has been a substantial
amount of reliance on the part of the Commission and the determination so far. He urged the
Planning Commission to continue in a consistent manner to find that there is consistency with the
General Plan and this proposed use and to approve the use permit as presented. Mr. St. John offered
to answer any questions.
Robert Strong, of 73149 Bel Aire Road, Palm Desert, CA, stated Mr. Strassbaugh has submitted a
letter which indicates he is no longer opposed to the T.K. Center. Mr.-Strong stated he represents
neighbors from the residential area and other commercial interests. Mr. Strong stated the other
individuals he represents do not agree with Mr. Strassbaugh's compromise. The other individuals he
represents find this proposal to be clearly inconsistent with the General Plan, incompatible with the
land use, and a potential for significant adverse effects.
Mr. Strong stated approximately 16,500 to 18,000 cars use Higuera St. in front of this location.
Approximately 7,100 cars would be generated by a shopping center. Approval has not yet been
granted by the City. The information in front of the Commission indicates that approximately 7% of
the traffic would be coming from the immediate neighborhood and approximately 25% of the traffic
would be coming from the area south of South St. Mr. Strong stated 75% of the traffic from this
neighborhood center would be coming from outside the area. The traffic study indicates the
cumulative traffic would exceed 38,000 trips per day and 30,000 would be on Higuera St. This study
does deal with a potential four -lane facility being needed between the 101 interchange and Higuera
St. Mr. Strong feels these decisions are clearly cumulatively adverse. This project does not mitigate
any of the regional concerns. The consistency issue is a basic issue. Mr. Strong offered to answer
any questions.
Paul Erton, 33 Las Praderas, representing a major portion of the audience who arose for
identification, stated they are all concerned about this project and the adverse effects it will have in
their neighborhood. They are concerned about the regional draw this project will have.
Mr. Erton distributed a petition to the Commission that has 85 signatures. He stated 61 are opposed
to any development at all. There are 9 who would agree to a very small neighborhood market. There
are 11 who have general concerns relative to traffic and other adverse environmental impacts. There
are 4 out of the 85 who are not opposed to this development. Mr. Erton asked the Commission to
protect the quality of their neighborhood and to follow the General Plan and deny the use permit.
Bruce Wiedner, resident of The Meadows, said his neighborhood is the only area in the City that has
no access to any parks or playgrounds for the children in the S. Higuera corridor. The tremendous
traffic which will be generated by this development will further isolate these children. They have a
recycling center, a waste water treatment plant, and a proposed homeless shelter in their backyard.
1 -LS/
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 13
They are now faced with this proposed regional center in their front yard. The negative impacts of
this proposal will further degrade their neighborhood.
Bernice Cardosa, 3860 S. Higuera St., Silver City Mobile Home Park, stated she is sorry there is not
more representation from her park, because there are approximately 300 homes in the park. The park
is a family park and the residents need a project like this. Ms. Cardosa is a senior citizen and does
not have a car. She would like to have the convenience of walking to a grocery store to get
provisions. It is very difficult to take the bus service because of the one -hour service. She feels this
project is a great proposal and it will beautify this part of town. She feels Higuera needs to be
widened. She asked the Commission to approve this project.
Bill Badon , 65 Chuparrosa, stated that he does not see this as a neighborhood grocery store. He sees
this as a large, high- volume store that sells groceries and imports cars. This would changed the
character of the neighborhood. Mr. Badon is a father and shares the concerns of safety. He feels the
history of car accidents in this area should be reviewed. He feels ingress and egress should be
reexamined. He feels this project will not enhance this neighborhood.
Diane Whitehouse, 38 Los Verdes Dr., stated she has contacted several contractors about
constructing a wall between the project and her neighborhood. One of the estimates she got was for
$44,000 for a six -foot wall approximately 1,000 feet long. The footing for the wall would cost an
additional $30,000. In addition, she contacted landscapers and received estimates from $900 41,800.
Ms. Whitehouse also spoke with a contractor regarding removing the root systems. He estimated
the cost for root removal between $5,000 and $6,000. Ms. Whitehouse doesn't feel the homeowners
should assume the responsibility or the additional cost for these site improvements.
Chris Greenal, 16 Villa Ct., Los Verdes 1, said that the previous approvals and finalization of the
environmental review were based on a concept for a grocery store center, and generally it was based
on a neighborhood center. She is supportive of this project in that it's consistent with the portrayal
that it has received as a neighborhood center. She sees a difficulty in the definitions. She is not
amenable to a warehouse -type store and doesn't feel it fits into the definition of a neighborhood
center. She feels the condition limiting the size of the store is a good solution. She feels there is a
big gap between the City's policies and the ability for the average citizen to get information and this
has resulted in the controversies which exist. She is supportive of this project as long as it is
consistent with the concept of a neighborhood grocery store.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked staff if this project has always been portrayed as a 51,000 square foot
grocery store.
Manager Whisenand replied that it had.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 14
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if Ms. Greenal would be more supportive of a center with a community
draw than a regional draw.
Ms. Greenal answered that she would. She wants to see something comparable to the other stores
in town.
Aleena Olachea, 3860 S. Higuera, stated it is impressive that all the people stood up as a group to
say that this would not be appropriate, but there are more than 600 mobile homes in the
neighborhood whose residents do not have access to transportation. These residents are elderly or
cannot afford transportation. This neighborhood needs a store within walking distance for local
residents. She would love a store located in this neighborhood because she has to go a long way to
get groceries. She is supportive of this development and hopes the Commission will approve this
permit.
Dean Mortin, 74 Del Oro Ct., stated he is not necessarily opposed to a neighborhood grocery store,
but it appears that this is going to be a large store. He feels this project as it stands is going to have
a regional draw. He doesn't feel the homeowners should have to pay for a wall. He would like the
City to work with the developer in building a wall to protect the neighborhood from the noise,
exhaust, and the traffic which will be generated.
The public comment session was closed.
COMNIISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Ready made a motion that the proposal should be determined to be consistent with
the General Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Veesart.
Commissioner Veesart asked if Commissioner Ready feels a 51,635 square foot grocery store is
consistent with the General Plan or that a grocery store at this location without a specified number
of square feet is consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Ready replied his motion would be supportive of the store as proposed.
Commissioner Ready stated he noticed that a lot of this, when it was going through some of the
earlier phases and up to at least '94, when the existing LUE was adopted, the LUE at the time this
project started out did not have all these conflicting policies.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens said when the'93 environmental determination was made, they were
basing it on both the'77 LUE and the '92 draft LUE.
i -s',3
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 15
Acting Chairman Senn stated that he surmised that these applicants have from the start said that they
want to put a market here, but there has never been a formal application. He said that City staff never
told the applicant that they could not put a market here, however, the applicant never formally stated
that they wanted to put a market at this location.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens added in looking back at the minutes of the previous meetings of
both the Planning Commission and the Council, the issue of specific uses was never before either
body. Infact, comments in the minutes make it clear that the decision on particular uses would be
deferred until applications for those uses were filed by the developer.
Commissioner Ready stated there has not been a formal application, but this shouldn't be a surprise
to anybody. He has analyzed this from the aspects of the work provided by staff and concluded that
this is consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Veesart complimented the applicants for being up front with their intentions from day
one. The process is such that now the application has come before the Commission and now the
public has been told that this is the time to express their concerns regarding a specific use for this site.
The Commission will take these concerns into consideration when a decision is made. He feels the
public's concerns should be addressed. Commissioner Veesart expressed concern about the size of
the market and feels it should be conditioned. In order to be consistent with the General Plan, the
Commission must condition the size of this market. He does not feel this is a neighborhood - serving
market and the General Plan does not allow a regional draw in this zone.
Assistant City Attorney stated she is grappling with how reducing the size of the market helps to
satisfy Policy 3.5.3 of the LUE which prohibits new neighborhood commercial centers in the servicing
and manufacturing areas. In the neighborhood commercial section of the LUE, Policy 3.2.1 does
seem to indicate neighborhood commercial centers include grocery stores, drug, and hardware stores.
Manager Whisenand added if the Commission feels strongly as a group that this area should be a
neighborhood center, the most appropriate action would be to direct a General Plan amendment.
Commissioner Jeffrey is concerned with the conclusion of staff. He is also concerned that the
Commission does the best for the community. In looking at the conclusion, Page 7 of the staff report,
it says the policy which best supports a grocery store at this location is LUE 3.6.2, which promotes
small grocery stores and other convenience facilities in all commercial zones to serve both nearby
residents and employment centers. LUE Policy 3.5 specifically discourages new neighborhood
commercial centers in the C -S Zone and LUE Policy 3.1.2 states regional -draw stores should be
located downtown or in the Madonna Rd. malls or in the area designated for General Retail along Los
/-S
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 16
Osos Valley Rd. Based on the information, he does not see this being consistent with the General
Plan in terms of the size of the proposed market.
Commissioner Kourakis concurred with Commissioner Jeffrey. She cannot find consistency. Her
understanding is, by State law, the General Plan requires internal consistency. It seems this may
require a General Plan amendment.
Commissioner Whittlesey concurred with Commissioners Jeffrey and Kourakis. She feels all along
this process, the Commission was given cautions that square footage would be dealt with later. She
feels the Commission needs to be looking at limiting the size because a 51,635 square foot grocery
is larger than what the neighborhood needs. She expressed a concern relative to the General Plan
being amended.
Acting Chairman Senn stated he is having a lot of trouble with this item. He is extremely sensitive
to the fact of the time and effort these applicants have put into this project. He can find consistency
on either side in this instance. The applicants have been straight forward from the beginning. This
may be one of those unfortunate circumstances where there has been some miscommunication or
maybe an application should have been filed before.
AYES: Commissioners Ready and Senn
NOES: Commissioners Veesart, Kourakis, Whittlesey, and Jeffrey
ABSTAIN: None
The motion failed.
Chairman Karleskint refrained from participating and voting due to a potential conflict of interest.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked, if by placing a parameter on the size, could the Commission then
proceed with a motion that it then could be construed to be consistent with the General Plan.
Acting Chairman Senn noted the applicants are not amenable to a condition which lessens the size
of the market. He asked that the public comment session be reopened to hear from Mr. Montgomery.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mr. Montgomery stated a smaller sized market is not feasible. They have indications that no tenant
would want a market of a smaller size.
The public comment session was closed.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
/ SS
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 17
Commissioner Jeffrey made a motion to find that this is inconsistent with the General Plan in its
present proposal. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis.
AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Kourakis, Veesart, Senn, Whittlesey
NOES: Commissioner Ready
ABSENT: None
Chairman Karleskint refrained from participating and voting due to a potential conflict of interest.
Manager Whisenand asked Commissioner Jeffrey if his motion was referring to the information
outlined in the staff report, specifically Policies 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 being inconsistent with the General
Plan.
Commissioner Jeffrey replied yes.
Commissioner Veesart made a motion to deny the use permit based on Policy 3.5.3 in that it is
inconsistent with the General Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis.
Commissioner Kourakis asked why the inconsistency is being limited to one policy when several have
been delineated.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated this is not a neighborhood commercial designation under the
General Plan. This is a service and manufacturing designation. The Commission would have to find
it consistent with the General Plan designation it falls under, which is service and manufacturing.
AYES: Commissioners Veesart, Kourakis, Whittlesey, and Jeffrey
NOES: Commissioners Senn and Ready
ABSENT: Commissioner Karleskint
Acting Chairman Senn asked each Commissioner to comment on whether they would be supportive
of this land use assuming that there were a General Plan amendment and a rezoning of this property.
Commissioner Jef$ey stated the zoning isn't the only issue for him. His concerns are relative to the
size of the project and the impact on the neighborhood. He feels that presenting the same project
zoned differently would not be in the best interest of the community.
Commissioner Ready stated he understands how people in an area have concerns. But, there has been
analysis relative to traffic and this is a major street. He would support this project if the zoning
change was made. He is concerned about the Commission drawing conclusions on the potential
impacts of the size of a market, whether it is 30,000 square feet or 50,000 square feet
1-5p
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 8, 1996
Page 18
Commissioner Whittlesey made no further comments.
Commissioner Kourakis feels this may be opening up another problem by limiting all neighborhood
grocery stores to a particular number of square feet.
Commissioner Veesart concurred with Commissioner Jeffrey. He is supportive of neighborhood
grocery stores and perhaps having a neighborhood market at this location would be beneficial. It has
the potential to reduce trips in the City and the potential for easy access for pedestrians. He is
concerned about the size of this market as proposed. The Commission may want to work on defining
"neighborhood serving." He would be supportive of a neighborhood- serving market at this location.
He would also be looking forward to better pedestrian access.
Acting Chairman Senn stated he would like to hear from the residents of the mobile home parks with
the same degree of intensity that the Commission heard from the Meadows group. He would be
support of the project conditioned on the fact that he was persuaded that the neighbors were
supportive of it.
Commissioner Kourakis stated this proposal is in conflict with several policies which deal with
residential conservation and residential neighborhoods.
3. 4380 Broad Street: TR 127 -95: Request to allow a 47 -lot subdivision and possible specific
plan amendment to adjust the circulation plan; R -1 -SP Zone; John French/R.W. Hertel, Inc.,
applicants.
Chair n Karleskint rejoined the meeting.
Associate
PI cIlvaine presented the report, recommending continuance with direction
to the applicant on rev ns to the
Commissioner Jeffrey a if the h pressure gas line and the telephone lines could be relocated
Associate P ner McIlvaine replied the app ' ant would be able to address this question.
141i u1uWOM
-s7
1
F C.,% 1 1
�
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM u
BY: Whitney McllvaineVZsociate 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
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
Sy
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.
4 . . U n 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.)
• C • •s
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
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
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,/ Q
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.
/-61
A 6 -96
Page 5
3. LUE Policy 3.6.2 Convenience Facilities (applies to all commercial zones):
Convenience facilities serving daily needs, such as small food stores, branch banks, and child
and elder care, and amenities such as picnic areas may be allowed in centers of employment.
Space for such amenities may be required within large commercial and industrial development.
4. LUE Policies 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 Neighborhood Traffic, Neighborhood Connections:
Public Works staff response to consistency with LUE Policies 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 regarding
neighborhood traffic and neighborhood pedestrian connections is attached. In their evaluation,
the project is, in part, not subject to certain policy provisions and otherwise consistent.
S. LUE Program 3.1.3 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.
@-- • •••• s IRINIM10139rene g ►__
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.
/'62-,
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.
/ -�3
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)
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 Secfions 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 together with the approved tentative map (also attached) constitute the
subdivision project approved by Council. The final map and all required physical improvements
must be insubstantial 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
/ _6
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, 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
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 Lot Screening and Setbacks: The ARC, nearby residents, and staff would prefer to see
additional landscaping and street setbacks to better shield views of the parking lot and vehicle
headlights.
Number of Parking Spaces: Parking for the grocery store would be provided consistent with
zoning regulation requirements of 1 space per 200 square feet or 258 spaces. Total parking for
the project would be roughly 450 spaces. The traffic study built in a 25% multi - purpose trip
reduction factor for the shopping center. It would seem logical to consider a mixed -use parking
reduction as well.
io o• 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. /— �7
A 6 -96
Page 11
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the use permit, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
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 /���
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.
PUROJUMMOn
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 Cily 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 Alienment: the sidewalk alignment should be meandered similar to the detached
sidewalks north of the projedt site.
6. Limit Lines: Limit lines or "stop bars" should be painted on the main entrance driveway; set
back a minimum of 2 feet from the proposed textured crosswalk.
A 6 -96
Page 13
7. Bicycle Rack Location: The bicycle racks should be relocated to meet the standards set forth
by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October 1993):
Be located as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and be located at least
as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking.
Be visible from the interior of the destination.
The proposed locations along the sides of Buildings A and B do not meet these criteria.
8. Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces: Bicycle parking shall be provided to meet the standards
set forth by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October, 1993). Specifically, the plan stipulates
that bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of 15% of the required parking
spaces; a minimum of 50% of these spaces should be for short-term parking (bike racks) while
a minimum of 40% should be for long -term parking (bicycle lockers).
9. Design of Bicycle Racks: The developer shall review and receive approval of the design of
bicycle racks with the public works staff prior to their installation. The staff has information
available for review at the Public Works Department that can assist in rack design selection.
10. Transit Stop Desicrn: 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
% `Z