HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/1996, 1 - REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP DESIGNAITON FROM OFFICE TO GENERAL RETAIL, AND AMEND THE ZONING MAP FROM O-PD (OFFICE, WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) TO C-R (RETAIL-COMMERCIAL), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERN COR council "6fi`D� 12-3-96
j acEnaa nepoat °®N..6�
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner FP,
SUBJECT:
Request to amend the Land Use Element map designation from Office to General Retail, and
amend the zoning map from O-PD (Office, with the Planned Development overlay) to C-R
(Retail-Commercial), for property located at the northeastern corner of Prado Road and Elks Lane
at Highway 101 (40 Prado Road).
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Consider adoption of Draft Resolution "A" (attached as Exhibit 1) denying the proposed
amendments, based on the Planning Commission's findings citing inconsistency with Land Use
Element (LUE) Policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, and the alternatives set forth.
DISCUSSION
Situation
An application has been filed to rezone the property on the north side of Prado Road,just east of
Highway 101 from Office,Planned Development to Retail Commercial. The proposal also involves
an amendment to the LUE map to change the site's designation to General Retail. Approval of these
requests would allow the site to be developed with retail development, rather than the previously
approved office complex.
Sum
Prior to having the applicant prepare special studies and detailed plans, staff requested general
policy direction from the Planning Commission and City Council on the proposed amendments.
A majority of both the Planning Commission and City Council supported continued processing
of the project in the spring of 1995. On March 22, 1995, the Planning Commission supported
the concept of retail zoning on the site. However, the Commission, after a lengthy public hearing
on November 13, 1996, recommended to the Council that the amendments be denied based on
specific policies contained in the LUE. The Community Development Department staff had
recommended approval of the amendments based on previous Commission and Council direction.
The details of the earlier concept review and the Planning Commission's latest review of the
amendments is included in later sections of this report.
Council Agenda Report-GP/R 7-95
Page 2
Appnycd Office Project
�z -
On September 1, 1992, the City Council approved general plan map and text amendments, and a
planned development rezoning,to enable the development of a phased regional office complex on the
site(see Exhibit 3). With these amendments, the site was designated as Office on the LUE map and
O-PD on the zoning map. Prior to approval of these requests, the property was designated on the
LUE map as Interim Conservation Open Space and zoned C/OS-10.
The approved regional office complex was proposed to be developed in four phases and to consist
of approximately 121,000 square feet at full build-out. Buildings were proposed to be three and four
stories high and allowed to be a maximum of 50 feet in height. Approval of the planned development
allowed up to 15% of the total floor area of buildings to be devoted to commercial uses related to
offices, including some retail uses. A maximum of 50% of the floor areas of building could be
occupied by tenants other than government offices and private, non-profit social services offices.
Conceptual Review of the Currently Requested Amendments (Office_ O-PD to General Retail, C-R)
On January 19, 1995,the City received the applicant's request to change the land use designation and
zoning for the property. Since the revised and updated LUE had recently been adopted (August
1994), staff was concerned that the amendments proposed a major change in land use direction for
the area For this reason, staff scheduled the amendments before the Planning Commission and the
City Council for a preliminary concept review to solicit policy direction prior to the applicant
preparing special studies and detailed design plans.
At its meeting of March 22, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments
(see Exhibit 4). The Commission discussed the proposal from a supply and demand standpoint,
given the adopted LUE map showing the Dandio and Froom sites available for retail development.
Area-wide circulation issues and the impacts of the proposed highway interchange adjacent to the
site on future development were also discussed.
By a majority vote, the Commission recommended that the City Council direct staff to continue
to process the project application, specifying that the proposal to change the land use of the site
to retail, with restrictions on sizes and types of uses, had merit. The Commission suggested that
the following issues be included in the detailed environmental and project analyses required with
further'review of the amendments:
■ flood zone requirements;
■ area-wide circulation issues including the development of the adjacent highway
interchange;
■ LUE consistency issues including the impacts on the tri-polar policy for government
.offices (include information on the inventory of vacant land available for office
development);
■ restrictions related to the PG&E easement across the site; and
/-2
Council Agenda Report- GP/R 7-95
Page 3
■ consideration of the feasibility of a specific plan for the site and surrounding area (between
San Luis Obispo Creek on the east, Highway 101 on the west, Prado Road on the south
and including the Sunset Drive-in, Elks Lodge and cemetery to the north).
By a majority vote, the City Council directed staff to continue processing the application with
specific attention to the Planning Commission recommended factors noted above (see Exhibit 5).
The Council majority felt that it was possible to view this site as a physical continuation of the
retail zoning on the other side of the highway, and that there may be certain retail uses that are
better accommodated at this site than in the downtown. The Council added a requirement that an
economic study be prepared which discussed the exact tenants proposed to use the site and their
potential impacts on downtown businesses. The concerns of those voting against the motion were
the recent adoption of the LUE, an oversupply of commercial land, and the potential impacts on
utilization of the Dalidio and Froom areas for additional retail uses.
Planning Commission's Action on Current Request
On November 13, 1996, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the requested
amendments, based on inconsistency with LUE General Retail Policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. These
policies say:
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, and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos
Valley Road
3.1.3 Madonna Road Area Retail Expansion No substantial additional land area
should be added to the commercial centers at Madonna Road and Highway 101 until
a detailed plan for the retail expansion has been approved by the City. The plan
should describe the limits of commercial expansion, acceptable uses,phasing, and
circulation improvements. Any permitted expansion should be aesthetically and
functionally compatible with existing development in the area. Before approving an
expansion plan, the City should consider an evaluation of how much it would
transfer sales from existing retail areas in the City and whether the proposed uses
could be developed in existing retail areas.
During the discussion of the motion to recommend denial of the amendments, the applicability of
LUE Policy 8.6 to the project was debated. Policy 8.6, Drive-in Theater Area, says:
This 25-acre area should be further developed only if flooding can be mitigated without
significant harm to San Luis Obispo Creek. Until flood hazards are mitigated, continued
agricultural use and low-intensity recreational use are appropriate. Any use drawing
substantial regional traffic also depends on providing a full interchange at Prado Road and
extending Prado Road to connect with Madonna Road.
Council Agenda Report- GP/R 7-95
Page 4
Once}looding and access issues are resolved, and agricultural preservation requirements
are met, the area would be suitable for government agencies' regional offices (see also
policy 5.1.6).
The policy had been included in the initial study to document reasons for flooding concerns at the
site because of the proximity of this special design area. The initial study noted that the project
site is not included in this special design area. The Development Review Manager pointed out
that the policy did not apply to this project in determining general plan consistency. The Planning
Commission deliberately did not reference this policy in their recommendation.
The project had been continued from a special meeting held on November 6, 1996, based on a
request made by the Business Improvement Association (BIA). The BIA requested the
continuance to provide the opportunity for the entire BIA Board of Directors to consider the matter
(see Exhibit 6). In continuing the project, the Planning Commission also asked that economic
analysis prepared by Stephen Nukes be amended to discuss the ramifications of the proposed
10,000 square feet restaurant (see Exhibit 7).
Many speakers at both Planning Commission hearings voiced their displeasure with the proposed
amendments which would allow retail uses at the site (see Exhibit 8). Several speakers noted that
large chain stores were out-of-character with the community and would have devastating economic
impacts in small businesses in the downtown offering similar goods. The Commission attempted
to limit its discussion of the project to their areas of responsibility: land use and environmental
impacts. The Commission recognized that the City's role in evaluating general plan amendments
and rezoning requests is to assure that a range of land use types and areas zoned to accommodate
those various uses are provided, and to not regulate specific tenants to address concerns with
competition among businesses. Staff recommends that the Council also avoid considerations based
on the restriction of competition because such a role it is not in the best long-term interest of the
City or the private sector.
Community DevelopmentDeve]Qpment D artment Staffs Recommendation
At the latest Planning Commission hearings, the Community Development Department
recommended approval of the proposed amendments, including support of the project's Mitigative
Negative Declaration (see Exhibit 11). Staffs recommendation was based on viewing the
development of this site with retail uses as a continuation of the retail development on the other
side of Highway 101 (Central Coast Plaza and Madonna Shopping Center).
This interpretation came from the previous concept review of the amendment requests by both the
Planning Commission and the City Council. The staff reports prepared for concept review of the
amendments had included a detailed LUE policy analysis highlighting the same policies contained in
the more detailed reports prepared for the most recent hearings. Based on direction from both the
Planning Commission and the City Council after the concept review of the amendments, staff found
the establishment of retail uses at this site to be consistent with the LUE as an expansion of the retail
Council Agenda Report- GP/R 7-95
Page 5
development on the other side of the freeway, given that a future overpass and interchange was
planned.
Another key element of stag's endorsement of the amendments was the recommendation to add the
"S", Special Considerations overlay zoning,to the requested C-R zoning. The purpose of the S zone
is to document the special considerations of the site and require that a use permit be approved at the
time of submittal of specific development plans. The use permit enables the City to condition
development which responds to physical development issues, as well as allows uses at the site to be
regulated to a greater degree than the underlying zone category would permit. The use permit
requirement is consistent with previous Commission direction to limit the sizes and types of use
permitted at the site. This ability to restrict uses may also address some of the concerns expressed
by downtown businesses with certain aspects of retail competition.
appeal Received
On November 15, 1996, the City Clerk recieved an appeal from the applicant Ben Reiling of
Zelman Development Company of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City
Council to deny the requested amendments (Exhibit 9). Since the Planning Commission voted to
send the Council a recommendation to deny the amendments, rather than to deny the project at
the Planning Commission level, the submittal of the appeal was not required. This report was
prepared as a recommendation to the Council from the Planning Commission to deny the
amendments, not as an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the amendments.
Summ= of Findings of the Economic Analyte,
Provided as Attachment 5 of the Planning Commission report (part of Exhibit 11 to this Council
report)is an analysis of the economic impacts of the project on downtown businesses performed by
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates under the direction of the project applicant. In addition, an
addendum to the report is provided in Exhibit 7, which addresses various issues raised subsequent
to the issuance of the first report. In accordance with the approved workscope for this study, it is
important to note that its focus is on downtown business activities; it is not a fiscal impact analysis
of this project on the City as a whole, and does not consider economic impacts on businesses located
outside of the downtown area.
City staff concurred with the primary finding of the Nukes report that there does not have to be a
significant long-term impact on existing downtown businesses as a result of this project, based on the
reasonableness of the following basic assumptions:
■ There is a relatively small base of current downtown stores that would be affected, and there
probably is significant potential for re-capturing existing sales leakage in these categories to
stores in other cities.
■ Other"local" stores in other communities have successfully competed with national retailers.
/-S
Council Agenda Report- GP/R 7-95
Page 6
■ Based on discussions with the City's sales tax advisor(Enderliter de Llamas), it is likely that
retail sales from the three stores proposed(Circuit City,PetSmart and Office Depot) will total
between $20 and $25 million annually. The sales tax revenues to the City from the project
are estimated at $250,000 annually.
■ While not all of this sales tax will be"net new" to the City, a substantial amount should be,
based on the recapture of sales tax"leakage" and existing demand. Another consideration
is that sales tax that may be transferred from other existing businesses is likely to also be
transferred to nearby cities, if the proposed tenants ultimately locate elsewhere in the County.
Status of Proposed Freeway Interchange& Overpass
One of the key issues with development of the site is the planned future development of a freeway
interchange and overpass and the need to make improvements to area streets. Fehr & Peers were
hived by the applicants to prepare a traffic and circulation study (available for Council review in the
reading file) based on a workscope prepared by City staff. The proposed freeway interchange and
overpass will dramatically improve access to the site, although its eventual development is still 3-5
years away. The traffic analysis plans for both short-term and long-term circulation improvements
in anticipation of the eventual completion of the interchange.
The traffic study concludes that existing roadways will function at acceptable levels of service with
project development without the interchange. The preliminary project design will accommodate the
preferred interchange design. If approved, the project would contribute its fair share to the cost of
design and construction of the interchange improvements. If the project is not approved, the owners
of the project site are not obligated to pay a portion of the cost for the interchange until the site is
actually approved for a specific development project. If the site remains undeveloped, then the cost
of the interchange will be bome by fewer property owners.
Other Noteworthy Issues
Other important issues discussed in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 11) are
the impacts of the amendments on the overall supply of land available for offices in the "social
services office pole"described in the LUE, and flooding concerns. The report concludes that the loss
of the 9 acres of site area from the social services office pole is not a significant impact in terms of
projected demand for government office uses in the area, and that an amendment to Figure 5 included
in the LUE showing the government office poles is not necessary. The change in land use does not
alter the flood mitigation strategy that was approved with the office development four years ago.
ALTERNATIVES
1. As provided in Exhibit 2:
/'to
Council Agenda Report- GP/R 7-95
Page 7
A. Adopt Draft Resolution "B", approving a negative declaration with mitigation
measures, and amending the Land Use Element (LUE) map designation from Office
to General Retail, based on findings; and
B. Introduce Draft Ordinance "C" to print, approving a negative declaration with
mitigation measures, and amending the zoning map from Office with the Planned
Development overlay zoning, O-PD, to Retail-Commercial with the Special
Consideration overlay, C-R-S, based on findings.
2. Continue with direction to the staff and applicant if.the Council desires further information
or analysis to render a decision.
Attached:
Exhibit 1: Draft Resolution A (Planning Commission's recommendation)
Exhibit 2: Draft Resolution B & Draft Ordinance C (approving general plan amendment &
rezoning)
Exhibit 3: 11-13-96 Planning Commission memo and attachments (previous office project
information)
Exhibit 4: 3-22-95 Planning Commission minutes
Exhibit 5: 4-18-95 City Council minutes
Exhibit 6: BIA Letters
Exhibit 7: Economic analysis addendum dated 11-8-96
Exhibit 8: Draft 11-6-96 & 11-13-96 Planning Commission minutes
Exhibit 9: Appeal to City Council received November 15, 1996
Exhibit 10: Various letters received regarding amendments
Exhibit 11: 11-6-96 Planning Commission report and attachments
L•\zmiM\=h=racc
/-7
EXHIBIT 1
Draft Resolution "A"
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
MAP FROM OFFICE TO GENERAL RETAIL,
AND TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP FROM OFFICE WITH THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING (O-PD) TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL WITH
THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OVERLAY ZONING (C-R-S),
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 PRADO ROAD
(GPIR 7-95)
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on November 6, 1996,
and November 13, 1996, and recommended denial of amendments to change the designation on
the City's Land Use Element map from Office to General Retail, and to change the zoning map
from Office with the Planned Development Overlay Zoning (O-PD) to Retail-Commercial with
the Special Consideration Overlay Zoning (C-R-S) for property located at 40 Prado Road; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, December 3, 1996, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission
hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed general plan amendment and
rezoning are inconsistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigative Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed general plan amendment and rezoning are inconsistent with the goals
and policies of the General Plan, specifically Policy 3.1.2 that limits retail expansion
to specific geographical areas of the city. The Council found that the project site
did not meet the criteria to be considered as a part of the Madonna Road and
Highway 101 regional retail center.
City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 2
2. The proposed general plan amendment and rezoning is inconsistent with the goals
and policies of the General Plan, specifically Policy 3.1.3 that requires the submittal
of a detailed expansion plan to evaluate whether proposed development is
aesthetically and functionally compatible with existing development in the area.
The Council found that the project would result in adverse traffic and circulation
impacts to the area and be incompatible with surrounding development.
SECTION 2. Denial. The requests for an amendment to the City's Land Use Element
map from Office to General Retail, and the rezoning from Office with .the Planned Development
Overlay Zoning (O-PD) to Retail-Commercial with the Special Consideration Overlay Zoning
(C-R-S), for property located at 40 Prado Road, are 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 , 1996.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
tA
ty o e ff rgensen
•1m1gpr7A5.
EXHIBIT 2
Draft Resolution "B
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP
FROM OFFICE TO GENERAL RETAIL
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 PRADO ROAD
(GP/R 7-95)
WBERRFAS, The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on November 6, 1996,
and November 13, 1996, and recommended denial of amendments to change the designation on
the City's Land Use Element map from Office to General Retail, and to change the zoning map
from Office with the Planned Development Overlay Zoning (O-PD) to Retail-Commercial with
the Special Consideration Overlay Zoning (C-R-S) for property located at 40 Prado Road; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, December 3, 1996, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission
hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed general plan amendment and
rezoning are consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigative Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately.addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed general plan map amendment and rezoning, and reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and
incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project:
City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 2
1• In reviewing the subject amendment requests, the Planning Commission and City
Council shall determine whether Figure 5 in the LUE needs to be amended to
provide compensating land area for the removal of the subject site from the South
Higuera governmental offices pole to accommodate the future space needs of
governmental offices.
2. The proposal shall be modified to rezone the site C-R-S. With the "S" overlay
zone, the special considerations for the site can be documented in the ordinance
approving the proposedzone change. The existing zoning regulations require the
processing of an administrative use permit with the development of a site that has
the "S" overlay zone. Therefore, the specific improvements needed and any special
requirements related to development, beyond strictly environmental mitigation
measures, could become conditions of the required use permit approval.
3. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a
detailed soils engineering report needs to be submitted at the time of building
permit which considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to
address the potential for liquefaction.
4. The project shall utilize porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to
reduce surface water runoff consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.
5. The developer shall replace any deficient storm drains crossing Prado Road and/or
provide on-site detention facilities to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
If oversizing of the storm drain is desired by the City, then the City will be
responsible for the cost differential for installation of the larger storm drain. With
submittal of precise development plans for the project, the developer shall prepare
a site drainage analysis evaluating the capacity of existing storm drain to
accommodate projected run-off.
6. The finish floor of project buildings shall be raised to a minimum of 136.5'
elevation to be consistent with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations.
7. The developer shall install an oil and gas separator at an appropriate location in the
storm drainage system to the approval of the Public Works and Utility Directors.
The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
8. Since the project involves the grading of more than five acres of land, the
developer shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Cal/EPA).
9. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), all graded
surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust
or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall
City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 3
constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all
phases of project construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with
complete coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
C. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported
onsite or offsite;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
L Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the
vicinity of the construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
10. The project shall include:
- bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use;
- shared-use parking reduction;
- on-site food facilities to encourage employees to stay on site during the
lunch hour;
- extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative
emissions from automobiles;
- provision of a bus stop and shelter;
- pedestrian friendly site planning to the approval of the Architectural Review
Commission; and
- roadway changes that minimize the impact on pedestrians and bicyclists.
.11. Consistent with the Circulation Element, the applicant shall widen Prado Road
across the property's frontage to provide for a four-lane arterial street. The
specific design of these street facilities (including the extent of interim and
permanent frontage improvements for pedestrians and transit access) shall be
established and must be accepted by the City as a prerequisite to the submittal of
development plans for the 40 Prado Road property.
12. As a prerequisite of development, the applicants shall execute an agreement with
the City, to be recorded against the land, to not oppose the formation of an
assessment district or other financing mechanism (to the City's approval) that
includes the 40 Prado Road site and is established for the purpose of constructing
City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 4
the Prado Road interchange, related new facilities and modifications to existing
facilities. The specific contents of this agreement shall be established to the
satisfaction of the City as a prerequisite to the approval of development plans for
the 40 Prado Road property.
As a further mitigation measure, the applicants shall dedicate slope easements for
the future Prado Road overpass and northbound on-ramp to State Route 101
consistent with the standard diamond design identified in the Prado Road Project
Study Report (PSR). Easements may provide for interim parking areas and
landscaping, but shall exclude all permanent buildings.
13. The recommendations of the traffic study which call for the eventual realignment
of the City corporation yard driveway with the new street on the eastern edge of
the project shall be incorporated into the project approval and design.
14. Project approvals shall incorporate the recommendations of the traffic study
regarding the alignment and changes to Elks Lane to insure that adequate
emergency access continues to serve the site and the surrounding area.
15. As a prerequisite of development of the 40 Prado Road site, the applicant shall
design and construct a pedestrian-bicycle bridge crossing San Luis Obispo Creek
on the north side of Prado Road. The bridge must be installed and fully accessible
to the public at the time that occupancy is granted for the first retail establishment
on the 40 Prado Road site. [This project is eligible for a City Traffic Impact Fee
(TIF) credit.]
16. All buildings shall be provided with adequate sound-proofing to meet the City's
Noise Element requirements for interior noise levels based on the sound created by
departing aircraft.
17. No radio transmissions shall be allowed that would interfere with aircraft
operations.
18. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the City of San Luis
Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the City.
19. Future site development shall incorporate:
* Skylights to maximize natural day lighting;
* Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation; and
* Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
/-13
City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 5
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant
operational reasons, buildings should be designed to exceed energy conservation
standards in the California Energy Code by 10%.
20. Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded
building materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the
construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the Community
Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
21. Future site development should incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-
site recycling.
22. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare
onto adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall be to the approval
of the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC shall carefully review the
height and type of lighting fixtures.
23. Qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and trenching
activities. If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources,
archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities which
may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and
appropriate protective measures are approved by the Community Development
Director. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent
and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist.
24. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American
monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove
the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note
concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans
for the project.
25. If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation
measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the
mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
SECTION 2. Findingq. That this Council, after consideration of the general plan
amendment to change the designation on the City's Land Use Element map from Office to General
Retail for property located at 40 Prado Road, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan LUE related to General Retail uses given that the site is in the general
City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 6
identified geographical areas for retail expansion, and the requisite economic
analysis of downtown was submitted and accepted.
2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan LUE related to Public and Cultural Facilities Policies since there is enough
area in the current government office pole (Social Services Area) to accommodate
the long-range growth needs of regional offices of government agencies.
3. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document the special considerations for the
site which are: the need for extensive area=wide circulation improvements,
including the planned development of a full freeway interchange at Highway 101
and Prado Road; the 80-foot wide PG&E power line easement; flood zone issues;
and airport land use compatibility concerns. The C-R-S zoning will require the
processing of an administrative use permit to establish proposed uses.
4. The proposed development of the site is appropriate and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses because site changes to accommodate retail development can
be adequately evaluated and regulated with the required processing of an
administrative use permit and architectural review.
5. A Mitigative Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on October 31, 1996, and adopted by the City Council on December
3, 1996, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project
development. The Mitigative Negative Declaration concludes that the project will
not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation
measures listed above from initial study ER 7-95 being incorporated into the
project
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 3. Appmyal. The requested general plan amendment to change the designation
on the City's Land Use Element map from Office to General Retail for property located at 40
Prado Road is hereby approved.
SECTION 4. Adoption.
1. The Land Use element map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "A".
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing
and use.
City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 7
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 , 1996.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
I tto ey eff J gensen
1.1res1�f/-95.ro
EXHIBIT A
\:\:\\\\\\♦\
5 \\\\\\\\\\\
Change ma deli
\\♦♦\\ P gnation
\\ from office to general retail
6
\
♦
\
\
\
• .. . E''yE1'�' 'E � iiEEEEE.'•E;:EE'E'''E•E��E °'�... .
Land Use
C-R.,•'��, o �0 1 s
i. �'4a jos R-27PD
-g+
`o f C
� C-R-PD
/05-1 C-S-MU
+ Y c
cr r f:rzom P, ,. R —
� ' -PD °
f�
0-ppTDGFRS O-PD
°
i PF Css R-2
Zoning
EXHIBIT A — LAND USE AND ZONING
Draft Ordinance "C"
ORDINANCE NO. (1996 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE.ZONING MAP FROM OFFICE WITH THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING (O-PD) TO RETAIL COM MCIAL WITH
THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OVERLAY ZONING (C-R-S),
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 PRADO ROAD
(GP/R 7-95)
WTIEREAS, The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on November 6, 1996,
and November 13, 1996, and recommended denial of amendments to change the designation on
the City's Land Use Element map from Office to General Retail, and to change the zoning map
from Office with the Planned Development Overlay Zoning (O-PD) to Retail-Commercial with
the Special Consideration Overlay Zoning (C-R-S), for property located at 40 Prado Road; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, December 3, 1996, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission
hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WIIEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed general plan amendment and
rezoning are consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigative Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed general plan map amendment and rezoning, and reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and
incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project:
City Council Ordinance No. (1996 Series)
Page 2
1. In reviewing the subject amendment requests, the Planning Commission and City
Council shall determine whether Figure 5 in the LUE needs to be amended to
provide compensating land area for the removal of the subject site from the South
Higuera governmental offices pole to accommodate the future space needs of
governmental offices.
2. The proposal shall be modified to rezone the site C-R-S. With the "S" overlay
zone, the special considerations for the site can be documented in the ordinance
approving the proposed zone change. The existing zoning regulations require the
processing of an administrative use permit with the development of a site that has
the "S" overlay zone. Therefore, the specific improvements needed and any special
requirements related to development, beyond strictly environmental mitigation
measures, could become conditions of the required use permit approval.
3. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a
detailed soils engineering report needs to be submitted at the time of building
permit which considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to
address the potential for liquefaction.
4. The project shall utilize porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to
reduce surface water runoff consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.
5. The developer shall replace any deficient storm drains crossing Prado Road and/or
provide on-site detention facilities to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
If oversizing of the storm drain is desired by the City, then the City will be
responsible for the cost differential for installation of the larger storm drain. With
submittal of precise development plans for the project, the developer shall prepare
a site drainage analysis evaluating the capacity of existing storm drain to
accommodate projected run-off.
6. The finish floor of project buildings shall be raised to a minimum of 136.5'
elevation to be consistent with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations.
7. The developer shall install an oil and gas separator at an appropriate location in the
storm drainage system to the approval of the Public Works and Utility Directors.
The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
8. Since the project involves the grading of more than five acres of land, the
developer shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Cal/EPA).
9. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), all graded
surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust
or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall
City Council Ordinance No. (1996 Series)
Page 3
constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all
phases of project construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with
complete coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
C. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported
onsite or offsite;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the
vicinity of the construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
10. The project shall include:
- bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use;
- shared-use parking reduction;
- on-site food facilities to encourage employees to stay on site during the
lunch hour;
- extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative
emissions from-automobiles;
- provision of a bus stop and shelter;
- pedeshian friendly site planning to the approval of the Architectural Review
Commission; and
- roadway changes that minimize the impact on pedestrians and bicyclists.
11. Consistent with the Circulation Element, the applicant shall widen Prado Road
across the property's frontage to provide for a four-lane arterial street. The
specific design of these street facilities (including the extent of interim and
permanent frontage improvements for pedestrians and transit access) shall be
City Council Ordinance No. (1996 Series)
Page 4
established and must be accepted by the City as a prerequisite to the submittal of
development plans for the 40 Prado Road property.
12. As a prerequisite of development, the applicants shall execute an agreement with
the City, to be recorded against the land, to not oppose the formation of an
assessment district or other financing mechanism (to the City's approval) that
includes the 40 Prado Road site and is established for the purpose of constructing
the Prado Road interchange, related new facilities and modifications to existing
facilities. The specific contents of this agreement shall be established to the
satisfaction of the City as a prerequisite to the approval of development plans for
the 40 Prado Road property.
As a further mitigation measure, the applicants shall dedicate slope easements for
the future Prado Road overpass and northbound on-ramp to State Route 101
consistent with the standard diamond design identified in the Prado Road Project
Study Report (PSR). Easements may provide for interim parking areas and
landscaping, but shall exclude all permanent buildings.
13. The recommendations of the traffic study which call for the eventual realignment
of the City corporation yard driveway with the new street on the eastern edge of
the project shall be incorporated into the project approval and design.
14. Project approvals shall incorporate the recommendations of the traffic study
regarding the alignment and changes to Elks Lane to insure that adequate
emergency access continues to serve the site and the surrounding area.
15. As a prerequisite of development of the 40 Prado Road site, the applicant shall
design and construct a pedestrian-bicycle bridge crossing San Luis Obispo Creek
on the north side of Prado Road. The bridge must be installed and fully accessible
to the public at the time that occupancy is granted for the first retail establishment
on the 40 Prado Road site. [This project is eligible for a City Traffic Impact Fee
(TIF) credit.]
16. All buildings shall be provided with adequate sound-proofing to meet the City's
Noise Element requirements for interior noise levels based on the sound created by
departing aircraft.
17. No radio transmissions shall be allowed that would interfere with aircraft
operations.
18. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the City of San Luis
Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the City.
19. Future site development shall incorporate:
City Council Ordinance No. (1996 Series)
Page 5
* Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
* Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
* Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant
operational reasons, buildings should be designed to exceed energy conservation
standards in the California Energy Code by 10%.
20. Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded
building materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the
construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the Community
Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
21. Future site development should incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-
site recycling.
22. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare
onto adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall be to the approval
of the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC shall carefully review the
height and type of lighting fixtures.
23. Qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and trenching
activities. If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources,
archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities which
may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and
appropriate protective measures are approved by the Community Development
Director. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent
and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist.
24. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American
monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove
the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note
concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans
for the project.
25. If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation
measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the
mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
City Council Ordinance No. (1996 Series)
Page 6
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed rezoning
to change the City's zoning map designation from Office with the Planned Development Overlay
Zoning (O-PD) to Retat7-Commercial with the Special Consideration Overlay Zoning (C-R-S) for
property located at 40 Prado Road, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed C-R-S zoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan LUE related to General Retail uses given that the site is in the general identified
geographical areas for retail expansion, and the requisite economic analysis of
downtown was submitted and accepted.
2. The proposed C-R-S zoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan LUE related to Public and Cultural Facilities Policies since there is enough
area in the current government office pole(Social Services Area)to accommodate
the long-range growth needs of regional offices of government agencies.
3. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document the special considerations for the site
which are: the need for extensive area-wide circulation improvements, including the
planned development of a full freeway interchange at Highway 101 and Prado Road;
the 80-foot wide PG&E power line easement; flood zone issues; and airport land use
compatibility concerns. The C-R-S zoning will require the processing of an
administrative use permit to establish proposed uses.
4. The proposed development of the site is appropriate and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses because site changes to accommodate retail development can
be adequately evaluated and regulated with the required processing of an
administrative use permit and architectural review.
5. A Mitigative Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on October 31, 1996, and adopted by the City Council on December 3,
1996, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project
development. The Mitigative Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not
have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation
measures listed above from initial study ER 7-95 being incorporated into the project.
SECTION 3. Approval. The request to change the City's zoning map designation from
Office with the Planned Development Overlay Zoning (O-PD) to Retail-Commercial with the
Special Consideration Overlay Zoning (C-R-S) for property located at 40 Prado Road, is hereby
approved.
City Council Ordinance No. (1996 Series)
Page 7
SECTION 4. Adoption.
1. The zoning map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "A".
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing
and use.
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
at its meeting held on the day of , 1996, on a motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
o y ff J gensen
�g
�7
EXHIBIT A
♦\\:\\\\.\\\
\♦♦\\♦\♦\\ Change map designation
from office to general retail
♦
\
\
\ ......::..::......
/
.. ....
• — �\♦ �E•.:<`t:�::t:i' ".' � Cistti?isi[i'i `iieieitit' ': �':'::: '';.
.. . ' isii? Epi'=�'��'•€i:'� 't �; i•' :' i'':.
Land Use
S
SOS R'2-PD
C-R-PO /
C/o S-Icy
C-S-Nfu
YC[IwM1[ I
cr
-PDPn
!� '
r
R-2-S
i PF ss R'2
Zoning
EXHIBIT A — LAND USE AND ZONING
EXHIBIT 3
��II�IIIIIIIII�III�IIIIIIII►I��� III�IIIIIIIIIII I�
A City Of SM WIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
MEMORANDUM
November 13, 1996
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manag /_?
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: 40 Prado Road Project (GP/R 7-95;ER 7-95)
At the special meeting held on November 6, 1996, the Planning Commission requested that
information be provided on the approved office project for 40 Prado Road (GP/R 1516, PD1517).
Copies of the approved site plan, as well as copies of City Council Resolution No. 8063 (1992 Series)
and Ordinance No. 1223 (1992 Series) approving the project are attached. The following project
description is provided:
Approved Office Complex Project Description
The applicant wants to develop a phased office project on the north side of Prado Road, east of
lEghway 101 and south ofthe drive-in theater. All types of offices, including government agencies,
would be allowed. The applicant is also proposing through the planned development to allow
assorted retail uses related to offices to occupy up to 15% of each building's floor area.
The initial phase of the project, Building C, consisting of 21,687 square feet of office space in a 60-
foot high, four-story building, would be built on the southeastern part of the site, within one to two
years of planned development approval. Phase 1 would also include construction of a day care center
and play area. Later phases would be built in accordance with demand for additional office space.
The sequence of building construction following Building C would be: Building A(35,611 square
feet, 60 feet high, four stories), followed by Building B (51,905 square feet, 60 feet high, four stories)
and finally Building D (11,997 square feet, 45 feet high, three stories). The complex would include
a total of 121,200 square feet of floor area at full build-out.
Access would be derived from Prado Road and development of an extension of Elks Lane through
the site. Right-of-way for an enlarged Prado Road interchange with Highway 101 would be offered
for dedication. A key feature of the proposal is to accommodate development without changing the
San Luis Obispo Creek channel to mitigate flood hazards.
Atta
ched: Site plan, City Council Resolution No. 8063 (1992 Series) and Ordinance No. 1223 (1992
of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
13 Ei
I 7f,fj :t
In
AN
Ve
01
Yons Ir
Jill
ORDINANCE NO. 1223 (1992 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP
FROM C/OS-10 TO O-PD
AND ADOPT A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 PRADO ROAD (PD 1517)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held hearings to consider appropriate zoning for the subject site
in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the California
Government Code; and
BE. IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Zoning-Mab Designation. That the site be rezoned
"O-PD" as shown on the map attached marked Exhibit "C" and included
herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council
has determined that the project's Negative Declaration adequately
addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed rezoning, and incorporates the mitigation measures shown
on the attached Exhibit "A" into the project.
SECTION 3. Adoption. The preliminary development plan,
adopted consistent with the O-PD rezoning of the site, is approved,
subject to the following findings and conditions:
Findings.
1. The proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan
will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of persons living or working in the area or at the site.
2. The proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan
are consistent with the general plan.
Ordinance No. 1223 (1992 Series)
Page 2
3 . The proposed project is appropriate at the proposed
location and will be compatible with surrounding land
uses.
4. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits
by providing child care facilities and related retail
commercial uses that would not be feasible under
conventional office zoning.
5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified by the
Community Development Director on July 24, 1992, which
describes significant environmental impacts associated
with project development. The Negative Declaration
concludes that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment- subject to the
mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit A being
incorporated into the project, and the City Council
hereby approves the Negative Decalaration.
Conditions.
1. The applicant shall file a precise development plan for
city approval within six months of preliminary plan
approval for the Phase 1 of the project, Building C. The
Preliminary Development Plan approval shall expire if a
precise development plan is not filed and approved. At
the time of precise plan submittal for Phase 1, a
detailed phasing plan for subsequent project phases shall
be submitted indicating deadlines for submitting precise
plans for Phase 2 (Building A) , Phase 3 (Building B) and
Phase 4 (Building D) .
2. Project shall be built, maintained and operated in strict
conformance with approved precise development plans.
3 . Banks, real estate offices, financial institutions,
medical clinics and doctor offices, and lawyers offices
will not be allowed to be established at this site;
however, incidental and non-customer serving functions of
banks and savings and loans, and credit unions and
finance companies shall be allowed.
4. A maximum of 50% of the gross floor area of the office
areas in proposed buildings may be occupied by tenants
other than government offices and private, non-profit
social services offices.
5. other private offices allowed at the site may occupy a
minimum of 2,500 square feet of building floor area.
Ordinance No. 1223 (1992 Series)
Page 3
6. Up to 15% of the floor area of new buildings may be
devoted to commercial uses which are related to offices,
such as, but not limited to, food service; copying and
printing and office supply sales. The Community
Development Director shall approve a range of .allowed
retail uses with consideration of each building's precise
plan based on direction provided by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
7. 21000 square feet of the floor area in Building C shall
be reserved for a day care center. A playground area
shall be developed in conjunction with the day care
center and details for its development shall be a part of
the precise plan for Building C.
8. A maximum building height of 50 feet shall be allowed,
including roof-mounted equipment.
SECTION 4. Implementation. A summary of this ordinance,
together with the ayes and noes, shall be published, at least five
(5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a
newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its
passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on the 1st day of
September , 1992, on motion of Councilmember Roalman
'
seconded by Councilmember Pinard and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Roalman, Pinard, and Reiss
NOES: Councilmember Rappa, and Mayor Dunin
ABSENT: None
/- 4 A
REZONING MAP
EXHIBIT C
GP/R1516 PD1517
O 5-
^--- gRIDG
F
C-S ,c
C/0 Cos
�3
A
c•
,o
C • C-
C-R
°
/OS
C-R-PD
C/OS-10
S
• Change from C/OS-10
to O-PD
I `
S'.
I
•e�0
PF ass
N
�i C-S
1° = 1,000'
Ordinance No. 1223 (1992 Series)
FINALLY PASSED this 15th day of September
1992 on motion of Mayor Dunin
, seconded by
Councilmember Reiss , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Dunin, Councilmembers Reiss, and Rappa
NOES: Councilmembers Pinard and Roalman
ABSENT. None
:Mayor Ron Duffin
ATTEST:
(A AA
City fflerk Pam V e
RESOLUTION NO. 8063 (1992 Series.)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM
INTERIM CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE TO OFFICE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 PRADO ROAD
AND AMENDING SECTION C.5.b. OF THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT (GP/R 1516)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held public hearings on this amendment in accordance with the
California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendment comes to the council upon the favorable
recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the change
have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council has
determined that the project's Negative Declaration adequately
addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed general plan amendments, incorporating the mitigation
measures shown on the attached Exhibit "A" into the project.
SECTION 2. Findings.
1. The proposed general plan amendment will not be
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity.
2. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan.
3. The proposed amendment will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, subject to the
mitigation measures referenced in Section 1, and listed
in Exhibit "A", being included in the .project, and the
City Council hereby approves the Negative Decalaration.
�33
Resolution No. 8063 (1992 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 3 . Adoption.
1. The Land Use Element is hereby amended as shown in
Exhibit "B".
2 . The Community Development Director shall cause the change
to be reflected in documents which are on display in City
Hall and which are available for public use.
SECTION 4. Related Action. That the request for the general
plan amendment text change to add text to Section C.5.b. of the
Land Use Element regarding the appropriateness of office
development at the site be approved as follows, based on the
following finding:
An area north of Prado Road and east of Elks Lane, which may
be changed to an urban land-use designation when the flood
hazard is mitigated. The portion of this area abutting Prado
Road is suited for office uses including government offices
and some related retail commercial uses specified through
planned development approval This area shall be considered
as part of the "Social Services pole" for government offices
which is generally focused on the intersection of Prado Road
and South Higuera Street
Finding
1. The proposed general plan text amendment is consistent
with the goals and policies of the General Plan, subject
to the area limitations of the planned development.
On motion of Councilmember Roalman seconded
by Councilmember Pinard , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Roalman, Pinard, and Reiss
NOES: Councilmember Rappa and Mayor Dunin
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1st day of
September, 1992.
A 3J1
Resolution No. 8063 (1992 Series)
Page 3
umin
ATTEST:
( L
V
City Clellk Pam Vog s
APPROVED:
ity A inistrative Officer
C' tt tre
L1
Community Dev to went Director
GENER ►s_ PLAN MAP AML,gDME T
EXHIBIT B GP/R1516
-r •fi _ _
12;
.a•\�' .'/'• "'^= �•..'y - :�/•1 ... [11 .11'•••'.•
!rad•.'/!/ �f-' r.•/: � � - - +�:�J! l�l.. ,�/A•` �:::::/•:•'•'•f%',�:'i:: _•:.::::_" .
::r•- > f.•.7� .r.,�. :n.('./ - '�. .�:. �. /;/,•!'•'"r/: itis•+;;•i�:I;J:''-�':::
i :.ate r _ ';=;� - /.••/• _
r• I
r•`Vii'•
/e�^l L�:.�1'�.• ' _'ter,.. -� ' _ };- �'�✓ti r`,r/•-•/-•..•'. •�.•.
�/•.-i• .:�rti F'. +• • "�'• ;•' "•J�1\'VYI. TTI�:::'
fa« _(•�"C'C'F J.:=:�C'c• ;� � '7..••�c<`~"<::;+;a 111`•.v..t.� .. .5... ...+�.r.r .:
ti'• '•rr 'r;.� ?\, tI 1! :• r:i: '�. ';.r -v ..ice
.�. •I fir•{. �- •'�:f�� � } •_1•\��� J�:''l f.:.'i• `� J' l 1:1' •l'
Pi3:4. r� .f'�' •: - � ..t\ \• 'y,•,_1r�•�•�11;'\�+ .r�1:._r./ . . •. }'!Yt '
7 �~�•_ � ''>;t s11J •�•\ 4�' r: ti? I•:. rte.: _I( �'.� �.. �l.t1
+�_,.�:♦N� "Tf �j1�,\\ti\•. � 17 J 7�� � *�%:-�:r 7.3' . .?w•�
�,� � rte:•: 1 :. :��,5;'
_L�F?,,�' �. ;',:Fi \\ ,��:� :�,�,.r•�•T1 Jam;-3f:��X,f•1�)yi .�-.
,:•Z�;..S•.J'. III \• •'�. .�;.�-•• :: •}j•%i%::J-�i`'
pa`�a'�`✓f •III I y'L`` ••''::•:•'.\� ::'•`
'��•t?' Ill '•- '��\;• � •�••_ � _ ,.
rL I > -
I
y r4. .•iii' _
FM Ur
Zv
_ 11 -
y- Z7 _ Change from interim
—
Oto Officepen Space r..-.....:.......__r ._
_ V� -.. .•. \I •mow:'.''. amu• _ _
VY Y V —/v •+�` v •../'- - i4!!... :Y. ...........
......
: •.:'� .:_��ti� . �...w.-t..
J•n_F FE ...
1..
- s
-
::•.
1.K
w
_ j•
'4c•
\
1" = 1,000'
lr�d
EXHIBIT 4
Minutes
City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Commission Meeting
March 22, 1995
PRESENT: Commrs. Janet Kourakis, Mary Whittlesey, Gilbert Hoffman, Brett
Cross, Charles Senn and Chairman Barry Karleskint
VACANT SEAT: One vacant seat to be filled.
STAFF PRESENT: Pam Ricci, Assoc. Planner; Ron Whisenand, Development Review
Manager; Cindy Clemens, Asst. City Attorney; Allison Orbison,
International Planner Exchange Participant and Laura Murphy,
Recording Secretary
INTRODUCTION OF
SPECIAL GUEST: Pam Ricci introduced Allison Orbison, from England, to the Commission.
She explained that Ms. Orbison is a planner in Redditch, England,
participating in an international planning exchange program sponsored by
the American Planning Association.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The Commission agreed by consensus to change the order
of the agenda items, to be addressed in the following order:
Item 1, Item 3, Item 4, Item 2.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
February 22, 1995 were approved as amended.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Item 1. GP/R 7-95: 40 Prado Road: Review of a General Plan Amendment to change the
Land Use Element map designation for the property from the Office to the
General Retail and rezoning from O-PD (Office with Planned Development
Overlay) to C-R (Retail-Commercial); Cahan Properties, applicant.
Pam Ricci presented the staff report. She said that an application had been filed to rezone the
property on the north side of Prado Road just east of Highway 101, from Office-Planned
Development to Retail-Commercial. She noted that the proposal also involved a General Plan
Land Use Map amendment to change the site designation to General Retail. She explained that
approval of the requests would allow development of the site with retail development rather than
the previously approved office complex. She explained that the item has been scheduled before
the Planning Commission for discussion and conceptual review to get feedback on major policy
Minutes
Planning Commission
March 22, 1995
Page 2
questions related to the request before asking the applicant to submit more detailed studies related
to various environmental issues.
She indicated that the staffs recommendation was for the Planning Commission to recommend
to the City Council that the proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning be denied based on
the findings in the staff report.
Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing.
Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group, project representative, said that the applicant Bob
Cahan and the leasing agent Jay Sinton were also in attendance. He stated that his client
believed that the highest and best use of the site would be retail sales. He described that the
project concept was to use the site for three medium-size box tenants, ranging in size from
10,000-30,000 square feet, plus a restaurant. He said the total project square footage would be
75,000-85,000 square feet with approximately 300 parking spaces. 'He noted that the proposed
office complex which was previously approved for the site contained a total of 125,000 square
feet.
He explained that the tenants of the proposed project were regional draws and needed freeway
access, and hopefully freeway visibility. He said that in general the tenants would not fit
downtown and they had clearly identified the City of San Luis Obispo as their preferred location
in the county. He acknowledged that the request was for C-R zoning, but that he was interested
in any zoning that would allow them to implement the project.
Mr. Montgomery also said that a 1992 flood analysis of the site determined that the required
finished floor elevations for buildings was 136.5 feet. He noted that the grades on the site vary
from 132' to 136', which would mean that there would need to be 2'-3' of fill in order to raise the
finished floor elevation of the buildings. He said that the parking lot could remain in the flood
plain. He added that the site had not flooded in the first 3 months of 1995.
He addressed the issue of the tri-polar concept, by noting that the project property was partially
located in the marked area denoting social services. He showed an overhead denoting all the
vacant land in the immediate vicinity which was zoned the same as the land where the County
Government Center was located. He also showed a map of the Margarita Specific Plan Area,
indicating that the portion below Prado Rd. would be designated, C-S or some version of C-S
zoning which would allow County Government offices or a Social Services Facility. He said that
changing the land use of the project site would not be crucial for the success of the tri-polar
concept since there was other suitable vacant land available in the area for government offices.
He said that the availability of potential social service facilities could provide a spark for the
implementation of the Margarita area plan.
He stated that he had discussed transportation planning for the area with City staff. He noted
that a planned temporary cul-de-sac would enable the continuation of the street in the future
through the drive-in theater property and to the north.
�38
Nlinutes
Planning Commission
March 22, 1995
Page 3
Mr. Montgomery also showed all the retail areas in the general area of the proposed project site.
He said he thought the project could be interpreted to be consistent with the general retail policies
of the General Plan, but if it could not, then it was likely that it could be consistent with the
service commercial policies. He noted that relevant Land Use Element service commercial
policies called for uses that satisfy "some demands of the region" and "large floor areas for
display and storage, such as warehouse stores."
He said he thinks that San Luis Obispo can accommodate a limited number of medium-size
tenants such as Circuit City and Toys R Us.
Commr. Cross expressed concerns with how project plans were going to work with the rest of
the sites in the area in the future. He felt that other retail sites and their availability for
development should be considered before focusing on this site.
Mr. Montgomery responded that land use issues would have to be decided by the City and that
proper circulation planning was the best solution for current planning of the area since other
surrounding property owners would not voluntarily participate in a specific plan.
Ron Whisenand answered a question posed by Commr. Hoffman concerning the progress on the
Prado Rd. interchange. He said that the City was proceeding with a PSR (Project Study Report)
and that the interchange would require Cal Trans approval. He noted that there was a spacing
problem with the Madonna Rd. and Los Osos Valley Rd. overpasses which would require an
exception from Cal Trans. He said he had heard ten million dollars as an estimated construction
cost for the project. He explained that the project was several years away from development and
that the City would be looking at ways to have developers help pay for the improvements.
Commr. Cross asked when it would be known which design would be chosen for the interchange
project.
Ron Whisenand suggested checking with Wayne Peterson for that information. He said that the
Commission, in their direction might want to ask for more information about the design of the
interchange and how that may affect the property.
Commr. Whittlesey asked about alternatives to the compressed diamond design for the
interchange and their potential impacts to site development. She said it seemed reasonable to
know more about what was going to happen with the interchange before approval of types and
sizes of uses on the project site.
Victor Montgomery stated that he would like the Planning Commission's feedback on whether
the project site was a reasonable place for retail development and if the project should continue
through the process. He clarified that the project objective was not to compete with downtown.
He said they were amenable to several commercial zoning categories, as well as floor area
limitations, and a fairly tailored list of allowable uses.
l d7
Minutes
Planning Commission
March 22, 1995
Page 4
Commr. Whittlesey asked for clarification regarding why the project site, rather than the Dalidio
project or Froom Ranch, should be developed for retail uses.
Victor Montgomery responded that his site was in the City limits and was not reliant on the
development of a ten million dollar interchange. He said that he has a site that can only
accommodate a limited number of users, but it could be accommodated in the immediate future.
Ron Whisenand added that the application site was specifically discussed as one for retail
commercial development when the LUE went forward to the Planning Commission and the City
Council, but the land use designation was not changed.
Commr. Senn asked if the tenants would be willing to go forward with the project without the
Prado Rd. interchange completed.
Victor Montgomery confirmed that the tenants he had spoken to were willing to go forward with
the project.
Commr. Senn indicated that he was concerned about circulation issues. He noted that the
property had freeway access for vehicles approaching the site from the south,but vehicles coming
from the north would need to use either the Madonna Rd. or the Los Osos Valley Rd.
interchanges to get to the site. He asked Victor Montgomery for his view on the situation from
a circulation impact standpoint.
Victor Montgomery told him that the City Engineering Department would ask for a traffic study
since, there would be differences in peak hour trip generation, with a retail project. He said that
retail development would work with the infrastructure present and the City would request a
contribution for the development of the future interchange.
Commr. Senn asked if the applicant was suggesting that the property at the comer of Prado and
Higuera and the other vacant parcels should be rezoned from C-S to Office. He pointed out that,
government office uses were not permitted in the C-S zone.
Vic Montgomery cited examples of government office uses in C-S zones within the City limits.
He pointed out that the county or state could buy the vacant sites and put in offices, although a
private landowner could not build an office project on such sites and lease them as government
office space.
Commr. Karleskint said that someday the interchange would be built and the tenants would lose
the freeway access for a period of time and questioned if that would be a problem.
Victor Montgomery said that the tenants he had spoken to were willing to take the risk of losing
the freeway access for a time. He said the key thing about the site was that the project could
be built now.
Minutes
Planning Commission
March 22, 1995
Page 5
Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing.
Commr. Senn suggested isolating the issues to be addressed one at a time 1) Was this an
appropriate use for the site? 2) Were we comfortable giving up the office zoning which exists
on the site? 3) Was this consistent with the vision of which direction the City wanted to go?
He also said that C-R was the broadest zoning in the City. He suggested that the Commission
look at uses to determine if the site was appropriate for large commercial uses.
Commr. Cross suggested instead of looking at the site as retail, the Commission needed to look
at the site as commercial in the context of the whole land use map, with major retail at Froom
Ranch, Dalidio, and a number of smaller sites.
Commr. Karleskint said that staff's concern was that the Land Use Element has just recently been
passed with a lot of sites already identified for this type of use. One of the questions the
Commission needed to look at was if it would be appropriate to expand the retail area and change
the scope of the Land Use Element.
Commr. Whittlesey asked staff if they could come up with some information regarding the
available acreage currently zoned C-S and O in the City. She said she was not comfortable with
changing an LUE that was just adopted and that some consistency was necessary for the tri-polar
concept to take shape. However, she felt that the project site was somewhat unique and that
retail development here merited further investigation.
Commr. Hoffman said he was not concerned about changing the LUE. The site may be more
suited for retail, and shifting the government office pole a bit would not change the concept. He
said he thought the Commission should recommend that the project be given further consideration
while looking at the types and the sizes of uses.
Commr. Cross said that the LUE showed clearly that the rezoning did not conform with the
General Plan, but he said he never felt the site was particularly good for offices. He stressed that
the Commission needed to look at the site in the context of the Land Use map.
Commr. Kourakis said she understood the argument for retail, but the General Plan was recently
adopted and she was not clear as to the impact that the rezoning would have on annexations
being considered. She said she was also concerned about the circulation issues. She commented
that any piece of land with access to a freeway was by definition appropriate for retail. She said
she had never been comfortable with the tri-polar concept, although it would seem that the City
and County were committed to it. She also said that it seemed that the configuration of the site
would make it an appropriate site for retail uses. She said that the process of coming to the
Commission before a lot of design work was done was very good and she thought the City
should encourage this type of review.
Commr. Senn said that the fact that the LUE was recently passed did not influence his view of
the request. He felt that if the site remained zoned for offices, it would be many years before
i<linutes
Planning Commission
March 22, 1995
Page 6
the site would be developed. He stated that he did not anticipate a proliferation of government
offices in the future. However, he said that if the parcel was rezoned for retail,then there needed
to be replacement sites designated for government office expansion.
He also said that some consideration should be given. to what the community needed. He
suggested that the applicant disclose his potential tenants to diffuse the political debate on the
request. He also said that he was very concerned about the circulation,identifying it as the single
biggest problem that needed to be solved to the satisfaction of the decision makers. He said he
would also like to have significantly more information addressing these issues.
Commr. Karleskint said that the Land Use Element change was not an issue for him.. He agreed
that early review was good, but it meant that the Commission was reviewing something without
having all the details and information about the exact project. He noted concerns with flood
plain protection and circulation, compounded by the interchange and which design would be
chosen. He said that the Social Services building on Prado Rd. had perhaps changed the axis of
the tri-polar concept and it seemed more suitable to expand the pole around that building or down
Prado Rd. He said that he thought the site was awkward for offices, but that it could be a good
site for retail if circulation and flooding problems could be addressed.
Ron Whisenand said that the goal of tonight's meeting was to give some direction to staff on the
policy issues that could be forwarded on to the Council, recognizing that the issues would require
more study.
Commr. Cross stated that it was very difficult to make long-range planning decisions if major
changes were continuously being made to the General Plan.
Commr. Senn made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that
it consider rezoning the property to an appropriate retail designation with appropriate restrictions,
subject to the Council considering all of those issues raised by the Commission's discussion. He
wanted the Commission to have the opportunity to review the minutes of this meeting to make
sure that they accurately reflected the Commission's intentions before the Commission's
recommendation was forwarded on to the Council
The motion died due to lack of a second.
Commr. Cross said he would not support a motion unless it included some discussion about a
Specific Plan for that area.
Commr. Kourakis said that she could not support the motion because it was such a strong and
positive motion in favor of retail, which may be premature, primarily due to the circulation
issues.
Ron Whisenand said he heard a variety of options of the request. He summarized that, traffic
and circulation, flooding, EMF exposure with the P.G. & E lines going over the property, and
Minutes
Planning Commission
March 22, 1995
Page 7
the needed of a specific plan for the property/area were all identified project issues. He said staff
needed direction on whether the requests had merit,provided the other issues could be adequately
addressed or whether the requests were clearly inconsistent with the General Plan.
Commr.Kourakis made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
deny the proposed zoning amendment because: it was premature and inconsistent with the
recently adopted General Plan; it would create traffic needs; it would impact existing circulation
facilities in the area, which would in turn impact the overall circulation system in terms of
improvement priorities; it will impact the tri-polar concept (the lack of sites in terms of
appropriate size and configuration); and concerns existed with the P.G. & E. easement.
Commr. Whittlesey seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commr. Kourakis
NOES: Commr. Whittlesey, Hoffman, Karleskint,
Cross, Senn
VACANT SEAT: One
The motion failed.
Commr. Whittlesey made a motion to forward this to Council because the proposal to change the
land use to allow retail uses at the site deserved some consideration with restrictions as to sizes
and types of uses. Ask staff to continue the process and the analysis of the various issues the
Commission had discussed, including flooding, circulation, tri-polar, Land Use Element
consistency, utility easements, to consider a specific plan for the area, and provide a remaining
office land inventory.
Commr. Senn seconded the motion.
Commr. Cross said he would not support the motion unless the specific plan was required for the
project.
VOTING: AYES: Commr. Whittlesey, Senn, Kourakis,
Hoffman, Karleskint
NOES: Commr. Cross
VACANT SEAT: One
The motion passed.
-�f3
EXHIBIT 5
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, April 18, 1995 -7:00 p.m. Page 4
needs are addressed by the policies and programs set forth in the Master Plan" as recommended
by the Director of Parks and Recreation; motion carried (5-0).
2. WATER ALLOCATION REGULATIONS (File No. 512)
Council held a public hearing to consider amending the Water Allocation Regulations to update
them and make them consistent with the Urban Water Management Plan.
Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director, reviewed the proposed amendment.
Council discussed item(c) on page 2.7.,and determined there are no pending projects applicable
to this provision. Item (c) on page 2.7 should be deleted (consensus).
Mayor Settle declared the public hearing open.
No one spoke for or against the item.
Mayor Settle declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed retrofit requirements, definition of Safe Annual Yield, reliability reserves and
siltation.
Moved by Smith/Roalman to introduce Ordinance No. 1280 to print, determining the negative
declaration for the revised Water and Wastewater Management Element covers these amendments,
and to amend the Water Allocation Regulations as shown amended to delete item (c)on page 2.7
and change "Shall" to "Should" for item (d) on page 2.8; motion carried (5-0).
3. ZONING AMENDMENT-40 PRADO ROAD (File No. 463)
Council held a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element (LUE) map to
change the designation from Office to General Retail, and an amendment of the zoning map from
O-PD (Office with the Planned Development overlay) to C-R (Retail-Commercial),for the property
located at the northeastern comer of Prado Road and Highway 101 (40 Prado Road); Cahan
Properties, applicant
Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director, provided a conceptual review of the project.
Mayor Settle declared the public hearing open.
Vic Montgomery. 3026 S. Higuera, registered municipal advocate, stated that the area was
appropriate for regional retail uses and discussed community impacts as well as consistency with
the tri-polar concept and General Plan.
Pat Veesart 976 Buchon Street, expressed concerns about the limited retail space, impacts of
regional draws on circulation, and proposed signage.
Lark Jursek. San Luis Obispo, stated the General Plan does not reflect the people's wishes.
Christine Mullholland, San Luis Obispo, stated this type of project belonged in the downtown area
_ or on Madonna Road.
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, April 18, 1995 -7:00 p.m. Page 5
Scott Sherwood. 4046 Prado Road, discussed negative impacts on traffic and creeks.
Brian Christianson, 818 Pismo,stated the proposal was inconsistent with policies 3.12 and 3.13 of
the General Plan.
Mayor Settle declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed the impact to the proposed Dalidio project and interchange.
Moved by Roalman/Settle to deny the proposed amendments based on inconsistency with the
General Plan as identified in the attached resolution; motion was lost(2-3,Council Members Smith,
Williams, and Vice Mayor Romero voting no).
Council discussed the project size and impact on the downtown.
Moved by Romero/Williams to direct staff to continue to process the project application, with
direction to evaluate issues identified by the Planning Commission with a full project analysis to
include an economic impact study; motion carried(3-2,Council Member Roalman and Mayor Settle
voting no).
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMA. Community Development Director Arnold Jonas briefed Council on LAFCo's proposal
to include a standard analysis for sphere of influence.
BUSINESS ITEMS
4. UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS(File No. 542)
Council considered, based on Council-adopted definition criteria,that there are"no unmet transit
needs" in the City. (Continued from 317/95.)
Mike McCluskey. Public Works Director, reviewed the service design objectives and future plans
for transit services.
Walter Vance.Chair of the Mass Transportation Committee,reviewed the process used to determine
the recommendation, especially in the Chorro Street Neighborhood.
John Schultz. San Luis Obispo, spoke about jitneys.
Steve Boyer. 67 Chorro, supported traffic calming in the Chorro Street neighborhood and urged
Council not to re-establish bus service on Chorro Street.
Pat Veesart, 976 Buchon Street, stated that the requirement for "unmet transit needs" of 15
requests was too high, and supported a bike/pedestrian bridge on Montalban.
Michael Baker. 882 Mission, supported bus service on Chorro Street and stated it took him 40
minutes to travel to Foothill Boulevard, and one hour to go to downtown.
Council discussed impacts and alternatives-available to address the concerns on Chorro Street
-- o , EXHIBIT 6
N.
Memorandum
I
i
12 November 1996 !I
I
I is
To: Barry Karlskint,Chairman, Planning Commission
Members of Planning Commission is
From: �; BILL Board of Directors
IIS'
eborah Holley, Administrator
I
Re: 40 Prado Road j
I!
During its regular meeting of 12 November, the BIA Board of Directors discussed the above proposed
project after having taken input from the business community and after having considered an updatedJi
economic study submitted by Stephen Nukes and Associates at the board meeting.
is
It is the consensus of the BIA Board of Directors that this project cannot be supported by the BIA for the
following land use and planning reasons:
I' II
(I As proposed,the project becomes an isolated island of retail in the city's overall general plan.
'� • The project would not offer a desirable entry condition for the city.
• Freeway oriented retail is inconsistent with the San Luis Obispo approach to planning.
• San Luis Obispo has historically discouraged freeway retail frontage as evidenced by:
i'
l • Madonna Plaza stores orient away from Hwy 101
• Embassy Suites Hotel creates a buffer between Hwy 101 and the Mall !!
Significant freeway landscaping alongthe entire length of H 101 throughSLO
�i eliminates freeway visible merchandising (one of the most unique stretches of
i freeway through a town in the state)
�I Sufficient retail zoning currently exists in the city to accommodate the proposed uses.
• Very difficult access to or from southbound 101 until the Prado Road interchange is completed.
!i i!
The aesthetic character of the community has historically been a major consideration in zoning as I!
evidenced by existing land uses. The BIA recommends that the Planning Commission carefully consider
the above points when determining a zoning request of this magnitude and consequence. The gateway to a
city is a significant feature for a community as a whole and should reflect the values of its residents above
the formulas used by freeway merchandisers who have little esthetic interest in this unique community.
i cc: City Planning Dept
i City Admn. Dept.
City Council
LI P.O.Bos 1402•San Luis Obispo•CA•93406.805/541.0286•Far 8051781-2647•e-mail:bia@slonet.org
I�
I
5 November 1996
I
TO: City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission li
FROM: Deborah Holle,, $'A Administrator
RE: 40 Prado Road Project(GP/R 7-97, ER 7-95)
VIA: Ron Whisenand
This is to request that the Planning Commission postpone consideration of the above matter until after the
BIA Board of Directors Meeting on 12 November. j
I
Members of the BIA community attended a BIA Executive Committee meeting on 5 November and
expressed concerns about different aspects of the project. In order that the BIA evaluate these concerns j
and offer a position at the Planning Commission level,it is necessary that the entire board take the matter
into consideration. It was understood at the October board meeting that the issue would not be addressed II
until 13 November,and that there would be sufficient time allowed for business owner input and
subsequent board action.
Thank you for your consideration of this request
it
I'
is
II
�I
i
I
i
i
i
�I
P.O.Boz 1402•San Luis Obispo•CA•93406.805/541-0286•Fax 8051781-2647•e-mail:bia@s10net0rg /ff
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates EXHIBIT 7
Management Strategy and Economic Consultants
Fremont Plaza
1250 Peach Street,Suite 61
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Office(805)541-2077
�y Fax(805)541-2117
AECEI • ED
Nov. 1494,
:rrr a ShN uns ae6ao
&am-s rvMWOCWWW
40 Prado Road
Downtown Impacts
Addendum
Restaurant Analysis
Music Stores Impact
Camera Stores Impact
Pet Stores Impact
Prepared for:
The City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Commission
Prepared By
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates
November 8, 1996
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown impact Addendum November 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND..................................................................................1
RESTAURANT IMPACT ANALYSIS.........................................................2
Hometown Buffet Description ..........................................................2
TargetMarkets...........................................................................3
Pricing......................................................................................3
NewEmployment...........................................................................3
Revenues&Sales Tax ...................................................................3
Freeway and Neighborhood Traffic Customer Base.................................3
Downtown Restaurant Market Targets.................................................5
Conclusion.................................................................................6
CAMERA &PHOTOGRAPHIC STORES ....................................................6
RECORD,TAPE&CD STORES................................................................6
DOWNTOWN PET STORES &GROOMING SALONS ...................................8
TABLES
Hometown Buffet Summary.....................................................................2
Hometown Buffet Revenue and Sales Tax .....................................................3
Hwy 101 Madonna Road Interchange Traffic Volume........................................4
Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...................................................................4
Traffic Volume at Intersections at Peak Hour...................................................4
Downtown Restaurants Surveyed ................................................................5
Stephen A. Nukes do Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite BI . San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
BACKGROUND
On November 6, 1996, the San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission requested that
an impact analysis of the proposed Hometown Buffet Restaurant located at 40 Prado Road
be performed to provide the Commission with information on the restaurant and its
potential effects on the downtown. In addition, at that meeting, downtown business
owners representing camera and photographic equipment stores and record and CD retailers
.commented that they were not addressed in the original report. Additionally, follow on
information with regard to the products and services that will be offered at the PetSmart
have come to light.
The following report is designed to provide the Planning Commission with information
on the Hometown Buffet Restaurant, its size, number of employees, target markets,
estimated sales and sales tax revenue. Also the markets for the Hometown Buffet were
compared to markets for downtown restaurants.
The report also looks at the overlap of products that Circuit City offers with regard to
CD and record sales and the impacts that a Circuit City would have on downtown camera
and photographic stores. The overlap of PetSmart product lines with the existing pet stores
and grooming salons was also examined. It should be noted that due to the compressed
time for the preparation of this report, that financial figures for the camera stores, record
stores and pet stores was not available.
Stephen A.Nukes.&Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite B1 San Lads Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 1
/-S�
Prado Road Proper Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
RESTAURANT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Hometown Buffet Description
The Hometown Buffet restaurant is characterized as a family-oriented all-you-can-eat
dining facility that serves lunch and dinner on a daily basis and also serves brunch on
Sundays. The restaurant is catered toward providing customers with convenience,
affordability and unlimited food in a family oriented atmosphere. Unlike a cafeteria-style
restaurant, patrons are served in a buffet style manner. Self service hot and cold stations
provide a broad range of menu items to include make-your-own salads, prepared salads,
soup as well as main entree courses. Dinners include everything for one price including
unlimited drinks and all-you-can-eat desserts. No alcoholic beverages are served.
ore own Buffet Description
Annual Sales $2-$3 million
Size 10,000 sq. ft.
Hours M-Th 11:00-8:30
Fri. &Sat. 11 :oo-9:00
Sun. 8:00-8:30
Seating Capacity 360 seats
Target Markets Primary-Freeway Travelers
Seniors
Families
Regulars
Neighborhood Residents
Nearby Business Employees
Prices:
Sunday Brunch $5.99.
Lunde $5.69
Dinner $7.49
Employees 125
Format All-You-Can-Eat Soup)Uad/Main Entrees
Family Style Atmosphere
No alcoholic beverages are served
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite Bl San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 2
1-S/
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Target Markets
Target markets for the restaurant are primarily highway travelers between Los Angeles
and San Francisco, families, seniors, regulars and neighborhood residents and business
employees. The proposed restaurant will be approximately 10,000 square feet with a
seating capacity of 360.
Pricin
For adults, prices range from$5.99 for breakfast, $5.69 for lunch and$7.49 for dinner
with reduced prices for senior citizens and children under the age of twelve.
New Employment
Approximately 125 people are estimated to be employed by the Hometown Buffet
Restaurant.
Revenues & Sales Tax
Hometown Buffet revenues are estimated at $2 to $3 million in annual sales. Annual
sales tax is estimated at$20,000 to$30,000.
Revenue and Sales Tax
Hometown Buffet
Estimated Annual Sales $2,000,000-$3,000,000
Estimated Annual Sales Tax $20,000-$30,000
Freeway and Neighborhood Traffic
To determine if there is sufficient drive-by traffic to support a restaurant of the size and
volume of a Hometown Buffet, hwy. 101 traffic counts for intersections, interchanges and
roads nearby the Hometown Buffet site were evaluated. Based on Caltran's 1995 traffic
Stephen A.Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite BI ' San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 3
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
volumes, it is estimated that there are 75,000 daily travelers during a peak month passing
the Hwy. 101 and Madonna Road Interchange. On an average day, there are 63,000
average daily travelers with 7,200 daily travelers at the peak hour.
Hwy 101 Madonna Road Interchange
Traffic Volume
Peak Hour 7,200
Peak Month ADT 75,000
Annual ADT 63,000
Source:Cal Trans 1995 Traffic Volumes
On an average daily basis,5,077 travelers travel.along Prado Road between Elks Lane
and S. Higuera and 1,043 travel along Elks Lane from South Higuera to Prado Road.
From Madonna Road to Margarita Ave., 14,742 travelers were estimated to travel along S.
Higuera, with 13,887 travelers estimated to travel S. Higuera from Margarita Avenue to
Prado Road. From Prado Road to Tank Farm Road, 14,048 were estimated to travel S.
Higuera on an average daily basis.
Average Daily Traffic Volume at Peak Hour
Prado Road(between S.Higuera and Elks Ln.) 5,077
Elks Lane(between S.Higuem& Prado Rd.) 1,043
South Higuera(between Madonna Rd.&Margarita Ave) 11,742
South Higuera(between Margarita Ave&Prado Rd.) 13,887
South Higuera(between Prado Rd.&Tank Farm Rd. 14.048
Source:Fehr&Peers
At peak hour, it is estimated that 566 travelers enter the intersection of Prado Road,
Elks Lane and the Hwy. 101 northbound tamp. Daily and peak hour figures for
intersections in the vicinity are noted below.
Traffic Volume at Intersections at Peak Hour
Prado Rd.,Elks Ln.&Hwy 101 Northbound 566
Prado Rd.&S. Higuera St 1,680
S. Higuera St&Margarita Ave 1,124
Madonna Rd.&S. Higuera St. 2,856
S. Higuera St. &South St 2,111
S.Higuera St&Tank Farm Rd. 1,856
Source:Fehr&Peers
Stephen A- Nukes,&Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suire BI San Lzds Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077^�� 4
Prado Road Properr Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Downtown Restaurant Market Targets
The downtown already has significant competition in the food service sector. There are
currently over 71 downtown establishments that serve food. These establishments segment
themselves into coffeehouses, snacks and desserts,deli/sandwich and pizza and restaurants
and saloons. A representative sampling of restaurants downtown was surveyed to
determine their primary markets and the type of services they provide. Business hours for
the sandwich shop category were generally 10 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the exception of
Thursday Farmers' Market nights. Some restaurants that served the breakfast trade were
open at 8:00 am. or before.
Restaurants open for lunch primarily cater to downtown visitors,college students, local
business owners/employees and government employees. Restaurants that open in the
evening indicated that they catered to patrons seeking a finer dining experience and to
college students. None indicated that freeway traffic was part of their prime market. Many
restaurants served alcoholic beverages and noted that these beverages are a major part of
their sales. Hometown Buffet will serve no alcohol including beer or wine.
Downtown Restaurants Surveyed
Angelos
Big Sky Cafe
Suona Tavola
Burrito Wagon Stop
China Bowl
F.McClintocks
Firestone Grill
Fresh Choice
Golden China Chinese
Hudson Grill
Linn'sFruit Bin
Louisa's Place
Mo's Smokehouse
Mothers Tavern
Nothing But the Best
SLO Brewing Co.
Spike's Place,The Creamery
Taco Bell Express
Tic Albertos
Tortilla Flats
Stephen A.Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)5412077 5
1-s1-1
Prado Road Propem Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Conclusion
The Hometown Buffet Restaurant is seeking a different market than that of the
downtown restaurants. High volume will come from freeway travelers. Downtown
patrons are generally seeking a different dining experience than that provided by a
Hometown Buffet.
CAMERA & PHOTOGRAPHIC STORES
There was concern that Circuit City would impact the downtown camera stores. There
are five camera stores and studios that are located in the downtown area.
- Cal Photo
-Jim's Campus Camera
- Larry Jamison Photography
- The Photo Shop
- Photo 101
Circuit City's sales of camera and photographic equipment is limited to video
camcorders only. Circuit City does not sell 35 mm or other non-electronic cameras. None
of the camera stores in the downtown sells camcorders or other video camera equipment
At one time Jim's Campus Camera did sell televisions but has since discontinued that line.
Circuit City should have no direct impact on the downtown camera and photographic
stores.
RECORD. TAPE & CD STORES
There are only three record outlets in all of San Luis Obispo not counting Melodia,
primarily a Spanish language purveyor of CDs and tapes. Two of these record, tape and
CD stores are located in the downtown.
- Boo Boo Records
- Cheap Thrills
Stephen A. Nukes_&Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite BI San lair Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 6
SS
Prado Road Property Prada Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Blue Note Music is also located downtown but sells a very limited number of
specialized CDs and tapes. Their primary emphasis is acoustic string instruments including
guitars, violins and mandolins.
Circuit City does sell CDs and tapes. CD and tape sales at Circuit City represent
approximately 2% - 3% of annual gross sales. The estimates for CD and tape sales of a
Circuit City located at Prado Road are in the $200,000 to $400,000 range annually. This
level of sales is significantly less than that of The Wherehouse located on Madonna Road
across the freeway.
The downtown record and CD stores offer significantly higher levels of service,
expertise and range and selection of offerings than that offered at a Circuit City. Circuit
City's selection of CD's is somewhat limited to popular titles, is totally self-service and is
aimed toward purchasers of home and car stereo systems providing them programming for
their newly acquired equipment. Their CD and tape sales are targeted toward impulse
purchases of owners of new audio equipment. It is believed that the Wherehouse with its
larger sales volume has a greater impact on downtown sales than a Circuit City will.
The issue was also brought up before the Planning Commission that Circuit City uses
their CD sales as a loss leader and because they can offer a lower price will drive the other
record stores out of business. Circuit City has indicated that their average margin on CD
sales is in the 13% - 17% range. This would belie the assumption that they are offering
their CDs at a loss. The market for Circuit City CD sales will be primarily the regional
customers that will come to Circuit City for major electronic purchases. Because of their.
limited selection, they should not have a significant overlap of customers that currently
patronize Boo Boo and Cheap Thrills Records. Those wishing to purchase from a chain
already have access to the Wherehouse.
The expertise that is offered at Cheap Thrills and Boo Boo Records as well as the
ambiance of being downtown have allowed these stores to effectively compete with the
large chain retailers such as The Wherehouse. We expect that because of this expertise and
breadth of selection, that the downtown record, CD and tape retailers will be able to
continue to hold their market
Stephen A. Nukes-&Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite B1 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 / 7
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
DOWNTOWN PET STORES & GROOMING SALONS
In the original report, it was indicated that the PetSmart would have relatively little
impact on the downtown pet stores. At the time the report was written it was our
understanding that PetSmart did not offer grooming or live pet sales. It has since been
found out that PetSmart will indeed offer grooming services,veterinary services,as well as
the sale of fish and birds. It is our understanding that reptiles will not offered at PetSmart.
Because of the overlap of existing services offered by Pampered Pets and the Golden
Paw, PetSmart may have significantly more impact upon these stores than originally
indicated. Because the Golden Paw primarily offers grooming services and has a stable
and exceedingly loyal clientele, they will probably not notice any significant effect from a
PetSmart. Once a pet owner has chosen a groomer, as long as the service satisfactory and
their pet is happy there is very little inclination to change. Price does not seem to be an
issue, as pet owners are far more interested in the care, familiarity and comfort that their pet
will receive by taking them to a familiar grooming location.
Pampered Pets will be impacted far more by a PetSmart than the Golden Paw.
PetSmart will sell fish and birds as does Pampered Pets. In addition, PetSmart will also
sell pet supplies as does Pampered Pets. The keys to lessening the impacts on Pampered
Pets comes from the expertise of the owners, Bob and Paula Davidson. By actively
promoting service and the expertise that comes from the experience of the long time
owners, gives them a potential advantage that may not be available to a new retail clerk at
PetSmart that does not have the experience and service orientation possessed by the
Davidson. This provides an opportunity for Pampered Pets to promote that expertise and
be able to draw people into their store to have question answered to select the right pet and
supplies.
Pampered Pets may potentially have to match prices or become somewhat price
competitive with PetSmart. This can be done while maintaining reasonable margin by
offering quantity deals to customers, allowing the unit price to go down with the more they
purchase. This will allow for a higher margin on small purchases and a lower margin on
larger purchases but more gross sales flawing into the business. Also direct promotion to
Stephen A Nukes-&Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San!leis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 8
1-5�
---- Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
loyal customers is another mitigation that Pampered Pets can use. Capitalizing on the
loyalty of a long time customer base as well as using promotion to attract new customers
can offer mitigation to the effects a PetSmart might have to the downtown store.
Stephen A.Nukes-&Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Lais Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 9
l-;R
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates
Management Strategy and Economic Consultants
1250 Peach Street, Suite B1
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Office(805)541-2077
Fax(805)541-2117
STEPHEN A. NUKES &ASSOCIATES BACKGROUND AND CAPABILITY
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates is a full service management consulting fine
specializing in strategic planning and economic and market research. We have been serving
the Central Coastal Region since 1975. We have provided clients with the Central Coastal
Economic Forecast since 1954. We provide.independent assessments of the growth and
demographic changes taking place in the Central Coastal Region and the strategic effects of
these changes for both businesses and public agencies. We perform a wide variety of
research tailored to individual client needs and develop financial, marketing, or policy
strategies to creatively meet client objectives.
Among the areas we cover are the following:
- Strategic Economic and Marketing Planning
-Economic Forecasting and Analysis Services
-Development Project Feasibility and Impact Studies
-Retail and Demographic Analysis, Market Surveys and Focus Groups
-Management Briefings and Individual Consultations
In all our engagements we are committed to providing clear cut information and
implementable results while meeting critical client time requirements.
Our staff has extensive background in Finance, Accounting, and Marketing Analysis.
We also have the computer resources to provide a range of Financial and Strategic
Analyses, determine the consequences of various options and assist in the selection of the
best strategic course or courses.
Stephen A. Nukes has over 24 years business experience and an M.B.A. Degree in
Finance and Marketing from the UCLA Graduate School of Management. He has worked
for such companies as IBM Corporation, Transamerica Corporation, and taught Finance,
Business, Marketing and Computer Science at California Polytechnic State University in
San Luis Obispo. He has also lectured extensively on Business Financial Strategy,
Organization Strategies, Marketing, Marketing Survey Techniques, and methods to
maximize revenue and overall results.
Stephen A.Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite B1 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077
EXHIBIT 8
Draft Nfiinutes
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1996
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
A special meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on
Wednesday,November 6, 1996 in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Pacheco Elementary School, 165
Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Pat Veesart,Janet Kouralds, Charles Senn,David Jeffrey, Paul Ready,
and Barry Karleskint.
Absent: Mary Whittlesey
Staff
Present: Associate Planner Pam Ricci, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, Community
Development Director Arnold Jonas,Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand,
Principal Transportation Planner Terry Sanville, Traffic Planner Jerry Kenny, and
Finance Director Bill Statler.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
The acceptance of the Minutes was heard as Business Item #1. The agenda was accepted as
amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments made at this time.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 40 Prado Road: GP/R 7-95 and ER 7-9a Request to allow a General Plan Amendment
from Office to General Retail and rezoning from Officer Planned Development (O-PD) to
Retail Commercial with possible Special Considerations combining districts (C-R-S). Also,
evaluation of the environmental review for mapping changes and development of the site with
retail commercial uses; Zelman Development Company, applicant.
Commissioner Senn stated he represents and leases for the owners of the Brickyard. He has no
personal interest in the property. He contacted the City Attorney and discussed the matter. If the
/'00
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 6, 1996
Page 2
applicant has a concern, he will step down. He contacted the applicant and will be participating in
the hearing and not stepping down.
Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and recommended review of the initial study of
environmental impact and approval of the amendments to the City Council, with the addition of the
Special Considerations Overlay Zone, based on findings.
Finance Director Statler presented his economic report and stated the potential long-term impact will
probably minor to the economic activity in the downtown area.
There were no questions asked_of staff at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Victor Montogery, applicants' representative, 3026 S. Higuera, stated this is the completion of a
process that began approximately a year and a half ago. The traffic analysis was completed. The firm
that prepared the traffic analysis was selected because they are the same firm that is going to prepare
the PSR for the City and Caltrans. The economic review was prepared by Steven Nukes. In the past
eight months, they have worked with the City's Engineering Dept. relative to circulation concerns.
They have resolved such things as the driveway alignments along Prado Rd., the use of temporary
and then permanent improvements because the grade is going to change when the overpass is
constructed, a bicycle and pedestrian bridge to cross San Luis Creek, and the construction of a new
street to link Prado Road to Elks Lane on a different alignment.
Mr. Montgomery stated in terms of commitments from tenants, there are signed letters of intent from
all four that are listed in the economic analysis. One of the first things Mr. Nukes was asked to do
in looking at these tenants was determine if they could go downtown. The conclusion was there isn't
sufficient land area or parking downtown for stores this size.
Mr.Montgomery stated they have reviewed the staff report and agree with the recommendations of
staff to add the S designation to the zoning. They have reviewed the recommended list of mitigation
measures and they are acceptable.
Commissioner Senn asked what the objections are to a C-S-S Zone.
Mr. Montgomery stated if they could accommodate the same tenants, probably none. They would
want to be sure that in fact can happen and they don't run into policy problems with the General Plan
with these particular types of tenants because they anticipate long-term leases. They chose the C-R
because with this designation there is no question they're allowable.
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 6, 1996
Page 3
Commissioner Ready asked, with respect to the analysis of the proposed uses, why there was no
consideration as to the 10,000 square foot restaurant.
Mr.Nukes stated when they were asked to review this, they spent a significant amount of time with
Council Members and they had some concerns about the effects on the downtown. At the time they
started this nine months ago the restaurant was not known. They feel the restaurant is going to be
more of a regional, all you can eat buffet.
Debra Holley,BIA administrator, requested a continuance. Their board obtained a copy of the report
at its last meeting. There are concerns of several members in the downtown who may be impacted.
They haven't had enough time to digest all the material in the staff report and the study. Because the
study did leave out the restaurant, there were also concerns from people who own restaurants. The
BIA will have another meeting to go over the information. The impact on the downtown will be
greater than what is discussed in the report. She requested a continuance to allow downtown
businesses time to review the reports.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the sole concern is for the restaurant and not the other businesses.
Ms. Holley stated many businesses could be impacted.
Richard Farris, 1477 Oceanaire, has been a retailer in San Luis for over 30 years, operating Cheap
Thrill Recycled Records on Higuera and has operated the store in Santa Maria for 12 years. If he
were a developer he would be pleased with Mr. Nukes'report. The report seems more fantasy than
based on numbers in this community. They are claiming$25,000,000 in sales from this project. He
feels this figure is three times the realistic projection this center would be able to generate. Staff has
accepted that these are new sales. This report fails to notice records stores in town have a major
stake in this. Circuit City uses records and CDs as loss leaders and use it at an unfair advantage
against other stereo stores. This unfair advantage is impossible for local retailers to compete with.
Mr. Farris stated the City made Madonna Plaza face into the wind so it wouldn't be seen from the
freeway. Now he's heard it's made it this far and nobody is even concerned that we're giving the most
primary access to chain box retailers. The Commission should not accept that they will create new
sales out of thin air. There are currently four record stores in town and there is a very competitive
market. If businesses are destroyed, they might never come back to the downtown. His business
wasn't even identified as a concerned store and he wasn't notified. This location offers a strategic
economic advantage over all retailers countywide. Over half of Circuit City's sales will come from
existing stores.
Mr.Farris doesn't agree with the leakage figures in the report and doesn't feel they can be supported.
The report concludes that this will all be new sales taxes to the City. Three stores cannot generate
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting NEnutes
November 6, 1996
Page 4
this kind of volume. For a store to do $13,500,000, it's got to do on the average$2,777 dollars an
hour. None of the numbers in these reports or traffic analysis makes sense. The business community
hardly knows about this proposal. He would like to see a report that reflects the real impacts. The
pet stores in town will be impacted. For every job that is claimed to be created, three will be
destroyed. The only business that won't destroy jobs is perhaps the restaurant. He hopes the
Commission looks at this hard and rejects the Nukes' report. This proposal is also located in a
100-year flood plain.
John Larks, 1957 Partridge Dr., owns Mission Office Products. He stated he wasn't intimidated by
Staples and wouldn't be intimidated by an Office Max either. There are nine businesses listed in the
report and Tim's Campus Cameras,Marianne's Hallmark, et cetera are not listed. There was an article
in the paper that said nine businesses would be affected that generate $4,000,000 a year in sales.
Mission Office Products generates in excess of 40% of that number, which leaves eight other
businesses would be doing slightly less than $300,000 a year. These businesses won't be able to
survive. The report states downtown can mitigate the box stores by great customer service and
staying open We. Price perception is very important is his industry. These box stores will advertise
great prices backed by national advertising. Almost 50% of the independent office products dealers
across the U.S. are going out of business with the introduction of box office products stores.
Something like this in San Luis would be disastrous to downtown. These businesses reinvest their
profits out of town and don't support local suppliers. He is not a non-growth person and feels we
need growth here. San Luis is very special and doesn't need a freeway eyesore.
Eric Bradford, 60 Casa St., is an economics student and employee of Audio Ecstasy and former
employee of The Good Guys. Leakage is an erroneous term used in the report. There are no
appliance stores, camera shops, or record stores mentioned in the impact study. These kinds of stores
would be impacted. The marginal tax revenue is going to be nominal and is going to have a large
effect on downtown stores which could lead to probable closures. If the downtown businesses
actually realized what is happening, there would probable be more in attendance. He believes this is
a B or C class store and the numbers appear to be A class stores. There are commuters counted in
the population base. Commuters do not buy durable products. They usually purchase these in the
locations where they live. Money will be leaving and not be being turned over in the city. The basic
business level impact will be a lot more that the 1% projected and will have a very harsh impact on
the downtown. Monterey is similar to San Luis and has done a excellent job maintaining its borders
to large box-type stores. It is important to maintain a small town environment. A lot of tourists visit
San Luis and the lessened value of the tourism trade should be considered in the report. Having
worked for The Good Guys, he feels most of the figures in the report are erroneous.
Kathleen McFadden, 633 Lawrence Dr., stated she is new to town. She opened a new camera store
called Photography 101. She chose this town because it seems like a nice community to live in. Her
business is not mentioned in the report and neither are the other photo shops. She would be
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 6, 1996
Page 5
impacted. The City shouldn't get excited over the tax dollars because the downtown will be impacted
and possibly destroyed.
Mike Helper,633 Lawrence Dr., is the co-owner of Photography 101. He asked for a continuance.
He feels this project will impact his business as well others in the downtown who have not been
notified. Businesses with big bucks put in stores that can operate at a deficit for a period of time to
eliminate competition before gradually raising prices. This leaves downtown business districts barren.
Walmart in Paso Robles has created a ghost town of the downtown. San Luis maintains a personality
ofits own. The downtown district has spent a lot of time and effort creating a wonderful place and
he would hate to see it disintegrated over something like this. He requested a continuance so more
store owners can look at their personal impacts and address this issue.
Christine Mulholland, San Luis Obispo resident, concurs with the first speaker. The new sales
concept is unbelievable. A local book store in town took a 30% hit when Barnes and Noble opened
and has yet to recover. She doesn't like the idea of this generic development happening at the
gateway to our city. She asked the Commission to uphold the City's General Plan. We go through
years of public hearings to establish land use elements and circulation elements. We make long-term
plans for the next 20 years. She sees the General Plan as more than just brief vision and feels it is
closer to our constitution. Changes to the General Plan should be made when we can show benefits
to the general community. Changes to the General Plan should not be made for the benefit of a few
investors or developers. Changes to the General Plan are for the greater good of our community.
The greater good does not he necessarily with the bottom line of$250,000 more in sales tax. There
are way too many tradeoffs with this project to gain that bottom line. She urged the Commission to
not change the General Plan and not to rezone this land.
Ray Hanson, 150 Pismo St., works in the retail community. He has in the past worked in the pet
industry as the manager of a locally owned pet store. He operates these stores in cities similar in size
and demographics to San Luis. He has seen the devastation of pet stores by large pet box stores
moving in. The effects of trying to compete with a chain is felt within the first competing quarter of
the year. It doesn't wait to happen. It happens immediately. The area that dies off is directly related
to the proximity of quick access to a major thoroughfare. This is what will happen on Prado Rd. with
the rezoning they want to do now. This will create more traffic for the whole county. We've been
worried about the effects commuters have and causing unnecessary pollution. Unless there is a large
population growth,there are no new consumers. This area is already served by pet stores. We have
a city concerned with a need to limit the growth of an L.A. sprawl, but were willing to let visitors
see a box store parking lot at the gateway to town. When Madonna Plaza was designed, it was
designed to face into the wind. Local retailers keep their money generated within the community.
Box stores leak their vital earnings to their corporate headquarters. He urged the Commission to
deny this project.
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 6, 1996
Page 6
Mr. Montgomery stated the site is presently zoned Office Planned Development and planned for
125,000 square feet of office and retail space. The retail space is limited. The total square footage
ofthe project that is already approved is 125,000 square feet, as opposed to approximately 85,000
square feet for this project.
Mr. Montgomery stated Circuit City sells only video cameras. They don't sell still cameras.
Mr. Montgomery stated as a resident and business owner in the community, he doesn't have a
franchise to operate an architectural business. Competition is town in tough and you have to deal
with it. As a business owner you've got to be prepared to deal with it. There have been many, many
businesses open since they opened RRM 22 years ago. You have to adapt and learn how to compete.
If you picture these stores not in San Luis Obispo, but you picture them in Arroyo Grande, is the
situation going to be any different relative to the downtown?
Mr. Montgomery offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Kourakis asked where the new sales will be generated from.
Mr. Montgomery stated the Nukes'report was looked at by the City's own economic consultants.
There is what is called leakage and this is sales from customers in San Luis Obispo County driving
to Santa Maria to buy their goods. Those dollars are not being spent here. Their money would be
spent in this city if they didn't go to Santa Maria to spend those dollars. That's the new sales that are
being captured.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMIVIISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Jeffrey would like to hear from the BIA This is an important decision for the city and
it is a voice the Commission needs to hear from. He would be willing to postpone a decision or
discussion until there is some input from the BIA.
Commissioner Jeffrey made a motion to continue this item to November 13, 1996. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Veesart.
Commissioner Ready stated Council previously asked the applicant to include in their study a listing
of possible tenants and their impacts. He would be interested in the applicants including in their
economic study the 10,000 square foot restaurant.
Mr. Montgomery stated they will have Mr. Nukes prepare an addendum to his report for review.
1-�
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 6, 1996
Page 7
Commissioner Jeffrey would like a definitive description of the restaurant proposal to see how it
could compete with some of the restaurants that are downtown.
Commissioner Ready asked if recently passed Prop. 218 has any effect on the ability of the City to
affect the assessment district with respect to the freeway overpass.
Economic Director Kenny stated if the property owners agree, it's not a problem. There is a
condition addressing this.
Commissioner Kourakis asked staff for a short written statement addressing Prop. 218.
AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Veesart, Ready, Senn, Kourakis, and Chairman Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey
The motion passed.
2. 1855 Prefumo Canyon Road: Pub 'c meeting to discuss the draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) prepared for the Pre mo Creek Homes development which will include an
Annexation, General Plan Amend ent, Prezoning, and development of a 38 lot residential
subdivision.
Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff repo nd recommended the Commission take public
testimony and provide input to City and consultant st on any additional analysis or date needed to
adequately evaluate environmental issue areas.
John Larson, Senior Scientist, PRA Group, 1190 M sh St., stated he is before the Commission on
behalf of the team that prepared the Draft EIR. Larson described the process followed under
CEQA
Mr. Larson stated you can classify all of a different environmental effects into one of three
categories. The first category are those imp s which are significant and unavoidable even after you
apply all the possible mitigation and design easures to reduce effects. These topics involve impacts
that still surpass thresholds of significance. For this particular project, they reached this conclusion
in the matter of aesthetics and biological res rces.
l-dd
Draft Minutes
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, NOVEMBER 13, 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, NOVEMBER 13, 1996 in the Community Room of the City/County Library, 995
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Pat Veesart, Janet Kourakis, Charles Senn, Mary Whittlesey, Paul
Ready, David Jeffrey, and Barry Karleskint.
Absent: None
Staff
Present: Associate Planner Pam Ricci, Long-Range Planning Manager John Mandeville,
Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, Community Development Director
Arnold Jonas, and A] Cablay and Jerry Kenny from Public Works.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
The Commission agreed to hear Item #5 before Hearing Item #1. The agenda was accepted as
amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments made at this time.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
5. Staff
A. Agenda:
Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the agenda forecast for the meeting of
December 11, 1996.
Draft Mmutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 40 Prado Road: GP/R and ER 7-95: Request to allow General Plan Amendment from
Office to General Retail and Rezoning from Office Planned Development (O-PD)to Retail
Commercial with possible Special Considerations combining districts (C-R-S). Also
evaluation of the environmental review for mapping changes and development of the site with
retail commercial uses; Zelman Development Company, applicant.
Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and went over the memo from the BIA with the
Commission.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked the projected time for the overpass.
Supervising Engineer Kenny, replied 5-10 years.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the at the drive-in will be developed.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated it won't be developed until the area is studied
further. This is mentioned in the General Plan.
There were no further questions asked of staff at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Victor Montgomery, applicants'representative, came forward and reserved his statements to the end
of the public comment session.
Steve Nukes, applicants' representative, 1250 Peach St., stated they were asked to focus their
economic report primarily on the downtown. Mr. Nukes displayed overheads to the Commission.
Mr.Nukes stated one of the key issues with regard to overall impacts of the project is, whether there
is enough business out there to support it. It is key in looking at a project of this sort that it is
regional and the actual target market area for this project extends out to a 30 mile ring and includes
240,000 people.
Mr. Nukes stated the annual revenues from the Office Max, Circuit City, Pets Mart, and the
Hometown Buffet are $28,000,000 and approximately 250 jobs will be created. The sales tax
revenue from the project will be approximately$280,000.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 3
Mr.Nukes states the city leaks about$42,000,000 annually to Santa Maria. When the Town Center
Mall opened, there was a significant drop in retail sales within San Luis Obispo.
Mr. Nukes stated there were approximately 12 downtown businesses looked at out of the 534
members of the BIA. An issue was brought up with regards to camera stores and whether they would
be impacted. They did survey each of the camera stores downtown and compared the product mix
with that of Circuit City. Circuit City only carries video cameras. The camera stores are really not
an issue.
Mr. Nukes stated overall downtown retail sales are estimated at $107,000,000 last year and they
estimate the impacts at approximately$4,000,000, ranging from .4%to 1.7%.
Mr.Nukes stated 20/o-3%of Circuit City's sales are from records or tapes. Circuit City will generate
approximately $200,000 to $400,000. This is significantly less than the sales generated by the
Warehouse right now. Their overall impact on the market is not going to be large. Their CD sales
are directed towards those who have purchased sound systems. They have a very limited selection
of CDs and it is self service. They anticipate their market will be regional shoppers that are now
going to patronize the Circuit City here versus Santa Maria.
Mr.Nukes stated they were asked by the Planning Commission to address the issue of the restaurant.
It is a Hometown Buffet with annual sales would be in the $29000,000-$3,000,000 range. The
concept of the restaurant is all you can eat. The Hometown Buffet is a full-service buffet restaurant
and is open for lunch, dinner, and Sunday brunch. The restaurant will seat 360. They plan to
employing 125 people, with 30°/o-40% full-time positions. They do not sell alcohol.
Mr.Nukes stated they looked at downtown restaurants and there are 71 listed by the BIA. In talking
with downtown restaurants, none of them indicated freeway traffic as a significant portion of their
target markets.
Mr.Nukes sees more expansion of overall San Luis Obispo business because of a project such as this
versus a diminution of business by this project. There will be a significant potential for niche
marketing.
Mr.Nukes stated their original understanding at the start of the report was that Pets Mart primarily
was a purveyor of supplies and didn't deal in pets or services. They have since found out that they
do indeed offer the total pet experience. They sell birds, fish, supplies and provide pet grooming and
veterinarian services. In looking at the two stores downtown, Pampered Pets and the Golden Paw
generally are in relatively good positions. As long as the level of service remains, there is very little
inclination to change groomers. Product lines will match very closely to Pets Mart's. Pets Mart has
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 4
been able to generate significantly more of an awareness among pet consumers as to what is available.
Aggressive marketing and promotion can help to mitigate any impacts.
Mr. Nukes offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked how the leakage figure was calculated.
Mr.Nukes replied it is calculated on per capita sales. If the amounts spent in San Luis Obispo were
the same per person as the amounts spent in Santa Maria, we would have$42,000,000 more sales
within San Luis Obispo.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked what these particular stores are looking for in terms of land use.
Mr.Nukes stated the economic report is primarily a policy issue that is going to be dealt with by the
Council. These stores are looking for freeway access, availability of parking, and the availability of
having the size necessary to support their merchandise.
Mr.Nukes stated if this project were denied, more than likely one of these stores would locate within
12-14 mins. of downtown San Luis Obispo.
Commissioner Whittlesey added a restaurant which seats 360 translates into approximately 100-120
cars.
Mr. Nukes hasn't had an opportunity to review the parking.
Commissioner Veesart asked what effect Office Max would have on Staples.
Mr. Nukes has not looked at this directly. They would be more than happy to follow up with the
Commission and look at this. Obviously there will be some impact because they both are going after
the same market. There probably is enough market for the office products within the county as a
whole.
Commissioner Veesart feels the slices of the pie for office products are getting increasingly small.
He is concerned this is going to put some businesses out.
Mr.Nukes feels the impact of Office Max may be more primarily on Staples than others like Mission.
Development Review Manager Whisenand reminded the Commission it needs to be focusing on the
appropriateness of this area for retail use.
�- 70
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 5
Mr.Montgomery displayed an overhead of the General Plan Map of this area and stated he does not
believe the Commission could make the reasonable finding this fhi isolated retail site since it's
separated by about 150'across the freeway. is
Mr. Montgomery displayed an overhead and stated there has been some question about whether or
not the project would be isolated in the sense of circulation. He showed the Prado Rd. connection
that is proposed from the overpass to Madonna Rd. At the time the Dalidio project and the overpass
happens,there will be a connection from Prado to Madonna and that's a part of the City's Circulation
Element.
Mr. Montgomery displayed an overhead of the existing office project planned development that's been
approved. He went over the heights of the proposed buildings. This proposed project is anticipated
to top out at 32'-35'. The size of the approved office project is 121,000 plus sf. This proposed
project, including the restaurant, is approximately 85,000 sf.
Mr.Montgomery displayed an overheads of the city entry. On the right-hand side of the highway is
the sewage settlement pond,bus barn, corp. yard, and an abandoned gas station on the site itself. On
the left side of the highway as you go north is Denny's, the Auto Club, Hobbies, a car dealership, the
Border Patrol Office, the mall, and the Embassy Suites. This site does not exist in an isolated
aesthetic vacuum as you go along the freeway. The freeway is not heavily landscaped and Madonna
Plazas well as other business are clearly visible. The context of this site is in a developed area of the
City-
Debra
ityDebra Holley, 1108 Garden St., BIA administrator, thanked the Commission for the continuance.
It gave the BIA more time to receive input from businesses. They had a meeting Sat. morning and
there were quite a few people in attendance. The BIA board distributed a memo earlier. They
support the points made in their memo. The freeway interchange is 5-10 years off and they have
traffic related questions on freeway entry headed south. The BINS memo is valid and needs to be
considered. Historically, the BIA doesn't support project outside the downtown. In light of the
numbers of businesses who approached the BIA with concerns, they wrote and stand by their
position. Twelve businesses out of 544 stand to be impacted.
Commissioner Senn asked Ms. Holley to explain the comment relative to supporting projects outside
the downtown.
Ms. Holley stated in the past when other projects like the mall have been proposed and developed,
the BIA was in opposition. She feels more than 12 business will be affected.
Commissioner Senn asked how many members are in the BIA.
l - 7/
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 6
Ms. Holley replied 650 businesses.
Commissioner Senn asked how many people were present at their meeting on Sat.
Ms. Holley answered approximately 22.
Rick Manners,Circuit City representative, stated large retailers typically look for sites with excellent
freeway visibility. Their real estate committee reviewed this site, and even though site access may
not be optimum, they see it as a very good site.
Mr. Manners stated the projection in sales for this store is estimated between $12,000,000 and
$14,000,000 per year. He supports the numbers used in the Nukes report.
Mr.Mannas stated their total sales of CDs is in the 3% category. Included in this percentage is the
sales of software.
Mr. Manners stated a store this size will hire approximately 40 people from the region. They will be
full-time,permanent positions. They employed local contractors to construct the Santa Maria store
and they anticipate the same in San Luis.
Mr. Manners stated for advertising, this store is projected to spend about $265,000 per year.
Commission Jeffrey asked if there is a projected lifetime for a Circuit City.
W. Manners replied typical leases range from 10-40 years.
Commissioner Veesart asked if stores are closing in other locations.
Mr. Manners answered not in this region.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if they are placing visibility over freeway accessibility.
Mr. Manners replied yes.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked what makes this site more appealing than Madonna or Dalidio.
Mr. Manners stated they looked at Madonna Plaza and weren't able to put the project together. This
forced them to look for other locations. He feels the Dalidio project probably won't happen for 5-10
years.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 7
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if this was deemed a good site because it was immediate, meets the
visibility and long-term aspects and access should be met by an interchange.
Mr. Manners replied yes.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if the City was involved in any of the discussions with Madonna.
Mr. Manners answered not that he is aware of.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the City was involved in the meetings with Circuit
City on a proposal to redevelop a portion of Madonna Plaza. The Community Development
Department hasn't been involved in the discussions with the mall owners.
Rick Bradford, 60 Casa, #22, is an employee of Audio Ecstasy and a Cal Poly student. He stated
there was a comment at the last meeting that competition is healthy. Circuit City is able to come into
most areas at cost for long periods of time because they are sustained by their other stores. They
drive most of the competition out of the area.
Mr. Bradford doesn't see placing this project in Arroyo Grande as viable. Santa Maria already has
a Circuit City and it's not very far away.
Mr.Bradford has worked for The Good Guys for many years and has seen many Circuit Cities close.
When they do close, they usually have killed the most of the other businesses.
Mr. Bradford stated the population numbers seem to be exaggerated. Commuters don't buy durable
goods when they commute. He looked through four economic books and couldn't find the term
"leakage." He doesn't see a big marginal tax increase with the downtown being effected as it probably
will be. Circuit City pulls people away from the downtown area. The turnover of money and the
velocity of money will hurt the economy in this area. Most of the money will go to the East Coast
or other stores. If this is approved,it will open the door for other box stores to come in. He doesn't
view this as slow growth. Half the market is already saturated with enough electronic stores and
Staples.
Mr.Bradford stated that the Madonna is practically a dying area as it is. This location in relation to
Madonna Plaza is erroneous and makes no sense.
Gregory Kraus, 9650 Los(Inaudible), Atascadero, deals a lot with small business owners as a part
of his work He feels the discussion hasn't been limited to land use. Many businesses in downtown
would welcome new business. Parking is an issue business owners have to deal with when located
downtown. It is difficult to compete with someone who designates their own parking area with a pit
�- ?3
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 8
stop offthe freeway,versus the downtown area. He doesn't believe the ARC has the final say on the
aesthetics one way or the other. He didn't hear Mr. Nukes object to the job loss estimate. He feels
the local business community would welcome all these businesses in the local downtown area if they
would be willing to deal with limited hours, parking, signage, options for configuration, exposure,
and access. Any additional foot traffic the local small business community gains by Circuit City being
located downtown would be welcomed with open arms.
Ray Hanson, 150 Pismo St., stated last week an applicants'representative said they have no franchise
on what development goes into our retail expansion. Mr. Hanson stated we do and it's the zoning
ordinances for our cities, as derived by a general plan. Retail comes into this area knowing that a
major concern for retail is situated in the downtown corridor. Staff reported this project is not
specifically in retail areas, but is located directly to it. He doesn't see how this project is directly
between the two areas, but they are adjacent if the area were to continue to grow. The phrase
"around these areas"has been given a rather lose interpretation. When the General Plan was drawn,
there was no intention of Prado Rd. being around either of these areas. The box stores that face 101
provide advertising to the traffic on 101. This was deemed to be inconsistent with the General Plan
when Madonna was built. These box stores will have maximum advertising facing 101. There seems
to be a lot of empty space at Madonna, the Central Coast Mall, and the Brickyard. He asked why
are we changing the General Plan to accommodate another new retail area. We should be concerned
about filling the square footage that we have now. San Luis has made decisions not to be an
exit-heavy strip mall community. Our projected General Plan goals are in direct conflict with this
application for rezoning. Our goal as a community is to provide an enhanced shopping experience
with a controlled growth and use of our downtown area. We do not want to be a retail rest stop
along 101. It is in our best interest to comply with our existing General Plan and deny the rezoning
of this project.
Michael Helper, 633 A Lawrence Dr., stated this is not an economic discussion. It's a discussion on
the land use and what the land use is going to be. Right now we've got a situation where we have
to consider the uses of the property. Does the change in zoning benefit the community? Does it
answer traffic concerns? Does it create an unsupported sales mode? An overpass may be 5-10 years
in the future,but this zoning is today. Once the zoning is changed and a building goes in, there will
be little control over what happens next. San Luis is half way between Los Angeles and San
Francisco and has a lot of potential for growth. Once the property is zoned commercial the property
will be gone. There is a lot of inventory of commercial property. The Nukes report is not relevant
to what is happening this evening. The report was sponsored and written by the developer. It was
not commissioned by the Council or Commission. We shouldn't assume that it's an unbiased report.
We don't know where the information is coming from and we have to look into this. The decision
made tonight will have long-term effects on this community. He questions the leakage to Santa
Maria.
Draft Mmutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 9
Sally Miner, 3500 Bullock Ln., #21, stated she and several people in her mobile home park are
against the rezone. Changing the zoning and not having office would curtail their visions for their
neighborhood.
Elana Ing(Inaudible), 2057 King St., is a local real estate broker. The General Plan calls for office
space in this area. We have enough retail space that is not being utilized. Office space in San Luis
is hard to find and it is needed more than more retail. The jobs that are provided in offices utilize the
high education levels we have at the Cal Poly. The impact of cars will be heavy on this particular
area.
Mike Stanton, 777 Evans Rd., stated he has no problem with these types of stores coming to town,
but he is opposed to them being out along the freeway. He would like to see them located where
other retail is now. He feels the City yard and the holding tanks are fairly well landscaped and
unnoticeable. Putting these stores on the freeway encourages hit-and-run shopping. These stores
could be in a better location. Traffic in this area will be impacted. These stores will create a lot of
car trips in and out of this area and without an overpass it will be a nightmare. The existing structures
along the freeway were designed to face away. San Luis does not want to become like Santa Maria
with these big box stores along the freeway. At some point the drive-in will change and it is adjacent
to this property. It is only natural that if this area turns into retail, so will the drive-in. Referring to
the pet stores, he stated businesses need new customers to survive.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked Mr. Stanton how often and when he drives in this area.
Mr. Stanton drives on this road several times a day, mostly at 6:15 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked his average wait time at the signals at Madonna and Tank Farm.
Mr. Stanton replied at Madonna he can wait 1-2 mins. He feels this area will be greatly impacted by
the traffic.
Richard Farris, 1477 Oceanaire, prepared the report analysis and comments regarding rezoning of
Prado Rd. and 101 big box retailers. He feels the Nukes report throughout is a twisted bit of data.
The employment figures are regional and the net employment loss isn't limited to the city. This report
is skewed and it's hard to understand why it's gotten this far. Local businesses will not be able to
compete with $265,000 advertising campaigns. These stores will have a freeway frontage and
massive ad campaigns. The freeway is a divider between this project and other retail. Mr. Farris
cited LUE Police 3.1.3. The Nukes report doesn't include the entire town and they haven't pursued
whether or not they could develop the existing areas. The report should be more in-depth, larger,
and have believable figures relative to the impact on the local economy. What makes our town
different is a lack of this kind of store. This is changing our LUE to give them an economic edge that
1-7.5
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 10
nobody else in the city has. The project is not needed in terms of retail space or for any other need
of this community. He feels this conflicts with the LUE and the information presented does not
satisfy the requirements mentioned in the LUE.
Mr.Manners stated Circuit City does not sell CDs as a loss leader. They do have sales related to car
stereo sales. As a category, they are not loss leaders.
Commissioner Whittlesey reminded Mr. Manners the Commission is addressing a land use decision.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariners Cove, stated this piece of property has an interesting history. In looking
at the land use issue,we realty need to look way beyond this particular site. The drive-in in the future
will become something else. There is also property behind this site which needs to be addressed. The
Commission needs to look at this whole area. This will hurt a lot of businesses. The orientation of
buildings need to be looked at as well. He believes this site is probably much better for retail than it
is for office.
Daniel Wescot, 2250 King, is thankful for the report because it was discovered there is a lot of
business to be had in the community. He doesn't feel this is the best way to serve our community.
He suggested promoting downtown.
Ben Refiling,President of Zelman Development Co., feels Mr. Nukes has been unfairly challenged this
evening. Mr. Nukes created what was requested by staff, and that is a study of the downtown
corridor. Mr. Nukes has been working with City staff all along.
Mr. Reiling asked the Commission not to do to this site what was done to Madonna Plaza and the
mall. Both sites are a horrible failure.
Mr. Refiling displayed an overhead and stated this site is situated where retailers want to be. Retailers
do want freeway visibility and to want to be successful. There are other sites such as the Woodlands,
Target center,Dove Creep and Arroyo Grande that are properly zoned. They are freeway oriented
sites with freeway access into the properties that can accommodate these kinds of users. If the
community's desire is to not have this kind of retail, they do have other options to go to. This will
lead to the shopping population's loss.
Mr. Reiling offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked what specifically has made Madonna Plaza unsuccessful.
Mr. Reiling stated basically retailing has changed dramaticallyin the last 10 years. There is a
progression towards mega region malls. A typical successful mall today has a minimum of four
�- 76
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 11
anchors. They need the interaction between them. What they are talking about is mall that is a
destination that is regional. People who will shop here will come from the entire county. There is
a.high likelihood that while these shoppers are here they will wonder into town. There are some
positive carry overs too. In developing these centers,the retailers want visibility, access and parking.
These are key issues.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COA0flSSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner. Veesart stated that while tonight we are looking at a land use decision, what the
Commission is being asked to do is approve a zoning change and amendment to the General Plan.
He considers general plan amendments to be fairly extraordinary. In order to make this decision, the
Commission has to make a determination that this is in the best interest of the entire community. The
testimony received this evening regarding the economic impact, health of the downtown, quality of
life in San Luis Obispo was all relevant to the issue to this land use decision. He is appreciative to
everyone who testified and expressed concerns. This is helpful in making the decision as to whether
or not this amendment is in the best interest of the community.
Commissioner Veesart complimented the applicant for the extraordinary amount and quality of
information they provided. They have done their homework and put a great deal of effort in to
bringing this before the Commission.
Commissioner Veesart is not convinced that this general plan amendment is in the best interest of the
community. He feels this project is not in compliance with LUE 3.1.2 or 3.1.3. It is not in the area
ofthe intersection of Madonna Rd. and Highway 101. It is not in the area around 101 and LOVR
Until the Prado Rd. interchange is built and functional, one could not very well make the argument
that it is connected with the existing retail area on the other side of the freeway. He doesn't believe
all the economic impacts for the entire city have been looked at. He doesn4 believe this complies with
3.1.3. There is a very good relationship with the businesses in the downtown. There is competition,
but there is also a relationship that has created a healthy downtown. He is not convinced there is
going to be this kind of interaction at this site with this kind of development. He will not support the
project based on LUE Policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.3.
Commissioner Veesart moved to recommend to the Council the denial of the zoning change based
upon noncompliance with LUE Policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Whittlesey.
Com**iissioner Whittlesey concurred with Commissioner Veesart's comments. She had been a retailer
downtown. She is troubled when she looks at a project like this because you ask yourself what can
1-77
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 12
be done. While she knows that competition is not the determining factor, she feels that we need to
level the playing field as much as possible. She doesn't feel this is the right place for retail and cannot
support this request. She is not against the specific stores in this project, but is against the location
and feels the land use is not appropriate. She would like to see some action at the Madonna Plaza.
Retail in this area would generate more car trips and there would be traffic impacts before the
overpass is complete.
Commissioner Jeffrey thanked everyone for their participation. In terns of would this be a suitable
area for retail, he agrees with staff on 3.1.2 and feels in this regard that the requirement has not-been
met. With regard to 3.1.3, he feels the LUE is lacking. It doesn't give any quantifiable criteria for
looking at this proposal. He also stated his concern with LUE Policy 8.6 In looking at the sequence,
he feels the intent of this section was not exclusively for the drive-in theater area. It also implied to
the area in question. The plans for development of the interchange in 5-10 years dose not seem to
mitigate potential problems that we have with our Circulation Element. For these reasons, he would
be against recommending approval to the City. Until the Circulation Element and circulation
mitigation can be really clarified, he cannot support this project.
Commissioner Ready concurs with Commissioner Jeffrey. He has a problem with respect to the
interchange and the 5-10 year projection. Whatever project is there will evolve from an isolated retail
center to a portion of something that's across the freeway. He is concerned about the interchange.
He feels it is inappropriate to really consider, from a planning standpoint, the economic impact that
the various businesses will have on local businesses and on concerns of stifling competition. It is
inappropriate to make a decision based on the amount of new taxes this project will generate for our
City. These are not considerations and shouldn't be involved in the process. He doesn't have any
problems with the proposed stores in areas that are appropriately designated under the existing
planning documents for construction. He cannot support this project.
Commissioner Kourakis agrees with the comments of the Commission Ready. She feels we need to
look at the General Plan and the zoning pattern. We need to look at the retail pattern and the office
pattern in the General Plan. If the Commission were going to recommend support, she was going
to suggest that the general retail pattem and office pattern in the General Plan be looked at again.
Four years ago when the General Plan was adopted, we felt strongly that this office space was
needed. On certain tracks, economics are a very important land use decision. We are concerned and
our General Plan is concerned with maintaining the viability of retail districts in the City of San Luis.
We have always had a commitment to maintaining the downtown. This really depends on making
sure that there is a critical mass of economic retail activities that support and enhance each other. She
feels that economics is in the purview of the Commission. The comment of not wanting to become
another retail stop on 101 is an effective way of saying that land use patterns, General Plan patterns
are indeed concerned with city entry conditions. She feels that entry conditions are more than ARC
concerns.
/-7b
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 13
Commissioner Senn stated it has been difficult to keep focused solely on the land issue. He
aclmowledges that in the event there is not a considerable location in San Luis Obispo, there will be
a Circuit City in Atascadero or Arroyo Grande and our people are going to drive there.
Commissioner Senn spent a lot of time with the General Plan for guidance in trying to weigh and
balance the issues. The gist of what the General Plan says are two things that weigh heavily in favor
of doing this. Number one is that we're supposed to provide goods and services for people here if
it's consistent with our goals. The second that is weighed heavily in favor is that the General Plan
addresses the question that says that we're supposed to serve as the county retail hub.
The three things that weigh against this is where we're supposed to focus retail, LUE 3.1.3, and 8.6.
He does not believe the Commission can find that this project could be consistent with that language
in the General Plan.
Commissioner Senn stated when the office project came to the City a few years ago, it came in the
sense that we really have a shortage of office-zoned land inventory. He is concerned that if this is
converted to retail at this site, we then will not be in a position to have adequate inventory of office
space. For the purposes stated in General Plan 8.6, he is not supportive of this project.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated 8.6 doesn't apply this piece of property.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated the contention is yes, this was zoned planned office, but the property
adjacent was being viewed as a potential development site in the future. And because of this, it was
looked at in a little bit different light than this particular office planned development. The intent
would be same as on this other parcel. We want to safeguard and make sure that we have met the
needs of our Circulation Element.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated that policy 8-6 specifically relates to a 25-acre piece
of property shown on the General Plan map as a special design area. It does not include this piece
of property. He cautioned the Commission on using this policy as justification.
Commissioner Kourakis noted that 8.6 is not a part of the motion.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated with regard to the General Plan, we do have a tri-polar concept and
the office use is included. She is supportive of this concept and included this in her reasoning.
Commissioner Senn believes this piece of property can justifiably be argued as being part of the land
that is viewed as being part of the general retail area, but not until the freeway interchange is
completed.
��79
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
November 13, 1996
Page 14
Chairman Karleskint thanked the applicant for the data provided. The Commission reviewed this
before and weren't able to support the change to retail, mostly because the lack of an interchange.
He feels the situation hasn't really changed. This would create a traffic problem with Elks Ln., Prado,
and FEguera St This is not justified at this point. The City needs to take a hard look at their policy
as to if we want big boxes at all and there was a lot of testimony relative to this issue. This issue may
require a town discussion and decisions will need to be made.
AYES: Commissioners Veesart, Whittlesey, Kourakis, Senn, Ready, Jeffrey, and Chairman
. Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed.
l-Rl�
EXHIBIT 9
�illu�ll��lll18111 IIIIII����f IINIIII III IIIA ' If��
CityOf SAn tuis
99
A
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appealsAf om t� the decision of
p(. JNiN� COMMI SS(r,61 _ rendered on l l Zi
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
40 ?-Ap0 9,0.
' P N�ltt->ro coMMis�cN s��C,lscct� Bl�s�p ��oc r I`ti5 cc it TlDQ
OF ETA. PIANUCI s F3.1'o; 3. 1- Z. �T
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
_Re�4 W4 1!�1A Lo on _ l I A4
Name/Department (Date)'
Appellant:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Home Phone Work Phone
�2RM p�l�N P 3D7� 50- (- 6oe� —r
Representative: , �Z, CAL � a
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
chi Ci�3• I �C14-
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for el Z/3 �f Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
CIVTF05fo.1,10�ring department(s): ¢
Rix
NU'd 1 ; 1996
Crry CLERK
Original- in City Clerk's Office
EXHIBIT 10
To: SLO Planning Commision/6W' 6 11/13/96
From: Bill Sievers
50 Prado Rd ReceiYed (0,
Re: 40 Prado Rd, Zoning change, Project Proposal P
Hello all concerned with the future of SLO,
What we call "Progress" is difficult to contol or slow, if at all
possible with "Power Players" leading the way. Unfortunately our
modern world is so focused on Economic Growth & Profits ithat it
is almost blind to what would be best for a "Balanced Sustainable
Future" . Every region on our small planet has similiar qualities
yet each their own uniqueness & natural limits for a Sustainable
Balanced Future. Blending the Natural World with all its assets
& our Modern People Oriented World is unfortunately very one
sided. We humanoids are our own worst enemy, being a wasteful,
overconsuming, & self centered species. We, Humanoids are using
up the Earth' s Assets quickly, at an alarming rate. We show
little concern about what_ we as individuals do now, except making
money, getting our slice of the pie. Well, the "Pie" is getting
smaller & more people want a slice. The only clear solution is
slow down us Humans in our self destructive path. Or we can
debate & argue that we don't need to slow our overly abundant
population & growth until things are even ,-.,. bigger problems.
Focusing on the Proposed Project, I must take the obvious
position of better planned, slower growth & protect all the
existing Assets of SLO. We as SLO residents do not need to be
like everywhere else. Is it so important for us to have every
major corporate entity right here in SLO? Do we as insatiable
consumers need everything from every corner of the world located
right here, especially large corporate giants that can crush
small local business? Is it so vital every small Town/City have
such fierce competition that it helps destroy the existing city
in the process? For every project built on open land it is just
that much more intense "People Oriented Use" & less of the
"Desirable Qualities" that we once knew as San Luis Obispo.
1 ) Looking at Staff Report p. 7 sales tax retail sales from the
proposed Circuit City, Pet Smart & Office Max 20-25 million
annually. Wouldn't existing related SLO businesses have considerable
less sales since these are not all new additional sales? .
2 ) P. 8,9 Circulation is still not defined or finalized & this
issue is of great concern to me & others who reside at neighboring
property. The impact of having a new street right next to our
residential use is not desirable. Increased traffic congestion,
noise & security should be considered because we are an existing
use & should not be just swept away in the name of "Progress" .
3 ) Map section showing Option Z. Conceptional Site Plan disturbs
me because it has the largest structures very close to our
location initially to be used for deliveries & utility type p
access that could be noisy at undesirable times. More significantly
it shows the proposed street not entirely located on developers
property with all improvments paid for by them. This will
significantly adversly impact the ;"50" Prado Rd property by
putting the burden of street improvements for "40 Prado" project
on Owners of "50 Prado" & significantly reducing the width of- the
property approximently 25 ' plus?
4) Existing trees along property line would be eliminated & other
large trees located on 40 Prado property. Environmental compromise
that should be avoided if possible.
RRM Design Group, Marketing/Economic analyst Steve Nukes &
associates, I know are highly motivated by economic factors &
will make their assumptions/projections based on those considerations.
Unfortunately the analysis are subjective, projected & most
likely does not put much value of non development factors.
Since, they are being paid by the developers to make it appear to
be a "good thing" to pursue.
My recomendations are following.
1 ) Do not approve zoning change, leave Zoning as now existing,
O-PD at least until essential Plans are aggreed on. . .
2 ) 101 Overcrossing Plan, Prado Rd, Elks Lane Street Plan & New
Street alignment/location Plan. This should include temporary
easment across "40 Prado" property access Prado/New Rd/Driveway/Elks
Ln. Plan New Rd continuation behind theater to Elks Ln or on 1140
Prado" property to Elks Ln.
3 ) No "New half Street" as Zelman proposal desires, taking away
significant western edge "50 Prado" property on an already narrow
piece of property. Further burdening this owner or future owner
for Zelman Development Project & New Street connection.
I hope those with Decision Power will weigh the value of the
existing environment as a significant factor. Is it wise to do
more commercial retail establishments at this time when there are
so many troubled already? Do we need to grow so much & so fast
that we destroy what we value having here? Our SLO uniqueness of
being what we are, not being everything everyone else is: bigger,
more crowded, inviting more problems along with a larger population
of consumers. Please do the right thing for SLO & go SLOW.
Thank you.
i
Sincerely,
1-99
. �. ��
(' ,� � 9�
�'O �
r �z��� �
� � � ���. .
��� � ,�
r /�
/ �CTN(,(jTiC/� � �69�v�� ✓ w�
/���
Miss Margaret A Maass
267 ae�a�way
Sn Luo Obisp,CA G3C0616i1
a CE1:�E®
. ..... .....
fry
b
; m Soo
�� � u;� ,�ar.rr+•1•La*�- �rr� ��-G-.�-�-.�-� .tea ��f-
�
4,u, �
-
all
tr
,�. C-L '
�C4AC.-i
4, RECEIVED
NOV 3 WD
CfTY COUNCIL
CGN� . •, nnICDA C6
�U IC/
ID: DEGA IHNC,LO,='r' TEL NO: 1—x.05-54 : TEoa��7 PAGE
To: City of San Luis Obispo, Planning Commission Members
From: Maris and Cindy Frauenheim
39 Chuparrosa Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Date: November 12, 1996
Subject: Proposed Zoning Change for Prado Road Area
To all Planning Commission Members:
AS a nearby resident of the area under consideration,we would like you to take into serious
consideration our opposition to the proposed zoning change for the area on Prado Road. We
have 5 major reasons for our opposition to this proposal:
1) San Luis Obispo needs more light manufacturing/industrial, high technology companies in
our area to provide high paying, quality jobs that pay wages which can support a family. The
area on Prado Road is currently zoned to accommodate such businesses. The proposed stores
(PetSmart, Office Depot, etc.)will not provide the same level of employment. Please leave the
zoning as it currently stands.
2) The traffic in the Prado Road area will greatly increase if retail stores are built there. The
type of businesses allowed under current zoning would not generate nearly the volume of traffic.
As a nearby resident who lost the battle to keep Food for Less out of our neighborhood,we
cannot accept the further congestion that this proposed development would cause. The Prado
Road overpass,which would help to alleviate some of the traffic, is only in the early planning
stages. Realistically this project is several years away from completion, and there is no
requirement in place that a zoning change must be tied to the completion of the overpass. Much
of the traffic using these proposed stores would use the Los Osos Valley freeway access, adding
to the increased traffic in the South Higuera area already generated by the Food for Less
shopping center.
3) The proposed development would be an eyesore from the freeway. San Luis Obispo is
unique in that for the most part, the view of the city from the freeway is mostly of beautiful trees,
plants, and mountains. There are very few commercial buildings disrupting the view. If this
center is built, San Luis Obispo will begin to look like so many other"typical"cities, where there
is no evidence of intelligent city planning, and commercial signs and billboards vie for your
attention.
4) The proposed development is not in keeping with the San Luis Obispo tradition of
concentrating commercial development in our beautiful downtown area. If more commercial
space is required,why keep building when there is a largely vacant mall across the freeway
(Central Coast Mall)??
5) The proposed development would take away business from downtown, and from smaller local
stores.
Thank you for considering our opinion. It is an opinion that many of our neighbors share.
Sincerely,
Maris and Cindy Frauenheim
November 1, 1996
Ms. Deborah Holley
San Luis Obispo Business Improvement District
Post Office Box 1402
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406
RE: Your letter to Mr. and Mrs. Lex regarding Steven Nukes report on Prado Road Project
Dear Deborah,
Mr. Lex has kindly passed on a copy of your letter of October 11, 1996 regarding the report by
Steven Nukes and Associates on the proposed Prado Road Project. There are several items in the
report that I would like to comment on and to some degree,take exception with.
First, as a general principle, I strongly support expansion in one of the existing corridors or areas
currently occupied by other retail business in the city. Since it has been the policy of the
Chamber, BIA and the City to compare the retail environment of San Luis Obispo with Santa
Maria, then someone needs to address why the comparative cities look like they do.
Santa Maria, for the most part is a repetition of strip developments along(primarily)the western
side of Highway 101. San Luis Obispo, on the other hand, has significantly developed in four
general retail areas: Downtown, Madonna Plaza, Laguna Lake, and the FoothilUUniversity area.
Now possibly added to that list is the OrcuttBroad complex, although it too joined existing,
established retail on both sides of Broad Street. All of the primary retail areas in San Luis
Obispo, other than downtown,serve a specific regional need for that area. This has traditionally
been so, and the addition of the Broad/Orcutt development continues in that vane as it services
the expanding airport and Edna areas. The proposed Prado development has no area to service,
and as a result, breaks with what has"worked" in San Luis Obispo.
Many things make up the"shopping experience"in San Luis Obispo. Certainly the quality of
life, the ambiance of a tree-lined, compact downtown, the friendliness of the merchants, and
dozens of things,each almost too subtle to recognize. Are tourists going to shop at three new
stores strategical located at the"fastest on/offramp" in town? I think not! Is it not possible that
part of the"difference" that makes San Luis Obispo so desirable to visit and shop in, is the very
lack of big, cookie-cutter, architecturally-challenged big box buildings next to the freeway with
t66 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo,California 93401 QQ
80-5'543-2047 /"QV
their acres of sterile parking lots? Consider what you, as a driver and potential visitor see, as you
drive on the freeway through Santa Maria, Salinas, Oxnard or Ventura. Now make the freeway
drive from Reservoir Canyon to South Higuera. Quite a difference in San Luis Obispo, and that,
in my opinion, is part of what makes us unique,AND, significantly what we wish to preserve.
There is ample retail space available in one of the several shopping areas already located and
established in San Luis Obispo to accommodate all three of these stores. The Marigold Center,
which I consider an extension of the current Broad/Orcutt area, seems underutilized.
Several items in Mr. Nukes report deserve to be highlighted. In the first paragraph on the top of
page two, Mr. Nukes points out that"...San Luis Obispo is a net capturer of retail sales in
comparison to Santa Maria." Please not that the figures used for the basis of this report are a
result of data collected in 1994. That year did not include a full retail period for the Staples store
located at Broad/Orcutt. It would be very unlikely that Office Max would choose to locate a store
in San Luis Obispo with their major market competitor located in so prominent a retail area.
Also, assumption that Circuit City would locate in our city flies in the face of recent(September
1996) market data showing their strength in highly competitive markets. Simply put, if Office
Max were to locate here,the best the City could hope to achieve is a dilution of the existing
"office products pool"rather than a significant expansion of it. On the likely downside, would
be the severe impact on the one remaining office products store in downtown San Luis Obispo.
Since it is fashionable to consider"cumulative impacts" for all types of environmental and
economic realities today, I think it should be noted that few"hard goods" stores remain in the
downtown core today. The potentially impacted stores by the entire Prado expansion include
most of the remaining hard goods stores downtown. The loss of this type of store is much less
subtle than it would appear on the surface. As these stores disappear, San Luis Obispo will have
to significantly increase"tourist serving retail"stores to maintain tax base. In short, with the loss
of hard goods stores, "locals"will have little reason to come downtown and spend dollars.
I continue to take exception to this and other studies that show huge amounts of"leakage"to
Santa Maria from our retail base. In the past two years, our tracking has indicated a multi-fold
increase in sales to customers with homes in the Orcutt/Santa Maria area. Once we identified
this trend, we took steps to take advantage of this tendency by increasing our advertising budget
in that market area from 5.5%to 23%of our total. Customers in that area have responded well.
Our sales growth from that market area is easily more than double of any of our other"tracked
areas." Our newest ads,which debut in the Hancock College Oracle this month, include an area
map which will allow customers to locate us easier. I receive several calls yearly from either the
Chamber or Realtors in Santa Maria offering locations to expand there. It would seem that their
research indicates that we pull significantly from their market area.
Finally, it should be noted that this year, the Santa Maria City Council rejected an appeal of their
Planning Commission's decision to deny Walmart's rezoning request. Research by Santa
Maria's consultant indicated serious conflicts in data collection and interpretation from that
�-89
presented by Walmart. Santa Maria's own research indicated that the addition of Walmart to
their"shopping area"would not increase sales revenue, but rather, significantly dilute what was
already there. The much touted"community activism and non-profit support"disappears quickly
from big box retailers when retail dollars generated per square foot drop below predetermined
levels. It was determined by the consultant that a serious negative flow of support to area non-
profits might result because of the dilution. Also of interest in the Santa Maria study, was
information which clearly showed that big box retailers, and major discount chains such as
Circuit City, employ lesser numbers of people at generally lower wages per dollar of generated
retail sales, than do typical small businesses. In the next decade, small businesses, (those
employing less than 15 people) are expected to generate more than 90% of the new jobs across
the nation.
I wish to go on record in opposition to the establishment of a retail sales proposal of this type at
this location. The retail shopping patterns are well established in San Luis Obispo and should
remain that way. This proposed retail development appears to be driven by the
developer/retailer,not by what is desirable to the shopping public in our area. I am reminded
that when Circuit City developed in Santa Maria,they were offered ONE. YEAR FREE RFNT
(as underwritten by the City of Santa Maria) if they would NOT locate near the freeway,which
was,and is, their primary retail requirement. They refused the offer and said if the space they
wanted was not available,they would not build a store in Santa Maria. While the attempt by the
city was laudable, it was once again proof-positive that the developer/retailer can wag the city's
tail anytime they want. The result has been Santa Maria, with all its development warts,rather
than what we enjoy in San Luis Obispo.
Quality of life is what we're talking about here. Don't compromise our high standards!
Sincerely yours
De Johansen
President
140
-° Rf CEIVEO 0' ► ; I99§
o Do
Complete Pet Shopping Center
FISH • BIRDS • SMALL ANIMALS IP
Paso Robles • Atoscodero • San Luis Obispo
r 1 1996
Downtown San Luis Obispo
Business Improvement Association
To Whom it may Concern:
I would like to respond to the Prado Road project.
I am filly aware that the BIA is only concerned with the impact on the downtown area, but we
have two stores within the city and so I must address this issue as a multiple business owner. I
do not believe there is a big enough market for the inclusion of a PetsMart within this city. The
opening of such a store will have many negative impacts, not just in the city but in the
surrounding area as well.
I believe we have too many empty stores to allow the building of yet another complex. I
believe PetsMart will affect my businesses as they do sell merchandise products; it will affect
the groomers as petsMart employs groomers at their facilities. It will affect the feed stores,the
salesman jobs,the pet stores in Los Osos, Morro Bay,Atascadero Arroyo Grande,Grover Beach,
etc. and the appliance stores as well. I for one am still recovering from a 5 year drought, 2 years
of torn up streets in front of the downtown store,the forced relocation of our Laguna Village
store so that"another"corporation could be accommodated. I might add that the move was not
good for business,and compounded by the recession,which to my knowledge is not over in San
Luis Obispo; I would not want to see a PetsMart located here. I thought San Luis Obispo was a
low growth community. Bringing in out of state corporations does not seem to be for the
betterment of our community.
120 jobs!! How many will it cost the present retailers? Will not gxr revenues be affected?
You have not gained a thing.
Sincerely
Pau)za L.Davidsons
owner
Paso Robles Atascadero - San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo
811 12th Street 7425 El Camino Real 1312 Madonna Road 595 Marsh Street
238-9444 466-8606 544-6675 543-3265
1- 91
1
RECEIVED OCT 2 S 1996
THE GOLDEN PAW
25 October 1996
$o IoWan Luis Ob�'spo
usmess provement Association
Thank you for providing THE GOLDEN PAW with the Stephen Nukes study of the
proposed shopping quadraplex, located at Prado Road and 101- We appreciate the data and the
opportunity to provide feedback to BIA.
We have reviewed the study and have concerns about the impact to our business,other
businesses,and the community.
It's our understanding that PetsMart does provide grooming services in it's Southern and
Norther Califomia locations. Why is the San Luis Obispo store going to be different? If Pets
Mart does not ever plan to provide dog and cat grooming services,then their impact to THE
GOLDEN PAW is very limited.
There are however,many other businesses that could be impacted by PetsMart. There are feed
stores,veterinarians,and pet stores that provide similar services as PetsMart. Again, it is our
understanding that PetsMart has veterinary services as well as pet supplies. Have all of these
other business people been notified of the Stephen Nukes study?
We understand the concern of tax dollars going to other counties and cities but can the SLO
area sustain long-tern support for these new and existing businesses? Why must another new
shopping center be built? Central Coast Mall,Madonna Shopping Center,and other office
buildings all have vacancies. Is there some reason why existing office space and buildings can't
be used? What happens if PetsMart,Circuit City or Office Mart moves out? Who will rent the
large buildings? Also,how many office supply,appliance stores and pet stores does this area
need
Thanks again for giving THE GOLDEN PAW an opportunity to express our concerns. What
else can we do to participate in the decision process concerning the Prado Road/101 shopping
center and when can we expect answers to our questions?
Sincerely
497B Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-8930 92
/- / (r
EXHIBIT 11
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM k 1
BY: Pam Ricci, sociate Planner MEETING DATE:November 6, 1996
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Mangr?
FILE NUMBER: GP/R 7-95, ER 7-95
PROJECT ADDRESS: 40 Prado Road
SUBJECT: Request to amend the Land Use Element (LUE) map designation from Office to
General Retail, and amend the zoning map from Office Planned Development (O-PD) to Retail-
Commercial (C-R), for property located at the northeastern corner of Prado Road and Highway
101.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Review the initial study of environmental impact, and recommend approval of the amendments to the
City Council, with the addition of the"Special Considerations" overlay zone, based on findings.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The project site is shown on the City's existing Land Use Element (LUE) map as Office. On
September 1, 1992, the City Council approved general plan map and text amendments and a
planned development rezoning to enable the development of a phased regional office complex on
the site. Prior to approval of these requests, the property was designated on the LUE map as
Interim Conservation Open Space and zoned C/OS-10.
The applicant has requested a general plan amendment and rezoning to allow the site to be
developed with a retail commercial development, rather than the previously approved office
complex. The Planning Commission reviews general plan and zoning amendments and makes a
recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action on such requests.
Previous Review
After the application was received, Planning staff scheduled this request for consideration before
the Planning Commission and City Council prior to completion of an initial environmental study.
Staff's strategy was to schedule a conceptual review of the project to get feedback from the
Planning Commission and Council on the appropriateness of the proposed land use because of
potential conflicts with the recently adopted LUE, before requesting more information from the
applicant to complete the environmental document and prepare a detailed project analysis.
�- 93
GP/R 7-95; 40 Prado Rd.
Page 2
At its meeting of March 22, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments.
The Commission discussed the proposal from a supply and demand standpoint, given the adopted
LUE map showing the Dalidio and Froom sites available for retail development. Concerns were
also raised with area-wide circulation issues and the impacts of the proposed highway interchange
adjacent to the site on future development.
By a 5-1 vote, the Commission recommended that the City Council direct staff to continue to
process the project application because the proposal to change the land use of the site to retail with
restrictions.on sizes and types of uses has merit. The Commission suggested that the following
issues be included in the detailed environmental and project analyses required when the project
returns:
■ flood zone requirements;
■ area-wide circulation issues including the development of the adjacent highway interchange;
■ LUE consistency issues including the impacts on the tri-polar policy for government offices
(include information on the inventory of vacant land available for office development);
■ restrictions related to the PG&E easement across the site; and
■ consideration of the feasibility of a specific plan for the site and surrounding area (between
San Luis Obispo Creek on the east, Highway 101 on the west, Prado Road on the south and
including the Sunset Drive-in, Elks Lodge and.cemetery to the north).
By a 3-2 vote, the City Council directed staff to continue processing the application with specific
attention to the factors determined by the Planning Commission above. The Council added a
requirement that an economic study be prepared which discussed the exact tenants to use the site and
their potential impacts on downtown businesses. The concerns of those voting against the motion
were the recent adoption of the LUE, an oversupply of commercial land, and the potential impacts
on utilization of the Dalidio and Froom areas for additional retail uses.
Data S— umma T'
Applicant: Zelman Development, Ben Reiling, President
Representative: Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group
Existing Zoning: Office-Planned Development (O-PD)
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: Office
Proposed Zoning: Retail Commercial (C-R)
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation: General Retail
Environmental Status: A Mitigative Negative Declaration was recommended by the Development
Review Manager on November 1, 1996. Final action on the initial study will be taken by the City
Council.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative actions not subject to processing deadlines.
GP/R 7-95; 40 Prado Rd.
Page 3
Site Description
San Luis Obispo Creek channel lies, at its closest, about 150 feet to the east. The nearly level site is
contains 9.26 acres(gross area,before dedications) and is located just east of Highway 101 and Elks
Lane on the north side ofPrado Road. It is currently occupied by a service station at the southwest
corner. High-voltage transmission lines on towers cross the northern part of the site. The
remaining area is vacant, and has been used for non-irrigated field crops. Surrounding uses
include the City corporation yard, drive-in theater and service-commercial uses. San Luis Obispo
Creek channel lies, at its closest, about 150 feet to the east.
R jject�ccriition
The applicant wants to develop a retail commercial center on the project site. The conceptual site plan
shows a larger building footprint in the eastern portion of the site. This footprint is actually
comprised of three separate structures built immediately adjacent to one another containing
approximately 77,000 square feet of floor area. Building entries would face the west toward
Highway 101 and loading areas would be at the rear(eastern elevation). A freestanding building with
a floor area of 10,000 square feet is proposed in the northwestern corner of the site. Parking to serve
both buildings would be located on the west side of the property closest to Highway 101.
EVALUATION
1. Consistency with LUE Retail Commercial Policies
The LUE contains the following policy which stipulates where regional retailers should locate:
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, and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road
The project site is not specifically one of the locations described in Policy 3.1.2. However, it is
located directly between the last two areas mentioned. With the development of a full freeway
interchange at Highway 101 and Prado Road (identified in the adopted Circulation Element as a
Transportation Capital Project), there would be a more definitive linkage between the retail
development on the west side of the highway and the project site. During their conceptual review
of the proposal, the Planning Commission and City Council concurred that the policy language
allowed for some flexibility in interpretation (the word "around" the described intersections).
The other General Retail policy contained in the LUE that directly relates to the project is:
3.13 Madonna Road Area Retail Expansion No substantial additional land area should
be added to the commercial centers at Madonna Road and Highway 101 until a detailed
GP/R 7-95; 40 Prado Rd.
Page 4
pkm for the retail expansion has been approved by the City. The plan should describe the
limits of commercial expansion, acceptable uses,phasing, and circulation improvements.
Any permitted expansion should be aesthetically and functionally compatible with existing
development in the area Before approving an expansion plan, the City should consider an
evaluation of how much it would transfer sales from existing retail areas in the City and
whether the proposed uses could be developed in existing retail areas.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan which shows the placement of buildings and the scale
of retail development contemplated. Needed extensions of roads and other related improvements
are described in the document entitled"Conceptual Road Improvements Program Description" dated
7-19-96 and the submitted traffic study.
To further meet the intent of this policy for approval of a "detailed plan of the retail expansion"by
the City, staff is recommending that the "S", Special Consideration, overlay be applied to the
proposed Retail-Commercial zoning. Rezoning the site C-R-S requires that an administrative use
permit be approved by the City prior to site development. Through the use permit process, the
applicant is required to submit detailed plans which respond to physical development issues. In
addition, the use permit process enables the City to place restrictions on uses. The Architectural
Review Commission will also review detailed project plans with a focus on aesthetic concerns and
compatibility issues.
While it is labeled as conceptual, the location of the proposed building footprints and site access
points have been carefully worked out between City Public Works staff and the applicants and their
representatives in light of the site's physical constraints, including the right-of-way needed to
accommodate the future freeway interchange and the PG&E easement for towers and overhead
transmission lines. Although eventual approval of the requested rezoning and general plan
amendment do not include the adoption of the conceptual site plan, it can be expected that specific
development plans submitted for a use permit and architectural review will include a site plan very
similar to that shown on the conceptual site plan.
The attached initial study evaluated a project based on the submitted conceptual site plan. Staff
anticipates that the prepared initial study will meet CEQA requirements for the environmental
assessment of the more detailed plans that are eventually submitted, as long as the scale and relative
positions of buildings, as well as their relationship to existing and proposed streets, do not change
markedly.
In response to the Council's interpretation of how the last sentence of this policy applies to the
project site, they directed that an economic study be prepared which discussed the exact tenants to
use the site and their potential impacts on downtown businesses. An economic study was prepared
by Steve Nukes to meet this requirement and is attached to the Commission's packets. The analysis
of the study is discussed in Section 3 of this report and was prepared by the Finance Director Bill
Statler.
GP/R 7-95; 40 Prado Rd.
Page 5
2. Lass of Land Area Available for Office
Government agencies are a principal part of the City's economic base, providing many stable, well-
paying jobs. A main issue in the recent Land Use Element update was designating sufficient space
for such agencies to remain and expand in the city. A similar role can be played by private offices
involved in finance, insurance, and corporate administration. The area of the drive-in theater on Elks
Lane at Prado Road, encompassing about 25 acres overall , was identified as a potential location for
such uses. About 9 acres(the site at 40 Prado Road)were actually designated Office. Retail uses
had also been considered for this overall area. The present request would change the 9 acres-at 40
Prado Road from Office to General Retail, leaving about 16 acres for future office development.
The attached initial study discusses the project's consistency with both LUE Office and Public and
Cultural Facilities policies. LUE Policy 5.26 discussed the social services area on South Mguera
Street near Prado Road shown in Figure 5 and indicates that the "area should have sufficient space
to accommodate regional offices of state and federal agencies. "
The initial study contains the following mitigation measure after the discussion of the project's
consistency with the office and public and cultural facilities policies:
In reviewing the subject amendment requests, the Planning Commission and City Council
shall determine whether Figure 5 in the L UE needs to be amended to provide compensating
land area for the removal of the subject site from the South Higuera governmental offices
pole to accommodate thefuture space needs of governmental offices.
With the removal ofthe project site from the office pole, the concern becomes that enough land area
zoned for office uses remains to meet the projected growth needs for regional offices of government
agencies. Staff has projected that about 12 acres of office land is needed, assuming:
■ Government offices already located downtown remain and expand there;
■ Government offices located outside downtown --excluding health-related offices on Johnson
Avenue— relocate to the Prado Road area;
■ Floor space occupied by such agencies grows in proportion to projected County population
between 1996 and 2022 (the City's likely residential build-out date);
■ The relationship between floor area and site area is similar to the existing complex at South
Fliguera Street and Prado Road.
The existing complex at South Higuera and Prado Road contains about 75,200 square-feet of floor
area. Other sites in and near the city—but excluding health-related offices on Johnson Avenue—
. ! - 9�
GP/R 7-95; 40 Prado Rd.
Page 6
contain about 103,600 square-feet of floor area. Of this last amount, Caltrans uses about 63,900
square-feet. Caltrans is looking for a site to relocate from mid Higuera Street.
New government office development at Prado Road would therefore need to accommodate:
103,600 square-feet relocated
plus(103,600+ 75,200 square-feet e)isting) X 25 years X 0.87%/year* for growth
equals 142,500 square-feet.
The existing complex has about 75,200 square-feet of floor area on six acres of site area, or a ratio
of 12,500 square-feet per acre. At this ratio, 142,500 square-feet of floor area would need
142,500_ 12,500= 11.4 acres.
* This rate is derived from the 1995-to-2020 "resource constrained" projection prepared by the
County Planning Department and the Council of Governments in 1992.
Therefore,the conclusion is that the 16 acres remaining in the current government office pole (Social
Services Area) is adequate to accommodate the long-range growth needs of regional offices of
government agencies. For this reason,the change proposed by the applicant to Figure 5 of the LUE
showing Public Facilities Areas does not appear to be necessary. With conceptual review of the land
use change last year, the applicant had suggested that Figure 5 be modified to show an area to the
east of South Higuera Street for expansion of the government office pole, rather than the area west
of the Walter office complex which includes the project site (see attached existing and proposed
Exhibit 5). The previously proposed revisions to Figure 5 included land near the existing Phase
I Social Services Center along Prado Road and a portion of the Margarita Area Specific Plan
which is currently located outside the City limits
3. Economic Impacts of the Project on the Downtown
Provided in Attachment 5 is an analysis of the economic impacts of the project on downtown
businesses performed by Stephen A Nukes&Associates under the direction of the project applicant.
In accordance with the approved work scope for this study, it is important to note that its focus is
on downtown business activities;it is not a fiscal impact analysis of this project on the City, nor does
it consider economic impacts on businesses located outside of the downtown area.
The following are key findings from the Nukes report:
■ Gross retail sales from this project will be about $25 million annually, resulting in sales tax
revenues to the City of about $250,000 annually.
GP/R 7-95; 40 Prado Rd.
Page 7
■ Most importantly, the report concludes that this will all be "new" sales tax to the City;there will
not be any long-term redistribution of existing sales (at least in the downtown).
This major finding is primarily based on the assumption that there is significant potential for re-
capturing sales leakage to other areas in our region(most notably Santa Maria) of the types of
goods and services that will be offered by this project. In short, the report concludes that there
is enough demand in the region for these goods and services to accommodate both existing and
the proposed businesses.
■ In the long-term, there does not have to be negative economic impacts on existing downtown
businesses. This conclusion is based on several factors:
- As noted above, the level of current unmet demand for these types of good and services.
- The experience of similar stores in the Santa Maria area when larger competitors like those
proposed for this project recently entered into their market place.
Anecdotal information seems to indicate that while they were initially impacted by the new
competitors, in the long-term sales actually improved for some when the new'stores began
operations.
- The few number of stores that would even be potentially affected, which account for about
3% of all businesses in the downtown, and about 4% of downtown retail sales.
- Interview results with some of the potentially affected downtown stores indicating that while
they expect initial impacts, they do not expect long-term negative impacts.
This report and its findings have been reviewed by a staff team composed of the Director of Finance,
Assistant CAO and Economic Development Manager. In presenting our evaluation of this report,
it is important to note that there are a number of assumptions that need to be made in performing this
type of analysis, which ultimately affect its outcome. As such, in reviewing the findings of this report,
the appropriate question is not "are the conclusions correct?", but rather, "are the assumptions
reasonable?"
While there are a number of areas for potential disagreement on specific methodologies that could
be used in approaching this type of work, we belief that the basic assumptions are reasonable:
■ Based on discussions with the City's sales tax advisor (Iiinderliter de Llamas), it is likely that
retail sales from these three stores (Circuit City, PetSmart and Office Depot) will total between
$20 and $25 million annually.
�-99
GP/R 7-95; 40 Prado Rd.
Page 8
■ There is a relatively small base of current downtown stores that would be affected(9 stores with
annual retail sales totaling about $4 million), and there probably is significant potential for re-
capturing existing leakage in these categories.
■ Other "local" stores in other communities have successfully competed with national retailers.
Accordingly,while we may not concur with the Nukes report that there will be no long-term impact
on existing downtown businesses(there will probably some long-term impact on some stores in the
downtown as a result of this project), it is reasonable to conclude that any such impacts on the
downtown as a whole will not be significant; and that there are strategies available to existing stores
to mitigate these impacts, and to possibly emerge even stronger than they were before.
4. Circulation Issues
Given the scale of the proposed project(approximately 90,000 square feet), it has the potential to
create congestion and generate significant demand for improved access to adjoining regional
transportation facilities including US FFighway 101. In recognition of this, the City prepared a traffic
study work scope, and the firm of Fehr&Peers was hired to prepare the traffic study which looks
at the project's impacts on area-wide traffic and circulation.
The entire traffic study is attached to the Commission's packets as Attachment 6. Section 6. of the
initial study, Transportation/Circulation provides a summary of circulation issues based on data
contained in the traffic study. The study looks at both anticipated short-term and long-term
circulation improvements that are associated with project development.
In the short tern, motor vehicle access to the project site would be provided as follows:
■ Primary access for site patrons would be provided from Prado Road via a two way driveway.
■ Secondary access for patrons would be provided from Elks Lane via a private driveway.
■ Additional site access and truck delivery access would be provided from a proposed new street
to be constructed along the eastern edge of the site.
The City's Circulation Element calls for the construction of a full diamond interchange at Prado Road
and Route 101. This new facility would include a bridge over the freeway. At such a time that this
facility is constructed,Elks Lane will be terminated as a cul-de-sac at the project's northwest corner.
A public access easement through the project site would connect the southern end of Elks Lane with
the proposed new road along the project's eastern edge. Eventually, the new road would be
extended to serve development on the adjacent drive-in theater site and would connect with Elks
GP/R 7-95; 40 Prado Rd.
Page 9
Lane. No specific alignment ofthis film road extension has been established at this point but would
be logically occur as part of any plan to further develop the drive-in theater property.
The proposed circulation-related City requirements for the project are outlined in the City of Public
Works Department memo dated 8-7-96. A mitigation measure is included in the initial study calling
for an agreement to be recorded stipulating that the applicant will not oppose the formation of an
assessment district or other financing mechanism (to the City's approval)that includes the 40 Prado
Road site and is established for the purpose of constructing the Prado Road interchange, related new
facilitiies and modifications to existing facilities. Other mitigation measures call for improvement of
Prado Road, slope easements to accommodate construction of the future freeway interchange,
driveway alignments, and bicycle facilities.
5. Flood Zone Requirements
The project site does not contain a portion of San Luis Obispo Creek, but it is within the 100-year
flood plain of the creek. In 1992, the site was rezoned from Interim Conservation Open Space to
Offices.. As part of the review of that change to the land use designation of the property, the flooding
impacts were considered. Mitigation measures were approved that required that the finish floor
elevations of buildings be raised above flood levels (136.5'). The proposed change from offices to
retail will not affect this mitigation strategy. The flooding issues associated with the site are discussed
in Section 4.b. of the initial study.
6. PG&E Easement
Pacific Oras and Electric Compacry has an 80-foot wide easement which angles across the northern
part of the site. A 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line and one tower structure are included in the
easement on this site. The transmission line, running from Morro Bay, also crosses through Central
Coast Plaza and is located down the center of Margarita Avenue. Buildings cannot be constructed
within this easement which severely limits the site's available development envelope.
Beyond the physical constraints that the easement imposes on the site is the public safety concern
with the electric and magnetic fields (EMF) that emanate from high-voltage power lines. Some
studies have found a positive association between exposure to EMF and disease (usually cancer),
although other studies have shown no association. The attached initial study discusses this issue in
Section 9.d.
The initial study concludes that given site constraints, the lack of standards for setbacks from power
line easements on commercial properties, and the currently inconclusive body of information on the
safety risks associated with EMF, the conceptual site plan depicts a reasonable approach to
developing the site.
-/D l
GP/R 7-95; 40 Prado Rd.
Page 10
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed amendments, based on inconsistency with
the general plan. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed to the City Council.
2. Recommend that the City Counc fl approve the request with modifications to the text of the Land
Use Element.
3. Continue review with direction to the applicant and staff.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
No other department has objected to the proposed change of use at the site. Specific requirements
from other departments are attached to this report. These requirements, if not already noted as
mitigation measures, would be incorporated as conditions of use permit approval or architectural
review.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the approval of the request to amend the Land Use Element (LUE) map designation
from Office to General Retail, and amend the zoning map from Office Planned Development (O PD)
to Retail-Commercial with the Special Consideration overlay (C-R-S), based on the following
findings:
1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan LUE
related to General Retail uses given that the site is in the general identified geographical
areas for retail expansion, and the requisite economic analysis of downtown was submitted
and accepted.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan LUE
related to Public and Cultural Facilities Policies since there is enough area in the current
government office pole(Social Services Area)to accommodate the long-range growth needs
of regional offices of government agencies.
3. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document the special considerations for the site which
are: the need for extensive area-wide circulation improvements, including the planned
development of a full freeway interchange at Highway 101 and Prado Road; the 80-foot wide
PG&E power line easement; flood zone issues; and airport land use compatibility concerns.
The C-R-S zoning will require the processing of an administrative use permit to establish
proposed uses.
in 2
GP/R 7-95; 40 Prado Rd.
Page 11
4. The proposed development of the site is appropriate and will be compatible with surrounding
land uses because site changes to accommodate retail development can be adequately
evaluated and regulated with the required processing of an administrative use permit and
architectural review.
5. A Mrtigative Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department
on October 31, 1996, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with
project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in
the attached initial study ER 7-95 being incorporated into the project.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -Maps (vicinity map, conceptual site plan, LUE Public Facilities Areas)
Attachment 2 - Applicant's Statements
Attachment 3 - Initial Study ER 7-95
Attachment 4 -Project Comments
Attachment 5 -Nukes Economic Analysis
Attachment 6 - Traffic Report
Attachment 7 - Archaeological Investigation
Attachment 8 -EDA Flood Analysis
/P3
Attachm -nt 1
Maps
-foy
I
C/OS-10
tl
a.y=ir
r . �
r
/ 1 � ,C ,,.4K,-z � u r F]5\ \�r v3 \\ Z� ry\ 1 u \r"k.\.`4 � 7il
/ C�o xr Y� " �•::,,, }r\>/ r„�
• \ may,' [Yv' N' a{,'•r h\ ; M1 r�R12r\ :4 `Ar YR 1 1 \.',t}e\ S a1\)
.:ycs
\"�so..
A .i.....x:4.4. .,-...v..... ,..:,.a ,• -
:
C
C
r•
' S
e 1
i
=P
A
• `��``�'•. Y.•y I.a err t' �.
cwt,..-,M .�, +ar• Q� r
PF •�4
PF 4C.>Ro
�44,
Pkv•..V
' 4 S.s
VICINITY MAP GP/R 7-95 NORTH
40 P A
PR ROAD
'+1
� \ I
I \
s I 1 � '\ •\
I I I I I Z \'\ `•` I y
O •\ •` I GZi
o ; a ` d
>
'\ z
9
b \Ip' I \\ •`\ I y�j
� ROPOsm 0.0.W
I •\
CC \ \ Im
1 I I 1 m \ I
MT
c v1xr o n prl 01
b o° o xnlI
o obo J I IZ � � ;-� � - ;• i mach
9
cn
S —
----------------
O
o
z
wo b 1'
be �
e ;
Om O
g •
$ Na W rn
b
1_ M46
Land Use Element
I
I I
I j
I 1
L._
I
l �
I
i [ i
CMC CENTER
i l
CULTURAL FACILITIES AREA
1 1 HEALTH CARE
...` AREA
\ I
i
n
• I
1
FIGURE 5 (?RoFts-c--D Rt vlsi orl)
City of
A San Luis OBIspO PUBLIC FACILITIES AREAS
a cc.Lue �—/D
Sn 9/9/94
ind Use Element
56
I
I I
1 1
1 I I
1
1 •�
1 ► �
� I
1 I
CIVIC CENTER z !
j
CULTURAL FACILITIES AREA 1 !
I � I
HEALTH CARE
AREA
i �ti I
i I
n
SOCIAL SERVICES
AREA
1 _ I
I
I
I
FIGURE 5vius'ym a�
fs City or
j
san Luis osispo PUBLIC FACILITIES AREAS
.,n
1
Attachment 2
Applicant's Statements
�-ion
RRM DESIGN GROUP
Architecture•Pia::izi rg.Engi::eering.Su rteying-Interiors•Landscape Architecture
July 19, 1996
Ms.Pam Ricci
Community Development Dept.
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Re: 40 Prado Road Permit Processing/Reactivating
Dear Pam:
Based upon our meeting last week, I have prepared this brief description of the project status in order to
facilitate reactivation of the 40 Prado Road General Plan Amendment processing. We have submitted the
following reports as supplemental project information:
1. Economic Analysis Prepared by Steven Nukes and Associates — This analysis addresses the
expected level of sales for the probable tenants, the "leakage"from the City of San Luis Obispo
to other markets, the potential to capture that leakage and the potential impacts and duration of
impacts to existing downtown businesses engaged in similar sales activities. This report was
prepared in response to a request from the City Council.
2. Traffic and Circulation Analysis -- This study reviews the existing circulation system functions
in the vicinity of the project, the projected volumes of traffic generated from the project, the
potential impacts from the project and from the "cumulative" projects identified by the City,
recommends mitigation measures and comments upon the specific driveway positions along
Prado Road.
3. Conceptual Project Site Plan Diagram - This shows the conceptual layout of the project;
location of buildings,parking area,power lines, adjacent streets,etc.
4. Conceptual Road Improvements Program Description - This describes conceptually what
improvements will be constructed at the time of the project construction, what improvements
would be built after the project as a part of an assessment associated with the Prado Road
overpass project, right-of-way dedications and impact fees.
As you are aware, considerable time has gone into the review of driveway locations along the Prado
Road frontage. We have met on several occasions with City Engineering to review options and explore
various combinations of ideas for the alignment of driveways taking into account the City Engineers'
concerns for the function of the City Corporation yard access, the needs of the project for customer and
serviceldelivery and the potential effects of the Prado Road overpass. The conceptual site plan, including
the"new street"is based upon those deliberations.
jJ]o Sooch His_ Srrm San Luis Obispo.California 9;i1M
S•r>:.:NlGies;c.California 9.i.— _oq ;44--9 //
Ms.Pam Ricci
Page 2
July 19, 1996
From a site planning perspective, the basic orientation of the building seems relatively fixed. They must
fit between the Prado Road right-of-way (widened) and the power lines because the power line easement
precludes buildings. The power line easement does, however, permit the construction of streets,
driveways, parking and limited landscape improvements. We explored having the buildings oriented
along Prado Road, but this is unacceptable to the tenants and probably unacceptable from an aesthetic
standpoint since. it places the loading and service areas along the Prado Road frontage. The frontage
dimension of the stores are fixed(within a very few feet) due to the tenants' requirements. We have tried
to keep the frontages as narrow as possible, and, in fact, Circuit City agreed to a special new store layout
in order to reduce their store frontage from their usual requirements.
I reviewed our project file with respect to information regarding EMF in relationship to the existing
PG&E power line. I reviewed both our collection of articles regarding this issue and my notes from the
meeting with PG&E representatives and City staff held on February 21, 1995. My notes indicate that
PG&E indicated that because of the width of the existing easement(80 ft.) the EMF levels at the edge of
the easement would be less than occupational exposure. PG&E pointed out at that meeting that various
electronic devises likely to be in use in commercial structures (cash registers,TV's, computers, etc.) may
generate higher EMF levels than the power line at the edge of the easement. Based upon this information
and the fact that none of the literature we reviewed identified commercial or retail uses as sensitive, we
have concluded that the existing setback from the power lines provided by the width of the existing
easement is sufficient to address this potential issue.
We are prepared to meet with you and other members of the City staff to try to bring focus to any
remaining issues as quickly as possible.
You asked me to identify the players associated with the project. They are as follows:
1. Applicant:
Zelman Development--Attn: Ben Reiling,President
707 Wilshire Blvd.,Ste. 3036,Los Angeles,CA 90017
2. Applicant's representative/project designers:
RRM Design Group--Attn: Victor Montgomery
3026 South Higuera Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
3. Traffic engineers:
Fehr&Peers--Attn: Jim Daisa
3685 Mt.Diablo Blvd., Ste. 301,Lafayette, CA 94549
4. Economic Consultants:
Steven A.Nukes Associates--Attn: Steve Nukes
1250 Peach Street, Ste.B1, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
1-til
Ms.Pam Ricci
Page 3
July 19, 1996
As we explained in the meeting, the tenants are anxious to know if the General Plan amendment /
rezoning will be approved so they can make their plans for 1997 City of San Luis Obispo store openings,
or plan for stores elsewhere.
Thanks for your attention. Please call me if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
RRM D GN GROUP
I
me O ceronomic Report
Traffic Report
Road Improvement Program
cc: Ben Reiling,Zelman Development
Jim Daisa,Fehr&Peers
Steve Nukes, Steven A.Nukes Associates
Pat Blote,RRM
c/a95030\govt\vm-permitprocess.ricci
40 Prado Road
CONCEPTUAL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
July 19, 1996
The road improvements to serve the project and the "cumulative projects" are generally divided into five
categories: 1) temporary improvements; 2) permanent project improvements; 3) area improvement
assessment contribution;4) right of way dedications;and 5)TIF fees.
1. TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS:
A. Widening of Prado Road along the project frontage as necessary to provide for a center
turning lane, a west-bound travel lane,a west-bound bicycle lane and associated striping.
B. Installation of asphalt curb and sidewalk with drainage control as needed.
C. Install concrete project entry driveway approach and transition to temporary sidewalk.
D. Transition to existing Elks Lane paving.
E. Transition to new proposed ''h-street along east property boundary.
F. Asphalt turning movement control medians along the project frontage.
2. PERMANENT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS:
A. New street along the east property boundary to City standards including: 1) 1/2
improved street; 2) an additional improved travel lane for the new street, and 3)
transition to Prado Road temporary improvements as needed,4) project entry drives from
the new street.
3. AREA-WIDE 5TROVEMENT FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENT CONTRIBUTION:
A. Permanent improvements to Prado Road along the project frontage including turning
movement control medians.
B. Cul-de-sac at Elks Lane south of the drive in theater entrance.
1
40 Prado Road
Conceptual Road Improvements Program Description
July 19, 1996
C. Revisions to the eastern City Corporation yard entry.
D. Bicycle / pedestrian bridge at San Luis Creek near the Prado Road bridge (see note 3
below).
E. Bicycle/pedestrian pathways from Elks Lane cul-de-sac to Prado Road.
F. Signalization of the new street/Prado Road intersection.
4. RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT:
A. Prado Road to 100 ft. width.
B. New 1/2 street (32 ft.of right-of-way) along the eastern property boundary.
C. Slope easements for Prado Road overpass and north bound on ramp to US 101
approximately as shown on the conceptual site plan.
5. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES:
Traffic impact fees per City of San Luis Obispo ordinance will be paid at the time of building
permits for the retail facilities.
NOTES:
1. "Temporary" improvements are those items in the Prado Road right-of-way which will be
constructed concurrent with the buildings. They need to be temporary because they will likely be
removed or changed at the time the Prado Road overpass is constructed. They are likely to be
changed / replaced because there will be vertical changes in Prado Road associated with the
approach to the overpass. Prado Road will begin to ramp up to the overpass along the frontage of
this project site.
2. "Permanent"improvements to Prado Road are not proposed to happen at the time of the building
construction. They are delayed until the time of the Prado Road overpass construction in order to
avoid construction of improvements followed shortly by demolition / reconstruction. The
developer will, as a condition of approval, agree to record an agreement with the City not to
oppose the formation of an assessment district (including this site) to fund the installation of
permanent improvements. The contribution to the area-wide assessments attributable to this site
shall not exceed$300,000.
3. Costs/contributions for this improvement shall be offset against TIF fees.
cla95030\client\vm-permitprocess.attach _
2
�-iii
Attachment 3
In"tial Study E .7®95
INITIAL STUDY ER 7-95
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Zelman Development Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Pamela Ricci (805)781-7168
4. Project Location:
40 Prado Road
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Zelman Development Company
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3036
Los Angeles, CA 90017
6. General Plan Designation:
Proposed: General Retail
Existing: Offices
7. Zoning:
Proposed: Retail Commercial (C-R)
Existing: Office with the Planned Development overlay (O-PD)
S. Description of the Project:
The applicant wants to develop a retail commercial center on the project site.
.The conceptual site plan shows a larger building footprint in the eastern portion
of the site. This footprint is actually comprised of three separate structures
built immediately adjacent to one another containing approximately 77,000
square feet of floor area. Building entries would face the west toward Highway
101 and loading areas would be at the rear (eastern elevation). A freestanding
restaurant building with a floor area of 10,000 square feet is proposed in the
northwestern corner of the site. Parking to serve both buildings would be
located on the west side of the property closest to Highway 101 .
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
In order to develop the proposed commercial center, the applicant is requesting
approval of an amendment to the map of the Land Use Element and a rezoning.
The general plan amendment would change the land use designation of the site
from Offices to General Retail. The proposed rezoning would change the
zoning map for this site from Office (0) to Retail-Commercial (C-R).
The applicant will also be required to have specific development plans
approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC).
10. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
The nearly level site contains 9.26 acres (gross area, before dedications) and
is located just east of Highway 101 and Elks Lane on the north side of Prado
Road. It is currently occupied by an old service station building at the
southwest corner. High-voltage transmission lines on towers cross the
northern part of the site. The remaining area is vacant, and has been used for
non-irrigated field crops. Surrounding uses include the city corporation yard,
drive-in theater, and service-commercial uses. San Luis Obispo Creek channel
lies, at its closest, about 150 feet to the east.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Pacific Gas & Electric Company - review project for compliance with use
restrictions in their 80-foot wide utility easement (overhead power lines).
/-//7
October 31, 1996
ignat re Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, irrcluding off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than
Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain
how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the
checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously
prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or
pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Land use and Planning Biological Resources X Aesthetics
Population and Housing X Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems X Hazards Recreation
X Water Noise X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
X Air Quality Public Services
X Transportation and XfUtfistiessand Service
Circulation Sym
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there X
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION
MEASURES will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 5 Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Confect with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2,3, X
T-
4
The proposed amendments would change the designations from Offices (Land Use Element map) and O-PD (Zoning
map) to General Retail (LUE map) and C-R (Zoning map). This will allow the applicant to pursue development of the .
site with retail commercial uses. General plan policies relevant to the request are discussed in the following
paragraphs:
Land Use Element (LUEI
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, and the area around Highway 101
and Los Osos Valley Road.
Conclusion: The project site is not specifically one of the locations described in Policy 3.1.2. However, it is located
directly between the last two areas mentioned. With the development of a full freeway interchange at Highway 101
and Prado Road (identified in the adopted Circulation Element as a Transportation Capital Project), there would be a
nore definitive linkage between the retail development on the west side of the highway and the project site. During
.heir conceptual review of the proposal, the Planning Commission and City Council concurred that the policy language
allowed for some flexibility in interpretation (the word "around"the described intersections). No mitigation measures
are required.
Policy: 3.1 General Retail
3.1.3 Madonna Road Area Retail Expansion No substantial additional land area should be added to the commercial
centers at Madonna Road and Highway 101 until a detailed plan for the retail expansion has been approved by the
City. The plan should describe the limits of commercial expansion, acceptable uses, phasing, and circulation
improvements. Any permitted expansion should be aesthetically and functionally compatible with existing
development in the area. Before approving an expansion plan, the City should consider an evaluation of how much it
would transfer sales from existing retail areas in the City and whether the proposed uses could be developed in
existing retail areas.
Conclusion: The applicant has submitted a conceptual plan which shows the placement of buildings and the scale of
retail development contemplated. Needed extensions of roads and other related improvements are described in the
document entitled"Conceptual Road Improvements Program Description" dated 7-19-96 and the submitted traffic
study. Through either the master use permit concept with an "S" overlay zoning or the PD overlay zoning, detailed
plans would be required to be approved by the City which respond to physical development issues and restrictions on
uses could be controlled. Additionally, the Architectural Review Commission will review detailed project plans with a
focus on aesthetic concerns and compatibility issues.
�'/CZO
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 6 Mitigation
Incorporated
Section 15131. of CEOA states that"the economic or social impacts of a project shall not be treated as significant
effects on the environment." This section goes on to state that economic impacts may be considered to "determine
the significance of physical changes caused by the project." The economic analysis suggested by the policy would
not be a typical submittal requirement. However, the applicant, in response to earlier direction by the Planning
Commission and the City Council, commissioned Stephen Nukes to do an analysis of the economic impacts of the
project focussing on retail sales leakage and impacts to downtown. The conclusions of this study will be considered
by the decision makers, along with other reports and information, during the review of the project. A synopsis and
analysis of the Nukes report will be contained in reports to the Planning Commission and the City Council. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
The Drive-in Theater Area is designated in the LUE as a special design area. The reference to the area in the LUE is
as follows:
8.6 Drive-in Theater Area
This 25-acre area should be further developed only if flooding can be mitigated without significant harm to San
Luis Obispo Creek. Until flood hazards are mitigated, continued agricultural use and low-intensity recreational
use are appropriate. Any use drawing substantial regional traffic also depends on providing a full interchange
at Prado Road and extending Prado Road to connect with Madonna Road.
Once flooding and access issues are resolved, and agricultural preservation requirements are met, the area
would be suitable for government agencies'regional offices (see also policy 5.1.6).
Conclusion: The project site is not included in this special design area, but is adjacent to and directly south of it. The
policy is cited here because of this proximity and the fact that the previous LUE had a similar reference to the project
site. The project site does not contain a portion of San Luis Obispo Creek, but it is within the 100-year flood plain of
the creek. In 1992, the site was rezoned from Interim Conservation Open Space to Offices. As part of the review of
that change to the land use designation of the property, the flooding impacts were considered. Mitigation measures
were approved that required that the finish floor elevations of buildings be raised above flood levels. The proposed
change from offices to retail will not affect this mitigation strategy. The flooding issues associated with the site are
discussed further in Section 4.b. of this initial study; no further mitigation measures are necessary here.
Office Policies
The City's LUE policy for the location of governmental agency offices is known as the tri-polar policy. The 'tri' in the
policy name was derived from the three geographical areas of the City identified as being appropriate for government
office development and expansion (shown in Figure 5 of LUE) -the Civic Center (City and County offices), the Health
Care Area (near the hospitals on Johnson Avenue) and the Social Services Area (South Higuera Street area). The
project site was rezoned to 0-PD in 1992 as an expansion of the Social Services Area pole. The PD zoning also
allowed up to 50% of the gross floor area of the office area to be occupied by tenants other than government offices
and private, non-profit social services offices, and up to 15% of the floor area to be occupied by other related
commercial and retail uses. The adopted LUE includes the site in that pole, as well as discusses the future suitability
of the Drive-in area to the north to be a part of the pole.
3.3.2 Office Locations
D. Govemment social services and the regional offices of state and federal agencies should be near the intersections
of South Higuera Street, Prado Road, and Highway 101 (Figure 51;
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Leas Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 7 Mitigation
Incorporated
The following excerpt from the LUE further substantiates the need for sites to accommodate future expansion of
government offices in the area:
Public and Cultural Facilities Policy
5.1.6 Social Services There should be a social-services area on South Higuera Street near Prado Road(Figure 5). The
following functions should be located in the social services area: County Social Services; California Employment
Development and Rehabilitation; federal Social Security Administration. This area should have sufficient space to
accommodate regional offices of state and federal agencies.
Conclusion: The proposed change in land use will reduce the amount of land area available for the expansion of
governmental offices. The City decision makers in evaluating the proposed rezoning will need to determine whether this
reduction to the size of the pole is a significant change in terms of accommodating the future space needs of
governmental offices.
Mitigation Measure:
In reviewing the subject amendment requests, the Planning Commission and City Council shall determine whether Figure
5 in the LUE needs to be amended to provide compensating land area for the removal of the subject site from the South
Higuera governmental offices pole to accommodate the future space needs of governmental offices.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? T T
The proposal will not result in the need for special environmental permits from other regulatory agencies. However,
Pacific Gas & Electric Company will review the request for compliance with use restrictions within its 80-foot wide
easement across the site (overhead transmission lines) and the County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission
(location is within an airport land use planning area). See further discussion on issues related to the overhead transmission
lines and airport land use compatibility in Sections 9.d. and 6.g. of this initial study respectively.
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? I I I X
The project site is located in a transitional area that is not currently developed to its full urban potential. The City's
Corporation Yard and proposed Prado Day Center (homeless services) are located directly to the south, the Sunset
Drive-in and a small mobile home park are located to the north, the Dalidio property is across the freeway to the
west, and a mix of industrial uses are to the immediate east and government offices to the further east (across the
creek). Prior to being rezoned to Office in 1992, the project site was designated on the LUE as Interim Conservation
Open Space. The reason for the designation was the site's location within the floodplain of San Luis Obispo Creek
and the concern that the flood hazard of the site be appropriately mitigated with development. Similarly, the Sunset
Drive-In area to the immediate north of the site is designated in the current LUE as a special design area because of
flooding and access concerns.
The site has a range of physical constraints that limit its development potential. The proximity of the highway, the
loss of net land area with the future development of a full highway interchange, and the 80-foot wide easement for
the overhead electrical transmission lines are all factors that severely constrict the site's available development
envelope.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95:40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 8 Mitigation
Incorporated
Other factors that influence site development include previously-mentioned flooding issues, the site's location within an
airport land use compatibility zone, and the proximity of the overhead power lines (concerns with public health and safety
because of the electro-magnetic fields associated with these type of transmission lines). Given the range of physical and
environmental constraints associated with the site, the special considerations related to its development need to be
documented and project approvals conditioned to adequately address issues. The proposed general plan amendment and
rezoning cannot be conditioned for special requirements associated with project development beyond those requirements
outlined as mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure:
The proposal shall be modified to rezone the site C-R-S. With the "S" overlay zone, the special considerations for the site
can be documented in the ordinance approving the proposed zone change. The existing zoning regulations require the
processing of an administrative use permit with the development of a site that has the "S" overlay zone. Therefore, the
specific improvements needed and any special requirements related to development, beyond strictly environmental
mitigation measures, could become conditions of the required use permit approval.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to 1,5,6, X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land 7
uses)?
The Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo shows the soil type for the site as Salinas silty clay loam, with zero to two percent
slopes. The soil is described as being deep, well-drained, nearly level, with moderately slow permeability and high water-
holding capacity. The soil has no limitations for farming, is well suited to rangeland and is often used for urban
development. It has a capability class of 1 and qualifies as prime farmland.
Conclusion:
Development of the site as proposed with retail commercial uses will terminate its use for agricultural production. The
site is within the city limits and is identified on the LUE map as Office. The LUE acknowledges and anticipates that the
site will be developed with commercial urban scale uses. In adopting the LUE and Open Space Element, the City Council
determined that this particular agricultural property was so situated and of such a size that it is more appropriate for urban
development. The Council adopted a "statement of overriding considerations" on the issue of agricultural impacts as part
of the certification of the LUE EIR. Therefore, development of the site for commercial uses is consistent with the LUE
and Open Space Element in terms of the issue of the conversion of prime agricultural farmland soils.
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
With the required processing of an administrative use permit, the specific development issues associated with the site
and its compatibility with surrounding land uses will be addressed (see discussion in 1.c. above).
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 1, 6 X
projections?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 9 Mitigation
Incorporated
The total number of new jobs estimated to be created by this project (roughly 225) would be less than .6 percent of
existing jobs in the City (38,100). The development of the site would create some growth in the number of workers
seeking housing in San Luis Obispo. However,the development of the site with commercial uses was anticipated by the
LUE and the associated impacts were analyzed in the EIR prepared for the update of the LUE. The project may be subject
to delays in building permit issuance if commercial growth control limits outlined in Policy 1.11.4 are in place at the time
that building permits for development are requested.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or 1 X
indirectly le.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure)?
Development of the site as proposed may encourage other surrounding land owners to redevelop or intensify land uses
on their properties. The project site, as well as surrounding properties to the north and to the east are within the City
limits and commercially zoned. Further development of these properties would be consistent with the LUE with the
appropriate processing of project applications by the City. As mentioned earlier, the redevelopment of the Drive-In theater
property is acknowledged in the LUE as a special design area (Policy 8.6).
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
The project is currently zoned for office development. While Office zoning allows for residences, the approved planned
development for the regional office complex did not include any housing. The proposed change to retail zoning will not
compromise City housing goals. The project site does not lend itself well to residential development with its proximity
to the highway and established surrounding land uses.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 8 X
There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity.
b) Seismic ground shaking? 1 9 X
The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking
should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design
criteria established in the Uniform Building Code.
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 9 X
The site lies in an area identified by the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan as being the zone of highest
liquefaction potential. As defined in the Seismic Safety Element, "liquefaction involves a sudden loss in strength of a
saturated cohesionless soil (predominantly fine grain sand) which is caused by shock or strain (such as an earthquake),
and results in a temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass." Liquefying layers near the surface can cause a
sinking, "quicksand"-like effect. At lower levels, liquefying layers can cause a slipping surface for layers above.
Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed soils engineering report needs
to be submitted at the time of building permit which considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to
tddress the potential for liquefaction.
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lass Than No
Significant Significant' Significant Impact
ER 7-95:40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 10 Mitigation
Incorporated
Not applicable.
e) Landslides or mudflows? 9 -X
The site is not in a location subject to landslides.
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 97
X
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
A soils engineering report will be required in conjunction with any building or grading permit necessary for this project.
It will identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against unstable soil
conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
Mitigation outlined under 3.c. above will apply.
g) Subsidence of the land? 9 X
See discussion under f above.
h) Expansive soils? 9 1 X
IT
See discussion under f above.
i) Unique geologic or physical features? 9 X
There are no unique geologic or physical features on site.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 1 X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Development of the buildings and parking lot areas will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and
decrease the ability for surface drainage to percolate effectively into the soil. Development must also provide for
acceptance of upstream drainage and conveyance of drainage to an adequate point of disposal.
Conclusion:
The existing stone drain in Prado Road may need to be upgraded to accommodate the increased surface flow created by
the proposed development of the site. Limiting the amount of impervious surfaces on the site will decrease the amount
of surface runoff.
Mitigation Measures:
1. The project shall utilize porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to reduce surface water runoff consistent
with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.
2. The developer shall replace any deficient storm drains crossing Prado Road and/or provide on-site detention facilities
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. If oversizing of the storm drain is desired by the City, then the City
will be responsible for the cost differential for installation of the larger storm drain. With submittal of precise
development plans for the project, the developer shall prepare a site drainage analysis evaluating the capacity of
existing storm drain to accommodate projected run-off.
ld-J
sues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lees Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 11 Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 10,11, X
such as flooding? 12
Prior to 1992,the site was designated as Interim/Conservation Open Space because of flooding concerns. Flooding would
be due primarily to overflow from San Luis Obispo Creek to the east. During heavy storms, Prado Road and Elks Lane
near their intersection act as a levee trapping water on the site causing ponding.
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (revised 7-7-81) shows that the site is within flood zone "A", subject to flooding between
about 1-4 feet during a 100-year storm. The City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations will require that finish floors
of buildings be at least one foot above the 100-year flood level (136.5' elevation) and that development not displace flood
water sufficient to raise the flood elevation. These requirements would apply regardless of land-use zone.
A key feature of the proposal is to accommodate development without changing the San Luis Obispo Creek channel to
mitigate flood hazards. A flood analysis of the project was prepared by Civil Engineer Keith Crowe in response to a City
request for more speck information regarding flooding impacts associated with the project. A copy of that analysis is
incorporated into the initial study by reference.
Conclusion (protection of buildings):
1s indicated in the Crowe analysis,flood-proofing at this location would not be an acceptable way of complying with the
City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. Therefore, the finish floors of project buildings need to be raised above the
100-year flood level. Existing elevations at the site range from approximately 132' in the southwestern corner to 136.5'
in the northeastern corner.
Mitigation Measure:
The finish floor of project buildings shall be raised to a minimum of 136.5' elevation to be consistent with the City's Flood
Damage Prevention Regulations.
Conclusion (secondary impacts to flood plain):
Beyond the:protection of site buildings because of their location in the flood plain, is the concern for how development
of the site affects the flow of flood waters. The Crowe report indicates that development of the site, which is located
in the backwater of the Prado Road bridge, will not increase the flood elevation. It further states that when the water
surface is at the 135.5' elevation, the full flood flow will pass through the bridge. With an unrestricted floodway, the
100-year flood can go no higher once it reaches the 135.5' elevation, regardless of development in the flood plain.
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity)?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 12 Mitigation
Incorporated
The storm drain that collects surface runoff eventually discharges directly into San Luis Obispo Creek. Runoff from
parking lot areas contain oils, greases and heavy metals. Although the oils and grease degrade with time, the heavy
metals do not.
Conclusion:
The project will incrementally increase the quantity of heavy metals which are eventually deposited in San Luis Obispo
Bay.
Mitigation Measures:
1. The developer shall install an oil and gas separator at an appropriate location in the storm drainage system to the
approval of the Public Works and Utility Directors. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient
pollutant removal.
2. Since the project involves the grading of more than five acres of land, the developer shall obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Cal/EPA).
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body? T
See discussion under 4.a. above.
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
Plans for flood control discussed above in 4.b.do not propose changes to the location or configuration of San Luis Obispo
Creek.
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through 1 X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
Surfacing most of the site with nonporous paving and buildings will reduce the site's capability of groundwater recharge.
Additional runoff will be directed into the storm drain system unless some of it is able to be retained on site consistent
with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7. See discussion and recommended mitigation under Section 4.a. of this report.
g) Altered direction or.rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Well water use is not proposed as part of this project.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 13 Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 1,13, X
exiting or projected air quality violation (Compliance with 14,15,
APCD Environmental Guidelines)? 17
Site development will impact air quality as a result of construction activity and traffic generated by uses established.
The local APCD office reviewed project plans,the draft initial study and the Public Works Department memo dated 8-7-96
detailing recommended project conditions. The comments from the APCD are included in a letter from Randy LaVack
dated 10-4-96. In accordance with these recommendations, standard mitigation is recommended to reduce impacts
resulting from construction activity and future site development.
Short-term Impacts
During project construction, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading
activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment. Air quality impacts
may also result from soil remediation. Depending on the method used, soil remediation can have adverse air quality
impacts.
Mitigation Measures;
:onsistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), all graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or
contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following measures
shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of project construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or offsite;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
Long-Term Impacts
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM„ (fine particulate matter 10 microns or less
in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of nonattainment pollutants and their precursors be
reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo
County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is
a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources,
as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement
ie Clean Air Plan.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially potentially Leas Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues unless Impact
Page 14 Mitigation
Incorporated
Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a
significant source of PM,,. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures
designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents.
The APCD recommends that site development include the following mitigation measures to encourage transportation
alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and make the project attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians.
Mitigation Measures:
The project shall include:
- bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use;
- shared-use parking reduction;
- on-site food facilities to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour;
- extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles;
- provision of a bus stop and shelter;
- pedestrian friendly site planning to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission; and
- roadway changes that minimize the impact on pedestrians and bicyclists.
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X
See discussion and recommended mitigation under Section 5.a.
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
Not applicable.
d) Create objectionable odors? X
See discussion and recommended mitigation under Section 5.a.
ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 15 Mitigation
Incorporated
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Setting
The site is bordered by:
Prado Road, designated and used as an arterial street, which has an 84-foot-wide right-of-way but for most of its
length has only two travel lanes. Prado Road connects north-bound Highway 101 "on" and "off" ramps with South
Higuera Street and nearby agency and commercial uses.
Elks Lane, designated and used as a local street, has a variable right-of-way width, and is developed as a narrow,
two-lane roadway with no or limited frontage improvements (curbs, gutters or sidewalks). Elks Lane runs roughly
parallel to Highway 101, connecting Prado Road and the freeway ramps with South Higuera Street, about two-thirds
of a mile north of the Prado-Higuera intersection.
In the short term, motor vehicle access to the project site would be provided as follows:
Primary access for site patrons would be provided from Prado Road via a two way driveway.
Secondary access for patrons would be provided from Elks Lane via a private driveway.
Additional site access and truck delivery access would be provided from a proposed new street to be constructed
along the eastern edge of the site.
The City's Circulation Element calls for the construction of a full diamond interchange at Prado Road and Route 101.
This new facility would include a bridge over the freeway. At such a time that this facility is constructed, Elks Lane
will be terminated as a cul-de-sac at the project's northwest corner. A public access easement through the project
site would connect the southern end of Elks Lane with the proposed new road along the project's eastern edge.
Eventually, the new road would be extended to serve development on the adjacent drive-in theater site and would
connect with Elks Lane. No specific alignment of this future road extension has been established at this point but
would be logically occur as part of any plan to further develop the drive-in theater property.
The Bicycle Transportation Plan (1993) calls for the installation of Class II bike lanes on Prado Road. The Plan also
designates Elks Lane as a "Bike Route."
The closest existing formal transit stops are on South Higuera Street, north and south of Prado Road. There is no
continuous sidewalk system that connects existing transit stops or nearby residential area with the project site. The
bridge that crosses San Luis Obispo Creek on Prado Road does not include sidewalks or bike lanes. Recently, the City
modified the routing of the SLO Transit system. Route 3 was modified to route buses eastbound on Prado Road
between Route 101 and South Higuera Street. Currently, there are no formal transit stops on Prado Road. However,
with the development of the Prado Day Center, a formal stop may be created.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
EA 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 16 Mitigation
Incorporated
Background
Given the scale of the project (about 86,860 square feet), the potential for congestion and degradation of Level of
Service (LOS) may be significant. Also, the anticipated uses within the rezoning area may generate significant
demand for improved access to adjoining regional transportation facilities-- US Highway 101. In recognition of these
concerns, the City Public Works Department prepared a Scope of Work for a traffic study to evaluate this project's
impacts.
The firm of Fehr and Peers Associates was hired by the applicants to prepare the requisite traffic study. The
Consultant cooperatively worked with City staff to complete the report which identified immediate- and long-term
mitigation requirements. The following impact analysis and related mitigation measures were derived from the traffic
report.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 2, X
3,4,16
Traffic Volumes Increase and Area Circulation
The project will generate about 3,000 vehicle trips per day. This will increase traffic volumes on Prado Road from
5,000 ADT to 8,000 ADT, a 60% increase. Without changes to Prado Road, LOS in the immediate vicinity of the
shopping center would degrade and conflicts with City Corporation Yard activities on the south side of the road would
be anticipated.
The City's Circulation Element calls for the widening of Prado Road to accommodate traffic from local area growth,
and development elsewhere within the City's Urban Reserve. Furthermore, as a regionally significant corridor, Prado
Road will provide connections between State Route 227 and Route 101.
Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with the Circulation Element, the applicant shall widen Prado Road across the property's frontage to
provide for a four-lane arterial street. The specific design of these street facilities (including the extent of interim and
permanent frontage improvements for pedestrians and transit access) shall be established and must be accepted by
the City as a prerequisite to the submittal of development plans for the 40 Prado Road property.
ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road
Issues Unless Impact
Page 17 Mitigation
Incorporated
Demand for Access to Regional Corridors
The purpose of the proposed rezoning is to accommodate retail shopping facilities targeted at serving customers
throughout the region. As such, the project will significantly contribute to the need for improved access to Route 101.
The City's Circulation Element calls for the construction of a freeway bridge and full interchange on Route 101 at Prado
Road. This interchange would provide requisite access to the highway for anticipated land uses. .In cooperation with
Cahrans,the City has completed a Project Study Report for this new interchange and it is being reviewed for acceptance
by Caltrans officials.
Mitigation Measure:
As a prerequisite of development, the applicants shall execute an agreement with the City, to be recorded against the
land, to not oppose the formation of an assessment district or other financing mechanism (to the City's approval) that
includes the 40 Prado Road site and is established for the purpose of constructing the Prado Road interchange, related
new facilities and modifications to existing facilities. The specific contents of this agreement shall be established to the
satisfaction of the City as a prerequisite to the approval of development plans for the 40 Prado Road property.
As a further mitigation measure, the applicants shall dedicate slope easements for the future Prado Road overpass and
iorthbound on-ramp to State Route 101 consistent with the standard diamond design identified in the Prado Road Project
Study Report(PSR). Easements may provide for interim parking areas and landscaping, but shall exclude all permanent
buildings.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves 4,17 X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
The submitted project site plan is labeled as conceptual. However, the location of the proposed building footprints
and site access points have been carefully worked out between City Public Works staff and the applicants and their
representatives in light of the site's physical constraints, including the right-of-way needed to accommodate the
future freeway interchange and the PG&E easement for towers and overhead transmission lines. Although eventual
approval of the requested rezoning and general plan amendment do not include the adoption of the conceptual site
plan, it can be expected that specific development plans submitted for a use permit and architectural review will
include a site plan very similar to that shown on the conceptual site plan.
A key recommendation of the traffic study is that the new street proposed along the eastern edge of the project align
with a realigned City corporation yard driveway. The new intersection will be reserved for future street signalization.
Conclusion:
Eventual realignment of the City corporation yard driveway with the new street will provide for fewer conflicts in
turning movements onto Prado Road from the two sites.
Mitigation Measure:
The recommendations of the traffic study which call for the eventual realignment of the City corporation yard
.iriveway with the new street on the eastern edge of the project shall be incorporated into the project approval and
design.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lees Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 18 Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? 1 4,17 X
Long-term area circulation improvements detailed in the submitted traffic study call for Elks Lane to eventually be
realigned to connect with the new street on the eastern edge of the project site. The report also calls for the existing
Elks Lane alignment to terminate at a cul-de-sac at the northwestern edge of the project site. An on-site private driveway
would provide secondary access to Elks Lane for residents and emergency vehicles,
Mitigation Measure:
Project approvals shall incorporate the recommendations of the traffic study regarding the alignment and changes to Elks
Lane to insure that adequate emergency access continues to serve the site and the surrounding area.
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
Through the required use permit and architectural review applications, the project's parking will be evaluated in terms of
its compliance with ordinance standards, efficiency of design and landscaping. The eventual easement necessary to
accommodate the planned freeway interchange needs to be factored in when areas dedicated to parking are reviewed.
The project may qualify for shared and mixed use parking reductions up to 30% of the total project parking requirement.
The building design may need to be modified if adequate parking consistent with City standards cannot be provided. The
existing planning review process for the project can adequately evaluate the project's parking needs. No further
mitigation measures are necessary.
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 4,16, X
17
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to the Site
The project will attract pedestrians from surrounding residential areas and transit patrons from South Higuera Street.
Also,employees of the anticipated development may want to access facilities at Padre Plaza, located on the northwest
comer of Higuera Street at Prado Road.
Currently, sidewalks along Prado Road are not continuous. Most importantly, there are no sidewalks or bicycle lanes on
the bridge that crosses San Luis Obispo Creek with only minimal shoulders. With development of the project, traffic
volumes (including significant truck volumes) on the bridge could reach 5,000 ADT. Also, given the service
commercialrindustrial character of land uses in the area, the volume of truck traffic on the bridge may be significant.
Without improvement, the bridge poses a safety hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Circulation Element calls for the widening of the bridge over San Luis Obispo Creek and this project is included in the
City's Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program. Furthermore the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan (1993) calls for the
installation of Class II bicycle lanes on Prado Road.
Mitigation Measure:
As a prerequisite of development of the 40 Prado Road site, the applicant shall design and construct a pedestrian-bicycle
bridge crossing San Luis Obispo Creek on the north side of Prado Road. The bridge must be installed and fully accessible
to the public at the time that occupancy is granted for the first retail establishment on the 40 Prado Road site. [This
project is eligible for a City Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) credit.]
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 16,17 X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)Z
/-/33
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95:40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 19 Mitigation
Incorporated
According to the precise mitigations contained in a 8-7-96 memo from the Public Works Department, an easement shall
be dedicated to provide a bus turnout and shelter on the north side of Prado Road between the main project driveway and
the new half-street on the eastern edge of the property. Inclusion of this requirement is a component of the generalized
mitigation measures included in 6.a. above and further mitigation here is not necessary. The provision of bicycle racks
and interior lockable bicycle storage is already a requirement of the City's Bicycle Transportation plan. Compliance with
the requirements of this plan for appropriate bicycle storage is assured by planning staff's review of specific development
plans at the time of architectural review.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility 18,19 X
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airporr Land Use Plan)?
The project site is located on the County of San Luis Obispo's Airport Land Use Plan map. The map divides the territory
it covers into areas which are based on their proximity or sensitivity to airport operations. The project site contains
portions of two of these areas. The westernmost portion of the site is located in Area 5 which is identified as"other
areas between runway extensions and with noise impact - those areas with a lesser degree of safety and/or noise
consideration." The remainder of the site where the largest building is proposed is located in Area 3. This area is defined
as one which has both safety and noise considerations and is described as being under the approach and takeoff
extensions as defined by flight paths.
A restaurant is considered a compatible use in Area 5. However, retail stores are considered "C" or "conditionally
approvable" in Area 3. With this "C" designation, the plan indicates that the Airport Land Use Commission should
evaluate the proposed use prior to approval to determine appropriate conditions to mitigate safety concerns. Given these
circumstances, the City referred the application to the County's Airport Land Use Commission.
On October 16, 1996, the County's Airport Land Use Commission considered the submitted application and found that
it was conditionally consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Plan. The conditions recommended by the Commission
are reiterated here to serve as mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measures:
1. All buildings shall be provided with adequate soundproofing to meet the City's Noise Element requirements for interior
noise levels based on the sound created by departing aircraft.
2. No radio transmissions shall be allowed that would interfere with aircraft operations.
3. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the City of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement
document prepared by the City.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 20 X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birds)?
The City's Informational Map Atlas indicates there are no sensitive plant or animal species on the site.
5) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 21 X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95:40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 20 Mitigation
Incorporated
The site contains several mature trees in the southeastern part of the site near the location of the old farm house that
was moved from the site several years ago. Existing trees were shown on plans for the office development project, but
are not shown on the conceptual site plan. It appears that most existing trees would need to be removed to
accommodate project plans.
Conclusion:
None of the existing trees are rare species, unique specimens, or provide significant wildlife habitat. However, there are
several large and attractive trees including a 20-inch Black Locust, a 48-inch Eucalyptus and two Cypresses, one 70
inches and the other 36 inches. The removal of these trees will change the number and diversity of plant species on the
site. These trees must be plotted accurately on the site plan and their status with development indicated. The City
Arborist and the Architectural Review Commission will review tree proposals with the submittal of precise development
plans.
If feasible, existing trees should be retained. Given the large size of the property and the relatively few trees that
currently exist, development plans submitted for use permit and architectural review will include many more trees than
currently exist. Therefore, tree removals will-be adequately mitigated by replacement planting.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)?
There are no locally designated natural communities on site.
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
There are no jurisdictional wetlands on the project site.
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
The riparian area of San Luis Obispo Creek to the east provides habitat to wildlife, mainly birds, but also amphibians, small
reptiles and mammals, and insects. The creek is not included on the project site and will not be modified as a result of
project development. Previous project approvals near creeks have required setbacks from riparian areas which has served
as mitigation to protect wildlife.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 22 X
The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy for
space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the
provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the
California Energy Code which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction.
Buildings proposed as part of this project must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals
through architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means
of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems
to maintain comfort. See recommended mitigation under 8.b. below.
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 22 X
inefficient manner?
�-/3S
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Leas Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95:40 Prado Road Issues unless Impact
Page 21 Mitigation
Incorporated
To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation is recommended:
Mitigation Measure:
Future site development shall incorporate:
• Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
• Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant operational reasons, buildings should
be designed to exceed energy conservation standards in the California Energy Code by 10%.
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
There are no known mineral resources that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health 23,24 X
hazards?
_ x- 136
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No I
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page u Mitigation
Incorporated
Pacific Gas and Electric Company has an 80-foot wide easement across the northern part of the site. A 115 kilovolt (kV)
transmission line and one tower structure are included in the easement on this site. The transmission line, running from
Morro Bay, also crosses through Central Coast Plaza and is located down the center of Margarita Avenue.
High-voltage power lines generate electric and magnetic fields (EMF). The strength of the fields is dependent on the
amount of current flow and diminish with distance from the source. The amount of current flow is dependent on energy
consumption; and therefore, varies with the season and time of day.
Some studies have found a positive association between exposure to EMF and disease (usually cancer), although other
studies have shown no association. Despite the indications from the epidemiological studies, the scientific community
has not established any precise threshold for safe exposure to EMF. The particular aspects of EMF that are responsible
for the observed higher rates of cancer and other health effects have also been heavily debated.
Most of the land use restrictions related to EMF and powerlines have applied to school sites and residential uses. For
example, the California State Board of Education requires new schools to be sited at least 100 feet from the edge of a
100-110 kV power line right-of-way. Where standards have been set in other communities, they have been typically
instituted for long-term facilities such as playgrounds, kitchens, or bedrooms where people spend a considerable amount
of time. A recent Supreme Court of California decision has further limited the ability of communities to set their own
standards. In San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. The Superior Court of Orange County, the Court found that the
California Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over"property damage allegedly caused by the electric and magnetic
fields arising from power lines owned and operated by a public utility."
The City has not adopted standards for safe exposure levels or appropriate setbacks from powerlines for any uses,
including retail buildings and parking lots. Given this lack of standards, the City needs to evaluate the project in terms
of the reasonableness of the design in light of the current scientific knowledge. The conceptual site plan for the project
indicates that Building A would be located at the southerly edge of the power line easement. Optimally, in terms of
magnetic fields, it would be best to locate buildings as far away as possible on the site from the easement. However,
given the angle of the power line easement across the site, and the additional property that will eventually be dedicated
in the westerly portion of the site for the Highway 101 interchange, there are very few options available for locating
buildings on the site. Therefore, it is anticipated that the submitted site plan will closely resemble the detailed plans that
are eventually submitted for use permit and architectural review.
Conclusion:
Given site constraints, the lack of standards for setbacks from power line easements on commercial properties, and the
currently inconclusive body of information on the safety risks associated with EMF, the conceptual site plan depicts a
reasonable approach to developing the site. The City will continue to monitor the issue in light of the emerging research
on the health effects of EMF on humans. The City will also continue to maintain a public information program on the
current state of knowledge about EMF and make this available to interested citizens. No further mitigation is necessary.
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X
grass of trees?
The site is not in a high fire hazard area.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? 25 X
.ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lase Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road
Issues Unless Impact
Page 23 Mitigation
Incorporated
The major noise source within the vicinity of the site is Highway 101. The Noise Contour Map included in the Noise
Element shows existing noise levels at the site to be 65 decibels (DB) Ldn in the western third closest to the Highway
101, and between 60 and 65 DB Ldn in the eastern part of the site. With build-out of the City, most of the site would
be within the 65 DB Ldn.
The proposed uses are not noise sensitive as designated by the Noise Element. They are not likely to substantially
increase noise exposure for adjoining uses, which include the City Corporation Yard, the Sunset Drive-in theater, assorted
service commercial uses and Highway 101 - none of which are noise sensitive uses.
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
Proposed on-site uses and adjoining uses are not designated as noise sensitive in the Noise Element.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
The Fire Department has reviewed the project and noted standard conditions of approval. With review of precise
development plans for use permit and architectural review, minimum access requirements along the new half-street and
through the site will need to be provided.
b) Police protection) X
This is an infill project which will not result in the need for new or altered police service.
c) Schools? I I I I I X
This is a commercial project and will not directly impact school enrollment.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
A new public half-street will be created on the eastern side of the project site. The City will have maintenance
responsibilities for this street. This additional maintenance responsibility will not have a significant impact on the City.
e) Other governmental services? X
Not applicable.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
Electrical and gas service is available to serve the new development.
b) Communications systems? X
Telephone service is available to serve the new development.
J Local or regional water treatment or distribution X
facilities?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95:40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 24 Mitigation
Incorporated
The developer's statement indicates that an on-site well may be used to provide landscape irrigation. Use of well water
may reduce the developer's required water offsets as described in 12.g. below. The developer will need to provide
additional well data with plans submitted for construction permits. Ultimately, the well will need to be approved by the
County of SLO Health Department and a plumbing/electrical permit issued by the City.
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
The developer is proposing to hook-up to City sewer and will be required to pay sewer impact fees. Any special
requirements for the development will be reviewed with the submittal of use permit and architectural review applications.
e) Storm water drainage? X
See discussion in Section 4.c. of this initial study.
f) Solid waste disposal? 26 X
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (A B939) shows that Calif omians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater,
air quality,and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city
and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce
the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling
facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction
materials should be submitted with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior
and exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials, such as concrete,
sheetrock, wood, and metals,from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the Community
Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
2. Future site development should incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
The normal level of demand for city water exceeds the safe yield of supplies. The city has responded by adopting
measures to limit allocation of water to development, so a balance between safe yield and normal demand can be reached
as new water sources are developed. These measures would apply to any further development or change of use on the
site, and will mitigate potential water-use impacts.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
The portion of Highway 101 adjacent to the site is not designated as a scenic roadway.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x
Specific features of site and building design to minimize the visual impacts of the project will be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Commission.
1- 13 9
ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
6i 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 25 Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Create light or glare? X
Parking lot facilities are planned to cover most of the western part of the project site. There is the potential for glare from
parking lot lighting to impact nearby land uses.
Mitigation Measure:
Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto adjacent properties. The specific
design of lighting shall be to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC shall carefully review the
height and type of lighting fixtures.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
A surface survey was conducted and a report of findings prepared. That report did not identify the potential for
paleontological resources. However, if any fossils are encountered during grading or trenching, then Mitigation 1. below
under 14.b. would apply.
b) Disturb archaeological resources? 27 X
;he site, near San Luis Obispo Creek, may have hosted Chumash use before European settlement. For that reason, the
City requested that the applicant contract with a certified archaeologist to perform a surface survey and prepare a report
of findings. That report is incorporated into the initial study by reference.
The surface survey performed did not result in finding any remains of Chumash habitation. Natural changes within the
flood plain and soil disturbance from construction after European settlement have apparently removed or damaged any
pre-historic or cultural materials associated with past uses at the site. However, there may be pre-historic or cultural
materials under the current surface level of the site.
Mitigation Measures:
1. A qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and trenching activities. If excavations encounter
significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities which
may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and appropriate protective measures are
approved by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the
extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist.
2. If prehistoric Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with
the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws.
A note concerning this requirement shall be included on-the grading and construction plans for the project.
c) Affect historical resources] X
A farmhouse structure was moved from the site to a location in the Old Town neighborhood of San Luis Obispo several
years ago. There may be cultural materials associated with the past residential use at the site. See discussion above
under 14.b.
A Have the potential to cause a physical change which X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
/-A/O
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 26 Mitigation
Incorporated
Not applicable.
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact areal
Not applicable.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
Demand for additional park and recreation facilities is typically associated with new residential development. This is not
a residential development project.
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
Not applicable.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue areas checked in the
table on page 3.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Short-term circulation improvements have been designed to complement and coordinate with long-range improvements
such as full development of the highway interchange and the eventual connection of the new street on the eastern edge
of the project with Elks Lane.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects,the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
Impacts discussed under the headings of water, air quality, transportation and circulation, energy, and utilities could
be considered to have cumulative significance. Mitigation measures are included in each of these categories to offset
impacts to a degree that is less than significant.
ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 27 Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
With incorporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEO.A process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Initial Study ER 14-91 prepared for the Office Planned Development on the site (PD 1517).
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
The earlier analysis was used as a reference and some sections were copied into this initial study. However, analysis of
all issue areas was included in this initial study and it does not rely on references to the previous study.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project.
See discussion under 17.b. above.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094,
21151;Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222
Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
-/LJ
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 28 Mitigation
Incorporated
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element, August 1994.
2 City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, November 1994.
3 Conceptual Road Improvements Description, RRM Design Group, 7-19-96.
4 Final Report: 40 Prado Road Traffic impact Study, Fehr & Peers Assoc., Inc., July 1996. •
5 Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Coastal Part, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, September 1984.
6 Final EIR Land Use Element & Circulation Element Updates, Fugro-McClelland, January 1993.
7 City of San Luis Obispo Open Space Element, January 1994.
8 San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
9 City of San Luis Obispo Seismic Safety Element, July 1975.
10 Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel #06310 0005 C, revised 7-7-81.
11 Flood Analysis prepared by Keith Crowe of EDA, dated 2-13-92. •
12 City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations, revised 9-3-87.
13 1995 Clean Air Plan.
14 City of San Luis Obispo Grading Regulations, SLO Municipal Code Section 15.040 X.
15 Letter from Randy LaVack of County of SLO Air Pollution Control District dated 10-4-96. •
16 City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan dated 10-27-93.
17 City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department memo dated 8-7-96. `
18 County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for SLO County Airport, December 1973.
19 Airport Land Use Commission staff report prepared for 10-16-96 agenda.
20 City of SLO Informational Map Atlas.
21 Memo from Todd Martin dated 8-1-91 for previous.office project (File #PD 1516).
22 City of San Luis Obispo Energy Conservation Element, April 1981.
23 Letter from Tim Blunt of PG&E dated 9-24-96. •
24 Draft EIR for the Prefumo Creek Homes project, c•ea Consultants, September 1996.
25 City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996.
26 City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates, July 1994.
1-1113
ssues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 29 Mitigation
Incorporated
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
27 Archaeological investigation, Parker& Associates, 1991. '
• - included as an attachment to the staff report
19. MITIGATION MEASURESIMONITORING PROGRAM
1 Mitigation Measure:
In reviewing the subject amendment requests, the Planning Commission and City Council shall determine
whether Figure 5 in the LUE needs to be amended to provide compensating land area for the removal of the
subject site from the South Higuera governmental offices pole to accommodate the future space needs of
governmental offices.
Monitoring Program:
The Planning Commission and City Council shall make a determination on the issue through the review of the
proposed amendments.
2 Mitiaation Measure:
The proposal shall be modified to rezone the site C-R-S. With the "S" overlay zone, the special considerations
for the site can be documented in the ordinance approving the proposed zone change. The existing zoning
regulations require the processing of an administrative use permit with the development of a site that has the
"S"overlay zone. Therefore, the specific improvements needed and any special requirements related to
development, beyond strictly environmental mitigation measures, could become conditions of the required use
permit approval.
Monitorina Program:
Staff will include the appropriate findings in its reports to the Planning Commission and City Council
documenting the rationale for inclusion of the "S"zoning overlay at this site.
3 Mitiaation Measure:
Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed soils engineering
report needs to be submitted at the time of building permit which considers special grading and construction
techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction.
Monitoring Program:
The Community Development Department staff will review plans in conjunction with the soils engineering
report through the building permit plan check process.
�'�7-1
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lees Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Bi 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 30 Mitigation
Incorporated
4 Mitigation Measure:
The project shall utilize porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to reduce surface water runoff
consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.
Monitoring Program:
The Architectural Review Commission will ultimately approve a site plan and landscaping plan. Community
Development Department staff will review building permit plans to insure consistency with ARC approvals and
provide field inspections to confirm that installation complies with plans.
5 Mitigation Measure:
The developer shall replace any deficient storm drains crossing Prado Road and/or provide on-site detention
facilities to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. If oversizing of the storm drain is desired by the
City, then the City will be responsible for the cost differential for installation of the larger storm drain. With
submittal of precise development plans for the project, the developer shall prepare a site drainage analysis
evaluating the capacity of existing storm drain to accommodate projected run-off.
Monitorino Prooram:
The Public Works Department will have primary responsibility for the review and evaluation of the required
drainage study. Consistency with the recommendations of the study will be assured through review of plans
submitted for use permit, architectural review and building permit.
6 Mitigation Measure-
The
a .r :The finish floor of project buildings shall be raised to a minimum of 136.5' elevation to be consistent with the
City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations.
Monitorina Program:
Plans submitted for use permit, architectural review and building permit will include grading information that
shows the finish floor of the buildings. City staff through their review of these plans will confirm compliance
with this flood zone standard.
7 Mitioation Measure:
The developer shall install an oil and gas separator at an appropriate location in the storm drainage system to
the approval of the Public Works and Utility Directors. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure
efficient pollutant removal.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for use
permit, architectural review and building permit primarily by the Public Works and Utility Department staffs.
'ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 31 Mitigation
Incorporated
8 Mitiaation Measure:
Since the project involves the grading of more than five acres of land, the developer shall obtain a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Cal/EPA).
Monitorina Program:
The developer will be required to obtain this permit from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Cal/EPA). Compliance will be monitored by the Public Works and Utility Departments through their
review of detailed plans submitted for building permit.
9 Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), all graded surfaces shall be wetted,
protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The
following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all
phases of project construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active
areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or offsite;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the construction site;
and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
Monitoring Program:
Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development Department staff through field
inspections during project construction.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
6i 7-95:40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 32 Mitigation
Incorporated
10 Mitioation Measure:
The project shall include:
- bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use;
- shared-use parking reduction;
- on-site food facilities to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour;
- extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles;
- provision of a bus stop and shelter;
- pedestrian friendly site planning to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission; and
- roadway changes that minimize the impact on pedestrians and bicyclists.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for use
permit, architectural review and building permit primarily by the Public Works and Community Development
Department staffs.
11 Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with the Circulation Element, the applicant shall widen Prado Road across the property's frontage
to provide for a four-lane arterial street. The specific design of these street facilities (including the extent of
interim and permanent frontage improvements for pedestrians and transit access) shall be established and
must be accepted by the City as a prerequisite to the submittal of development plans for the 40 Prado Road
property.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for use
permit, architectural review and building permit primarily by the Public Works Department staff.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95:40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 33 Mitigation
Incorporated
12 Mitigation Measure:
As a prerequisite of development, the applicants shall execute an agreement with the City, to be recorded
against the land, to not oppose the formation of an assessment district or other financing mechanism (to the
City's approval)that includes the 40 Prado Road site and is established for the purpose of constructing the
Prado Road interchange, related new facilities and modifications to existing facilities. The specific contents of
this agreement shall be established to the satisfaction of the City as a prerequisite to the approval of
development plans for the 40 Prado Road property.
As a further mitigation measure, the applicants shall dedicate slope easements for the future Prado Road
overpass and northbound on-ramp to State Route 101 consistent with the standard diamond design identified
in the Prado Road Project Study Report (PSR). Easements may provide for interim parking-areas and
landscaping, but shall exclude all permanent buildings.
Monitoring Program:
The agreement shall be prepared by the Public Works Director with the assistance of the City Attorney.
13 Mitiaation Measure:
The recommendations of the traffic study which call for the eventual realignment of the City corporation yard
driveway with the new street on the eastern edge of the project shall be incorporated into the project approval
and design.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for use
permit, architectural review and building permit primarily by the Public Works Department staff.
14 Mitigation Measure:
Project approvals shall incorporate the recommendations of the traffic study regarding the alignment and
changes to Elks Lane to insure that adequate emergency access continues to serve the site and the
surrounding area.
Monitorina Proaram:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for use
permit, architectural review and building permit primarily by the Public Works Department staff.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lasa Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
FR 7-95;40 Prado Road Issues unless Impact
Page 34 Mitigation
Incorporated
15 Mitiaation Measure:
As a prerequisite of development of the 40 Prado Road site, the applicant shall design and construct a
pedestrian-bicycle bridge crossing San Luis Obispo Creek on the north side of Prado Road. The bridge must be
installed and fully accessible to the public at the time that occupancy is granted for the first retail
establishment on the 40 Prado Road site. [This project is eligible for a City Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) credit.]
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for use
permit, architectural review and building permit primarily by the Public Works Department staff.
16 Mitiaation Meast_Re:
All buildings shall be provided with adequate sound-proofing to meet the City's Noise Element requirements
for interior noise levels based on the sound created by departing aircraft.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building
permit by the Community Development Department staff.
17 Mitigation Measure:
No radio transmissions shall be allowed that would interfere with aircraft operations.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored by the County Airport.
18 Mitigation Measum:
:
The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the City of San Luis Obispo via an avigation
easement document prepared by the City.
Monitorina Program:
The avigation easement document shall be reviewed and approved for recordation by the City Attorney prior
to the issuance of building permits.
ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lase Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impaet
ER 7-95:40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 35 Mitigation
Incorporated
19 Mitigation Measure:
Future site development shall incorporate:
• Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
• Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant operational reasons,
buildings should be designed to exceed energy conservation standards in the California Energy Code by 10%.
Monitorina Proaram:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building
permit by the Community Development Department staff.
20 Mitigation Measure:
Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials, such as
concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval
by the Community Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
Monitoring Proaram:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building
permit by the Community Development Department staff.
21 Mitigation Measure:
Future site development should incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
Monitorina Prooram:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for use
permit, architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
22 Mitigation Measure:
Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto adjacent properties.
The specific design of lighting shall be to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC
shall carefully review the height and type of lighting fixtures.
Monitorina Proaram:
The ARC shall review speck proposals for parking lot lighting.
lS�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 7-95:40 Prado Road Issues Unless Impact
Page 36 Mitigation
Incorporated
23 Mitigation Measure:
Qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and trenching activities. If excavations
encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then
construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and
appropriate protective measures are approved by the Community Development Director. The Community
Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be
recorded by a qualified archaeologist.
Monitorino Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building
permit by the Community Development Department staff and subsequent inspections.
24 Mitigation Measure:
If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to
work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with
state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction
plans for the project.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building
permit by the Community Development Department staff.
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Section
15070(b)(1)of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and
monitoring program outlined above.
Applicant Date
1:1eAW7-95.is
Attachment 4
Project Comments
�-ism
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pam Ricci
FROM: Jerry Kenny
SUBJECT: 40 Prado Road - GP/R 7-95, ER 7-95
The following comments are transmitted relative to the general plan
rezoning and environmental review of a proposed project based on
the conceptual plan submitted by the applicant for the proposed
retail shopping center project. Additional comments will be
tranmitted upon formal application of a project:
A. UTILITIES -
The attached memo from Dan Gilmore is transmitted, which
states there would be no significant adverse impacts that are
associated with the rezoning or the project that would be
caused by the rezoning or the proposed project.
Effects on existing infrastructure within Elks Lane, that
would be caused by the proposed Prado Road interchange, are
being partially mitigated by providing for easements within
the subject project. These are reasonable conditions of
development; for instance, the public access/utilities
easement between Elks lane and the proposed new public street.
That would provide for relocation of the large trunk sewer
currently within Elks Lane and which would be impacted by up
to about 20 feet of additional fill over the pipe. Although
a preferred location of the sewer realignment would be
paralleling the future toe of fill slope (to be placed to
accommodate the overpass) , due to the limiting pipe slope to
meet the existing flowline at the Corp Yard.
B. GRADING/FLOODING -
The property is subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm.
The building sites/pads must be raised to preclude flooding of
structures. In addition, development of the site must provide
for accepting upstream drainage and conveying drainage from
the site to a point of adequate disposal. This may require
replacing any deficient storm drains crossing Prado Rd. and/or
providing onsite detention facilities, to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Department.
A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) should be processed with FEMA
to eliminate the Federal requirement for flood insurance.
�-/S'3
Pam Ricci
40 Prado Road Mitigation
August 7, 1996
Page Two
C. TRANSPORTATION
To mitigate the anticipated near and long-term transportation
impacts of the 40 Prado Road Retail Shopping Center project
identified in the traffic study prepared by Fehr & Peers
Associates, Inc. and/or other sources, the following mitigation
measures shall be incorporated into the design and scope of the
project:
1. Assessment Participation: As a condition of development, the
applicants shall execute an agreement with the City, to be
recorded against the land, to not oppose the formation of an
assessment district or other financing -mechanism (to the
City's approval) that includes the 40 Prado Road site and is
established for the purpose of constructing:
a. A new interchange at Prado Road and Route 101;
b. The installation of permanent medians in Prado Road
between the current alignment of Elks Lane and the
proposed new road at the eastern edge of the project
site;
C. Cul-de-sac improvements of Elks Lane north of the project
site and bicycle/pedestrian pathways that connect Elks
Lane with Prado Road;
d. Permanent improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks) along
the portion of the project's Prado Road frontage that
extends between the project entrance driveway and the
current location of the Elks-Prado intersection;
e. Realignment of the City's Corporation Yard main access
road, relocation of ECOSLO's facilities (as needed) to
another area of the City's property, relocation of
affected sludge-drying beds to another area of City
property and closure of existing Prado Road Corporation
Yard driveways.
Applicant's financial participation in financing the design,
environmental assessment, and construction of these
improvements shall be based on full development of the 40
Prado Road site and its long-term traffic contribution to the
use of these facilities, as determined by the establishment of
the assessment district or other financing mechanism.
Pam Ricci
40 Prado Rd. Mitigation
August 7, 1996
Page Three
2. Immediate Performance Requirements: As a condition of
development,. the applicant shall:
a. Dedicate 14 feet of land along the northern side of Prado
Road across the project site's frontage to establish a
98-foot primary right-of-way. In addition, an easement
to accommodate a bus turnout and shelter, between the
main driveway and the new street, shall be dedicated.
b. Widen Prado Road, pave out the roadway and install
permanent frontage improvements at their ultimate
alignment extending from the western edge of the proposed
new road to the main Prado Road driveway entrance.
Frontage improvements shall include concrete curbs,
gutters, parkway, detached sidewalk, and bus turn out to
City standards.
C. Widen Prado Road, pave out the roadway and Install
temporary asphalt berms and sidewalks with drainage
control from the main Prado Road driveway entrance to
Elks Lane at their ultimate alignment.
d. Restripe Prado Road and install temporary asphalt turning
movement control medians, as shown in the 40 Prado Road
Traffic Impact Study: Final Report, Figure ES-1 .
e. Design and construct a pedestrian-bicycle bridge crossing
San Luis Obispo Creek on the north side of Prado Road.
The bridge must be installed and fully accessible to the
public at the time that occupancy is granted for the
first retail establishment on the 40 Prado Road site.
This project is eligible for a City Traffic Impact Fee
(TIF) credit.
f. Provide an Offer of Dedication for 39 feet of right-of-
way for public street and utility purposes along the
eastern boundary of the project site. Install all
improvements within the offer area, to City standards, to
include a 10-foot sidewalk, 5-foot bicycle lane and two
12-foot travel lanes (no onstreet parking allowed) ,
street lighting, utilities and other typical
improvements. Development of the adjacent Elly property
will require an additional 15 ft of R/W (54 ft total R/W)
for another 5 ft. bicycle lane and 10 ft sidewalk.
g. Provide a Public Access and Utilities Easement through
the project site from Elks Lane to the new street to
accommodate access after Elks Lane is closed and prior to
completion of the new alignment to through the N'ly
Pam Ricci
40 Prado Rd. Mitigation
August 7, 1996
Page Four
adjacent property.
h. Dedicate slope easements for the future Prado Road
overpass and northbound on-ramp to State Route 101
consistent with the standard diamond design identified in
the Prado Road Project Study Report (PSR) .
i. Provide an Offer to dedicate an easement through the
project site (description shall be to the approval of the
Public Works Director) that will enable bicycle-
pedestrian paths to connect Prado Road with the future
proposed cul-de-sac on Elks Lane.
j . Provide a design that will accommodate the future Prado
Road street grades without significant adverse effects on
onsite facilities and the right to construct onsite
modifications necessitated by the Prado Rd. interchange
project (temporary construction easement) .
Attachment: Utilities Dept. memo (D Gilmore)
c: MM/MB/HB/file
AC/TS
D Gilmore
G: \. . . \Prado\conditns
MEMORANDUM ��
DATE: August 8, 1996
Wit
TO: Jerry Kenny, Public Works
FROM: Dan Gilmore, Utilities Engineer.
SUBJECT: 40 Prado Road
Code Rea kM n s
Water and Sewer Impact Fees will be required prior to issuance of building permits. The impact
fees are determined based on the size of the required water meter(s).
Water use offsets are required. Allocations are currently available through retrofitting.
Coordinate with Water Conservation for these requirements.
The plans do not indicate the use of wells. If any wells exist on the site, whether they are to be
used or not, use of approved backflow preventers on all water service connections would be
required.
A grease interceptor will likely be required, due to the proposed food service operations. There
may also be some special pretreatment requirements for the pet center. These requirements shall
be coordinated with David Hix, Wastewater Division Manager, when improvement plans are
being prepared.
Conditions
Any existing sewer laterals serving the property shall be abandoned at the main prior to the
demolition of existing structures. The City's Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy provides for the
reuse of existing sewer laterals if they are in good condition and certain other requirements are
met. These issues shall be addressed when the plan for utility service is developed.
The future interchange at Highway 101 and Prado Road may necessitate the relocation of certain
water and sewer facilities. These facilities will most likely need to cross the project property
requiring appropriate easements. The necessary easements shall be defined in coordination with
the developer, Public Works, and Utilities.
If you have any questions, or would like to discuss any of these requirements, please call me at
781-7208.
cc: John Moss, David Hix
wdg: 40prado.mmo /. /�/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pam Ricci, Department of Community Development
FROM: Spencer Meyer, Fire Department
SUBJECT: 40 Prado Road, ER 7-94
DATE: August 13, 1995
ACCESS:
All proposed access ways (within and around this proposal) shall
conform to all current San Luis Obispo Fire Department Development
Guidelines. Required access ways (fire lanes) shall have minimum
unobstructed width of 20 feet and vertical clearance of not less 13.5
feet. Dead-end access ways/roads in excess of 150 feet in length
shall be provided with an approved turn-arounds. Required fire access
ways (with minimum width) shall be posted with the appropriate signage
to prohibit parking.
Required access (proposed half street) compliance with reference to
emergency response apparatus and required turn-arounds is unclear
based on the present submittal. Proposed "future" cul-de-sac must
meet minimum Fire Department turn-around requirements.
FIRE-FLOW:
Public distribution main appears just adequate to supply the proposed
land use.
New public distribution main will be required and shall be capable of
supplying the required fire-flows. (new
HYDRANT LOCATIONS:
Public fire hydrants will be required (densities are inadequate with
reference to the proposed land uses on both Elks Lane and Prado Road) .
Fire hydrants shall be spaced per SLOFD Development Guidelines
(maximum of 225 foot intervals) and shall be capable of supplying the
required fire-flows.
It should be noted that Prado Road is considered a "Major Roadway"
(with reference to emergency response) . Fire hydrants on opposing
sides of the streets/roads shall not be used when determining required
densities.
General Notes:
(1) All structures shall be protected with approved automatic fire
sprinkler systems per NFPA 13.
(2) When traffic control signals are installed, emergency preemption
devices (e.g. Opticom systems) shall be provided to expedite
emergency access.
(3) Site history unclear with reference to the potential for any
remaining environmental contamination under existing building
(old service station) , adjacent property and public right-of-way.
Developer shall provide current analytical documentation
concerning areas referenced above. &Iecwance. alreddy Blp{din=
(4) Approved graphic annunciator panel(s) shall be required in
conjunction with required automatic fire sprinklers /alarm
systems.
(g) Plans lack the detail to definitively assess the proposed project
for all Fire Department concerns with reference to life-safety
and fire protection. Suggest developer meet with Fire Department
to answer any questions and/or resolve any issues.
c:
Jerry Kenny Engineering Department
Dan Gilmore, Public Utilities Department
Ron Hanson, Fire Department
�-1sq
�i►I�'I!!�i!hIIlBllll�illl��i�lll'�lil!IU�I!li
11 II cI
Of ty f san Us OBIS
FIRE DEPARTMENT
748 Pismo Street•San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 •8051549.7380
January 8, 1992 RECEIVED
Ron Kennedy P 4 1996
Cal Coast Excavation CI I Y U-SAN LUIS oeISPo
1010 Atascadero Road N"jNrryrF-WU)akMff
Morro Bay, CA 93442
RE: Site Closure - 253 Elks Lane
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
I have reviewed the analytical report submitted by Ken Maloney/Geology, dated December 31, 1991, for
the Prado Road Service station located at 253 Elks Lane. Data indicates that all significant soil
contamination associated with the underground storage tanks and refueling operations at this site have
been removed and treated. Also, all required documentation has been received. Therefore, assuming
that the information provided was accurate and representative of existing conditions, it is the position
of this office that no additional sampling or cleanup of this site is required.
This decision was made even though levels of benzene were detected above city action levels at a
number of points within the excavation. Reasons:
1. Samples taken just above these points were within a gravel ]ends, this area was
predominantly clay and silty/clay.
2. Benzene concentrations have decreased dramatically from 23 ft. bas to 26 ft. bgs.
3. Continuous site visits and discussions with both yourself and Ken Maloney regarding
remediation progress.
4. Finally, all point sources have been removed.
It should be noted that this letter does not relieve the property owner of any responsibilities mandated
under the California Health & Safety Code if existing, additional or previously unidentified
contamination is discovered.
If you have any questions, please call me at the above number.
Sincerely,
Michael Smith
Hazardous Materials Coordinator
cc: Ken Malonev, P.O. Box 13592, Morro Bay, CA 93443
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 4325 South Higuera Street
P0.Box 8592
San Luis Obispo,CA 93406-8592
September 24, 1996
Pam Ricci
Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Dear Ms. Ricci:
Here is some wording which addresses the EMF issue given the present
scientific knowledge. It is consistent with the CPUC's recommendations and
provides the City with a strategy until more information is available. Thank you
for the opportunity to assist. Feel free to call if you have any questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
Tim Blunt
Electrical Engineer
Electric and Magnetic Fields(EMF)exist wherever there is electricity—in appliances,homes,schools and
offices,and in power lines. There is no scientific consensus on the actual health effects of EMF exposure,
but it is an issue of public concern. A proactive step in setting EMF policy has been made by the
California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC). Recommended unanimously by a group of the affected
stakeholders,including citizen groups,consumer groups,environmental groups,state agencies,unions,
and municipal and investor-owned utilities,a policy of no-cost and low-cost measures has been instituted
by the Commission. This was not done in response to conclusive science,but instead in response to public
concern and scientific uncertainty. This approach has received international attention. PG&E
recommends the City consider adopting the following EMF policy patterned after the CPUC's EMF
Decision for the state's electric utilities.
Given the uncertainty of the EMF issue,the medical and scientific communities have been
unable to determine that EMF causes health effects or to establish any standard or level of
exposure that is known to be either safe or harmful. Recognizing the emerging body of
research on the health effects of EMF on humans is inconclusive,the City will continue to
monitor this issue. The City will also maintain a public information program of the current
state of knowledge about EMF and make this available to all citizens.
The policy recommended above would provide the City with a recognized proactive strategy while
avoiding the uncertainty and unrecommended approach of standards or setbacks to address the issue of
magnetic fields. Additional literature reviews have been completed on the issue of EMF. Enclosed are
copies of the reports addressing the EMF issue prepared by the American Medical Association,American
Physical Society,and American Cancer Society.
• EFFECTS OF ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS,Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs to
the American Medical Association,United States,December 1994.
• POWER LINE FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH, Council of the American Physical Society,United
States,May 1995.
• ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE AND CANCER A REVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC
EVIDENCE,American Cancer Society,United States,January/February 1996
On August 22, 1996,the Supreme Court of California issued its decision on the lawsuit: SAN DIEGO
GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,v.THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY,Respondent;
MARTIN COVALT et al. The Covalt decision found that the California Public Utilities Commission has
jurisdiction over"property damage allegedly caused by the electric and magnetic fields arising from
powerlines owned and operated by a public utility". Enclosed is a copy of the decision.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS,TRANSPr"4TION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORk. TION
50 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015415
TELEPHONE: (805) 549.9111 11 V i
TDD (805) 549-3259 _
INTERNET hftpliwww.dotmgov/disMS/ >✓J 31996
r v:t„N LUIS O.-iISPO
October 10, 1996
5-SLO-101-27+
Prado Road Retail Center
Conceptual Site Plan
Ms. Pam Ricci
City of San Luis Obispo Planning
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Dear Ms. Ricci:
Caltrans District 5 staff has reviewed the above-referenced document. As we
discussed on the phone the City of San Luis Obispo has sponsored a Project Study
Report (PSR) for an Interchange at Prado Road and Route 101. After reviewing the
draft version of this PSR 1 can tell you that there is some possibility the right-of-way
take for this new interchange may encroach into the "parking area" on the site plan.
Additionally, it appears that the future alignment of Elks Lane has not been resolved.
Specific questions about this PSR should be addressed to your City's Public Works
Director, Mr. Mike McCluskey.
Please be aware that per Caltrans standards the proposed "new half street" must
maintain a minimum distance of 400' from the proposed interchange. Questions
concerning Caltrans standards should be addressed to Mr. Tim Gubbins in the
District's Special Studies Branch. Mr. Gubbins can. be reached at (805) 549-3133.
To date we have not reviewed any traffic analysis that specifically addresses this
development. Please be aware that Caltrans would expect such an analysis to not
only identify impacts and mitigation measures but to determine what specific
contribution this development will make to the proposed interchange. Likewise, we
would expect the City to make as a condition of permit an exaction of fair share-
fees toward the eventual construction of the Prado Road Interchange.
Ms. Pam Ricci
' October 9, 1996
Page 2
I hope this letter is of some help to you in processing this application. Please
contact me at (805) 549-3683 if you have questions about this letter or need further
assistance. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
ry newland
District 5
Intergovernmental Review Coordinator
cc: S Strait, A Delgado, T Gubbins, D Heumann, C Sanchez
TL Rochte, SJ Chesebro
-- AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
October 4, 1996 'C% ,'• �F�
'rYoa >9y6
Pam Ricci,Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: 40 Prado Road Request for Zoning Change
Dear Ms. Riesi•:7�o#.Pc. :
District staff has reviewed the material contained in the referral from your office for the project described above.
The applicant is proposing to change the Land Use Element map designation from Office to General Retail,and to
modify the zoning map from Office Planned Development to Retail Commercial,for property located at 40 Prado
Road.
It does not appear that significant air quality impacts will result from the rezoning of the property. The project
proposal,however, has the potential for significant air quality impacts.
The proposal includes a 10,000 sq.ft. sit-down restaurant and approximately 80,000 sq. ft.of commercial retail on
a nine-acre site. Both construction and operational phases of the project have the potential to exceed District
significance thresholds. District significance thresholds and recommended mitigation measures for construction
impacts 'can be found in the District's CEQA Guide.
If grading on-site exceeds four acres in a 90-day period, the District's standard grading mitigation measures should
be incorporated into the construction and grading plans. Using the estimated number of daily trips found in the
Traffic Impact Study, District staff performed an URBEMIS model run to calculate the operational phase
emissions of the project. A summary of the URBEMIS run is attached. The analysis shows the project as
proposed will likely exceed the District significance thresholds.
The transportation mitigation measures included in the memo from Jerry Kenny to Pam Ricci dated 8/8/96, include
several measures that will improve alternative transportation conditions on-site and in the surrounding area.
Specifically, Measures Lc, l.d,2.a, 2.e,21, and 21 will substantially improve transit, pedestrian,and bicycle
accessability and mobility in the area. We believe these measures, together with the standard mitigation measures
for commercial projects found in the District's CEQA Guide,will provide adequate mitigation of the air quality
impacts of the proposed project. We recommend the City include these measures as conditions of project
approval.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions or comments about this letter,
please call me at 781-5912.
Sincerely,
Randell S. LaVack
Air Quality Planning
Attachment
%IO2.RSL
2156 Sierra Way. Suite 8 •San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 805-781-5912 FAX: 805781 1035 1-165,
•ROJECT NAME : 40 PRADO ROt Date: 10-03-1996
?roject Area: South Central Coast (Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo)
ysis Year: 9 Temperature (F) : 75 Season: Summer
zMFAC Version: Emfac7fl.1 (12/93)
Summary of Land Uses :
Unit Type Trip Rate Size Tot Trips
40 PRADO ROAD 2931. 0/DAY 1 2931
Vehicle Assumptions :
Fleet Mix:
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Duty Autos 72 .3 1.4 98 .3 0 .3
Light Duty Trucks 16 .3 0 .3 99 .3 0 .4
Medium Duty Trucks 5 .4 1.5 98 . 5 0 . 0
Heavy Duty Trucks 2 .4 21.2 78. 8 N/A
Heavy Duty Trucks 0 . 8 N/A N/A 100 . 0
Motorcycles 2 . 8 100 . 0 N/A N/A
Travel Conditions :
Residential Commercial
Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Work Non-Work
p Length 5 .3 3 .4 4 . 2 4 . 7 3 . 6
s Started Cold 88 . 6 40 .4 58 . 8 77 . 8 27 . 6
Trip Speed 25 25 25 25 25
Percent Trip 27. 3 21 .2 51 .5
Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day:
Unit Type TOG CO NOx
40 PRADO ROAD 27. 04 190 . 94 23 . 48
TOTALS 27. 04 190 . 94 23 .48
Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day (Continued)
Unit Type FUEL (Gal . ) PM10 Sox
40 PRADO ROAD 497 . 7 2 . 51 1 . 61
IALS 497 . 7 2 . 51 1 . 61
Attachment 5
Nukes Econ.on is Anal
Y s s
H(v7
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates
Management Strategy and Economic Consultants
Fremont Plaza
1250 Peach Street,Suite B1
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Office(805)541-2077
Fax(805)541-2117
Downtown San Luis Obispo
Economic Impact Analysis
of the
Prado Road Development
prepared for:
The City of San Luis Obispo
Downtown Business Improvement Association
Zelman Retail Partners
RRM Design Group
Prepared By
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates
October 28, 1996
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND..................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY.................................................................................3
FINDINGS.........................................................................................4
TARGETED COMMUNITIES&MARKETS.................................................6
DailyCommuters....................................................................... .6
Cal Poly University........................................................................7
SAN LUIS OBISPO RETAIL SALES &LEAKAGE........................................9
Retail Sales Distnbution in San Luis Obispo..........................................
Retail Sales Per Capita Comparison, San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria...........10
San Luis Obispo City Retail Sales Leakage............................................l l
San Luis Obispo City Retail Sales Captures...........................................12
DOWNTOWN RETAIL IMPACT...............................................................13
San Luis Obispo Retail Sales Revenue By Geographic Area........................13
Downtown Retail Business Distribution...............................................14
Potentially Affected Downtown Stores.................................................14
POTENTIAL RETAIL IMPACTS OF THE PRADO ROAD PROJECT ..................16
Potential Contribution to The City of San Luis Obispo Retail Sales................16
Anticipated Tax Revenues to City......................................................16
Potential Impacts on Downtown Retail.................................................18
Circuit City Business Impacts.................
Office Max Business Impacts...................................................18
PetSmart Business Impacts.....................................................19
ProjectEconomic Impact............. .. .........................................................20
Potential Employment and Retail Sales Impact........................................20
New Construction Impact................................................................21
SURVEY OF AFFECTED STORES............................................................22
Audio Video Concepts (AVC)..........................................................22
AudioEcstasy.............................................................................23
ThePhone Center..........................................................................23
The Telephone Gallery...................................................................23
Mission Office Products .................................................................23
CIRCUIT CITY& OFFICE MAX EFFECTS IN SANTA MARIA........................24
AudioVideo City .........................................................................24
Computer King in Santa Maria..........................................................24
Systems Stationer's in Santa Maria.....................................................24
MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................25
APPENDIX..... ......
........... . . .............................................................27
1.Mission Office Products Advertisement ............................................27
2. Audio Video Concepts, San Luis Obispo Window Advertisement..............27
3.Audio Video City, Santa Maria Window Advertisement 27
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
TABLES AND GRAPHS
Prado Road Project Proposed Tenants..........................................................1
PradoRoad Project.................................................................................2
Commuter Market..................................................................................6
Prado Road Project Target Communities .......................................................8
San Luis Obispo Retail Sales(in$000).........................................................9
1994 Retail Sales Comparison&Per Capita Sales ............................................10
Downtown San Luis Obispo Business Distribution...........................................14
Prado Road Project Sales&Tax Estimates.....................................................16
Total Estimated Economic Impact................................................................20
Prado Road Project Construction Costs.........................................................21
Total Estimated Construction Economic Impact................................................21
Mission Office Products Advertisement.........................................................28
Audio Video Concepts, San Luis Obispo Window Advertisement..........................29
Audio Video City, Santa Maria Window Advertisement......................................29
1 -170
Prado Road Property Retail DevelopmentEconomic Impact Analysis October 1996
BACKGROUND
The Prado Road Project is located at the intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101
in the City of San Luis Obispo. The Project is proposed to consist of a Circuit City, Office
Max and Pet Smart or equivalent types of tenants, with 75,737 square feet of retail space.
The project plan also includes a restaurant,proposed to be a 10,000 square foot Hometown
Buffet. This restaurant will be all-you-can-eat and highway oriented. The proposed
restaurant has not been included in this economic analysis.
City Council members have asked that this study be performed to find out the effect that
the Prado Road Project might hive on Downtown businesses and on the retail sales and
finances of the City of San Luis Obispo. This report analyzes the retail potential of the
Prado Road Project, the ability of San Luis Obispo to absorb additional retail and
determines the possible economic impacts such a development might have on the
Downtown businesses and City revenues. The report does not analyze economic impacts
outside the Downtown area.
Prado Road Project Proposed Tenants
Prado Rd. Pro•ect Square Foota a Est. Retail Sales
Circuit City 28,670 $13,500,000
Office Max 23,500 $6,800,000
Pet Smart 23,567 $5 000 000
Total 75,737 $25,300,000
Source: Stephen A. Nukes 8 Associates,Zelman Retail Partner
The proposed tenants have an estimated retail sales of$25.3 million. Estimated retail
sales figures are based on public information on store sales by size and sales and estimates
per square foot from the Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers in
1990. The conclusions of the study are that the Project has the ability to capture significant
retail sales that are currently leaking out of the City,has minimal impact on the Downtown,
in the 1% range,and will further enhance retail purchases in San Luis Obispo by attacking
shoppers that currently bypass San Luis Obispo for other shopping areas.
Stephen A. Nukes do Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Ob'
- cspo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 ]
1 -171
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Prado Road Project
1 Be*Rods
93451 , elle a Estrella
San Simeon ` Adelaide
Pala
93452 r° Robin Qariddir°yis
Klau + 9344693465
.,
rr wM.V
a Cambria 93428 Templeton
... d Harmo Oak 93432
93430
Orchard �•j' to
dero
+Clyueoa".A IAz93
w 1 t'•1 �' Or 934531, I
..�i 93442 L r +. \ arrp I y
93402 a 020a
MODEL 93401-06 , I
PROJECT
93424 Avlla a
Beach
Akpw
A.. M M 93449
Po4a-+ Shall u
San Luh 93433 ' m QQ� : 93420
PaCHIC V5" ne + . Grrand Hussna
Ocean n 1-
wa.. .rte Warne
93444
M
.I
re•Mwrlrw• 1
—_�ti. Oeidal
Santa t •l
Stephen A. Nukes-&Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B1 San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077/ /� 2
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
METHODOLOGY
This study was designed to measure four key areas asked for by the City.
-Does the City of San Luis Obispo have the ability to absorb additional retail sales
of the type involved in the Prado Road Prc j ect?
-What will be the impact of such a project on Downtown?
-Where will the markets for the project come from?
-What will be the financial sales tax contribution of the project to the City?
The scope of the study included only the impacts on the Downtown area and did not
evaluate effects on other businesses and areas outside of the Downtown.
To determine the effects on the City of San Luis Obispo of a project of this type, a
review of the City's current retail sales and retail sales potential was performed. To
determine available markets, a leakage study was developed to determine retail spending
that currently occurs outside the City and the potential for additional retail sales within the
City. An analysis of the Downtown area was performed which included determining the
distribution of businesses within Downtown. The number and types of Downtown
businesses that have similar product lines to the Prado Road Project including appliances,
electronic equipment,office and pet supplies were also analyzed and studied.
The potential target markets of the proposed project were examined and the overlap
with existing Downtown businesses was reviewed. Anticipated tax revenues to the City
were developed and the potential communities within San Luis Obispo County that would
be served by the project were identified. A survey of potentially affected businesses within
the Downtown was also conducted to determine their feelings on the impacts of large scale
stores on their businesses. Selected businesses within Santa Maria were also surveyed to
determine the direct effects a Circuit City and an Office Max had on their businesses.
Based on this analysis estimates of the potential effects on Downtown were established. A
section on actions the Downtown can take to enhance and mitigate effects of the Project has
also been included
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite 81 San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2071 3
1-/73
Prado Road Propem Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
FINDINGS
The following findings are based on a analysis of the Downtown retail markets:
Project Economic Impacts - The project has significant positive impacts of
approximately $34.6 million annually. Approximately 120 permanent jobs will be
created with project sales tax benefits of over$263 thousand annually.
- Anticipated Downtown Impact - There will be minimum impact to the Downtown
as a whole, generally only in the 1% range. The Downtown is growing and strong.
1994 retail sales for the Downtown were $88.8 million. Downtown BIA revenues
in 1995/96 have grown to $107 million. The majority of Downtown businesses
will not be negatively affected by the Prado Road Project tenants. There may even
be a positive effect of drawing more potential customers into San Luis Obispo.
Revenues that may be affected by the Project represent only 0.3% to 1.2% of
annual Downtown income. The Prado Road Project will have a partial, short-term
impact on a limited number of Downtown businesses ranging from 10% - 35%
until the novelty effect of a Circuit City wears off. There are mitigation's that these
specific Downtown businesses can implement to address these impacts.
- Retail Sales Market-The approximate size of the retail sales market for the Project is
231,300 persons including 61,237 people within the City of San Luis Obispo. The
population of San Luis Obispo residents includes 43,700, and an additional 17,537
daily commuters. Additionally, 170,063 people are also included in the market
count from the North Coast,North County and South County who shop within San
Luis Obispo.
- Retail Sales Leakage-Retail leakage from the City of San Luis Obispo is significant
as compared to Santa Maria. Approximately $42.2 million in the General
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI Sae Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 4
_ 1r17�
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Merchandise category which includes electronics and appliances leaks from the City
annually.
- Potential Contribution to the City of San Luis Obispo - Retail Sales for the
Prado Road Project is estimated at approximately $25.3 million annually. Sales
Tax Revenue to the City of San Luis Obispo from the Project, is estimated at
$252,000 annually. It is felt that most of that figure will be new sales and not come
from existing businesses. Potential new jobs created by the opening of the Prado
Road Project is estimated at 120.
- Downtown Businesses Impacted - The businesses within the Downtown area that
may be affected include Audio Video Concepts, Audio Ecstasy, E.E. Long,
Cellular One, Phone Canter, Telephone Gallery, Mission Office, Golden Paw, and
Pampered Pets. These stores represent 2.6% of Downtown BIA stores.
- Potential Increases in Markets - Based on experiences in Santa Maria, retail
stores selling electronics saw sales increase after the novelty effect of a new Circuit
City wore off. Store managers attributed this increase to additional shoppers being
drawn into Santa Maria by Circuit City who also shopped in their stores after
comparison shopping.
- Potential for Cross Marketing - The Prado Road Project has the potential to bring
significant numbers of shoppers into San Luis Obispo. Through the availability of
a promotional kiosk at the retail center advertising Downtown, shoppers can be
directed to the Downtown for their additional shopping needs.
Additionally, the feasibility of having the Downtown Trolley make periodic
loops to the Project site should be investigated. If every third or fifth Downtown
loop included a trip to the Retail Center, significant numbers of shoppers may be
brought to the Downtown.
Stephen A. Nukes do Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B1 Sart Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 5
1-17S
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Targeted Communities & Markets
The Prado Road Project is anticipated to serve four key markets that currently may
bypass San Luis Obispo. These are daily commuters to San Luis Obispo, residents from
the North Coast, North County and South County communities that may bypass San Luis
Obispo for other retail stores, local residents that shop out of town for purchases that are
perceived to not be available to them at a competitive price in San Luis Obispo and Cal Poly
students that currently shop at the book store for computers and electronics.
Daily Commuters
In addition to the San Luis Obispo population of 43,700, there is a commuter factor of
17,537 people that travel to San Luis Obispo everyday for work. This population is a
viable market source.
Commuter Market
North County
Atascadero 2,375
Paso Robles 720
Templeton 283
_North Coast
Cambria 260
Cayucos 306
Los Osos 2,701
Morro Bay 1,377
South County
Arroyo Grande 1,193
Grover City 1,406
Nipomo 310
Oceano 624
Pismo Beach 1,177
Other Areas
Santa Maria 514
JUnincorported Areas 4,291
Total 17,537
Source:Stephen A. Nukes 8 Associates, SLO COG
Commuters from the North County total 3,378 people,North Coast totals 4,644, South
County is 4,710, and other areas that contribute to the commuter market total 4,805.
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates 1250 Peach Street.Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 6
J-/76
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
North Coast
The Prado Road Project is anticipated to serve the North Coast communities of
Cayucos, Morro Bay, Los Osos and Cambria. There is no significant alternative to the
Prado Road Project tenants in this area.
North County
North County,which includes Paso Robles, Atascadero, Santa Margarita, Templeton,
San Miguel,and North County rural areas, is currently served by Wal-Mart in the City of
Paso Robles. As indicated by commute patterns to San Luis Obispo, North County
commuters are a significant market that may be served by the Prado Road Project.
Additionally, Wal-Mart does not have the breadth of options that Circuit City would
provide.
South County
South County residents, who live in Shell Beach, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach,
Oceano, Arroyo Grande and Halcyon, currently drive to Santa Maria for electronic and
genal merchandise purchases. They are a high potential market for a Circuit City in the
City of San Luis Obispo.
Cal Poly University
Not counted in the San Luis Obispo population estimates are an additional student
population of approximately 17,000 Cal Poly students. The Cal Poly bookstore sells
computers and other electronic and office type supplies in which the City does not receive
sales tax from the university. The Retail Center has the potential of capturing a portion of
this market.
Stephen A. Nukes_&Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 7
i-/7
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Prado Road Project
Target Communities
M-w
.4,�YA a•• L 1
■
$nn Simeon, Adelalde
\ 93452J Palo
I Aobt
3446
e..YM
93465
We 93428 Templeton
• r Oet
H
93430 Orc aid a edero
Ci ce
yue ... � �~+., ° 43422 �
! O
,.. ."'—.r i y 93453
93 t 1 ants O
vats
QQQ M1w '
9 Los
Osoa ` S h h
or
M
93401-06 . �...
424 Avn em
ac @Y 93449
ort
BMeM
San Q►a 3420 .
Arroyo
93445 Oe H'
eyon
r +�, Nlpomo
,r 93444
pob
Manna
/~1' 7a
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 8
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
San Luis Obispo Retail Sales & Leakage
The City of San Luis Obispo generates over half a billion dollars annually in taxable
sales. Total taxable sales for 1994 were over $543.7 million dollars. Retail sales within
the City totaled $458.8 million. San Luis Obispo City retail sales are the highest in San
Luis Obispo County because the City of San Luis Obispo is the major retail hub in the
county and it's market has high tourism, Cal Poly University and commuter content.
San Luis Obispo Retail Sales (in $000)
SLO City 1994 #Permits $ Sales is / permits
Retail Stores
Apparel 62 . $29,189 $471
Gen.Merchandise 15 $65,645 $4,376
Drug 8 $14,570 $1,821
Food 46 $25,503 $554
Packaged Liquor 10 $3.662 $366
Eating/drinking places 143 $61,130 $427
Home fum/appliances 68 $16,214 $238
Bldg.maul.and Farm impl. 23 $22,309 $970
Auto dealers/supplies 32 $110.759 $3,461
Service stations 24 $36,507 $1,521
Other Retail Stores 261 $73,360 $281
Retail Store Totals 692 $458,848 $663
All Other Outlets 1,100 $84,941 $77
Total All Outletsl 1,792 $543,789 $303
Source: Stephen A. Nukes and Associates;Calif. State Board of Equalization
Retail Sales Distribution in San Luis Obispo
Auto dealers/supplies was the largest retail category at $110.7 million in sales. General
Merchandise in San Luis Obispo also had a high level of sales at $65.6 million during
1994. Eatingtdrinldng establishments had $61 million in retail sales and service stations
had$36.5 million. Average sales per retail store in the City of San Luis Obispo was $663
thousand.
179
Siephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street.Suite BI Sat Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 9
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Retail Sales Per Capita Comparison San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria
In order to compare San Luis Obispo City retail sales with other communities, retail
sales per capita was analyzed Sales per capita in the cities of San Luis Obispo and Santa
Maria was determined by dividing retail sales by population. Total per capita retail sales in
1994 for San Luis Obispo City was $12.4 thousand. Auto dealershipstsupplies had the
highest per capita spending at $2,535 due to auto sales areas located in the City. General
Merchandise also had a high per capita sales at$1,502. Eating/ddnldng establishments had
per capita sales of$1,399.
1994 Retail Sales Com arison & Per Capita Sales
Retail SLO City Santa Maria SLO City Santa Maria
Stores Sales Sales Per Cap Per Cap
Apparel $29,189 $27,040 $668 $399
Gen. Merchandise $65,645 $167,327 $1,502 $2,468
Drug $14,570 $16,226 $333 $239
Food $25,503 $34,619 $584 $511
Packaged Uquoi $3,662 $6,068 $84 $89
Eating/drinking places $61,130 $56,157 $1,399 $828
Home tum/appliances $16,214 $17,847 $371 $263
Bldg.matrl. and Farm impl $22,309 $93.472 $511 $1,379
Auto dealers/supplies $110,759 $117,834 $2,535 $1,738
Service stations $36,507 $30.529 $835 $450
Other Retail Stores $73,360 $58.617 $1,679 $865
Retail Store Totals $458,848 $625,736 $10,500 $9,229
All Other outlets $84,941 $117,994 $1,944 $1,740
Total AD Outlets $543,789 $743,730 $12,444 $10,969
Source: Stephen A. Nukes& Associates
1994 SLO Population 43,700,Santa Maria Population 67,800.
Although Santa Maria has a higher total retail sales level, sales per capita compared to
San Luis Obispo was lower. Santa Maria's highest per capita spending was in general
merchandise at $2,468. Auto dealerships/supplies had a per capita spending of $1,738.
Per capita retail sales in the building material and farm implements category was$1,379.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Lfs Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 10
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
San Luis Obispo City Retail Sales Leakage
In analyzing the potential for additional retail sales, a leakagetcapture analysis was
performed When analyzing leakage, sales per capita are used. The sales per capita are
compared with a base City or county to determine if the subject City is receiving less or
more per capita sales than the comparison area. If a City receives less sales per capita, this
indicates a "leakage"of sales out of the area. If an area has higher per capita sales, the area
"captures" sales from other areas. For comparison purposes in determining San Luis
Obispo's leakage, the City of Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo County were used.
Figures in parentheses indicate leakage.
San Luis Obispo City Retail Leakage And Capture
Retail SLO City SLO City Leakage SLO City Leakage
Stores Retail Sales Compared to senna Maria cam pared to SLO Co.
Apparel $29,189,000 $11,760.563 $19,263,073
Gen. Merchandise $65.645,000 ($42,204,409) $31,823,883
Drug $14,570,000 $4.111.649 $4,395,438
Food $25,503,000 $3,189,574 $4,581,601
Packaged Liquor $3,662,000 ($249,086) $216,823
Eating/drinking places $61,130,000 $24,934,412 $21,064,109
Home fum/appliances $16,214,000 $4,710,845 $5,940,816
Bldg.matrl.and Farm impl. $22,309,000 ($37,937,702) $1,741,471
Auto dealers/supplies $110,759,000 $34,809,947 $75,166,833
Service stations $36,507,000 $16,829,754 $10,938,627
Other Retail Stores $73,360,000 $35,578,836 $48,121,691
Retail Store Totals $458,848,000 $55,534,383 $223,254,366
All Other Outlets $84,941,000 $8 888 820 $5,426,649
Total All Outlets $543,789,000 $64,423,204 $215,018,389
Source:Stephen A.Nukes and Associates
1994 SLO Population 43,700,Santa Maria Population 67,800.
In comparison to San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo City has a net capture of
$215 million. In comparison to Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo had an overall net capture of
$64.4 million. This net capture is due to San Luis Obispo's role as San Luis Obispo
Stephen A. Nukes&Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B1 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 11
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
County's retail hub, the high commuter employment base, Cal Poly students and faculty
and high tourism.
Although San Luis Obispo had a net capture when compared to Santa Maria, the San
Luis Obispo City General Merchandise category had a very high leakage of$42.2 million
in retail sales when compared to Santa Maria. General Merchandise stores include stereos,
VCR's,television sets, microwaves and other general merchandise.
The packaged liquor category had a minor leakage of$249 thousand. Building material
and farm implements also showed leakage of $37.9 million. This leakage is due to the
nature of the Santa Maria market and to larger size farm implement and building material
dealers in the City of Santa Maria.
San Luis Obispo City Retail Sales Captures
Retail stores in general in the City of San Luis Obispo captured sales from surrounding
areas. A net total retail sales capture compared to Santa Maria of$55.5 million was seen in
1994. Auto dealers and supplies had a capture of$34.8 million,as did eating and drinking
establishments at $24.9 million. Apparel stores had a capture of $11.8 million when
compared with Santa Maria spending. The home furnishings/appliances category also had
a net capture volume of$4.7 million.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 12
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Downtown Retail Impact
San Luis Obispo Retail Sales Revenue By Geographic Area
The Downtown area in San Luis Obispo is very healthy. The Downtown B.I.A.
contributed the highest geographic retail sales revenue to the City of San Luis Obispo in
1994 at$88.8 million or 19% of total retail sales revenue. Downtown revenues in 1995/96
totaled$107 million. -
The Madonna Road area had the second highest contribution in 1994, at 18% or $85.4
million. South Iliguera had $81.6 million, Laguna/Los Osos Valley road had $74.9
million. Santa Rosa/Monterey had $50.4 million, the Foothill/Chorro/Santa Rosa area
contributed $30.4 million. Santa Barbara/South Broad had $35.9 million and all other
stores contributed$44.2 million in retail sales revenue.
1994 Retail Sales Revenue By GeoQraDhic Area
At other outets
Santa Barbara/ 9%
South Broad
8%
Santa Rosa/ .;�;o■...,..,
Monterey
Madonna Road
>< s Area
South Higuera
FoothiNChomISanta Rosa
12% Laguna/Los Osos Valley RD. 7%
16%
Retail Soles Revenue Total 5456,848,000
Source: Stephen A. Nukes& Associates, Hinderliter,de Llamas& Associates
f-�83
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 13
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Downtown Retail Business Distribution
The Downtown area has 348 B.I.A. members listed in the Downtown Directory of
Retail And Services. The largest categories include food service, apparel, gift stores,
beauty/hair/nails and saloons.
Downtown San Luis Obispo Business Distribution
Food Service" 68 Florists 6
Apparel' 53 Books/News 6
Gift/Hobby/Games/Education 37 Variety Merchandise 6
Beauty/Hair/Nails 26 Points of Interest 6
Saloons 11 Real Estate 6
Art/Framing 11 Banks 5
Jewlers/Gems 11 Photos/Cameras/Studios 4
Home Furnishings 11 Travel Services 4
Sporting Goods 10 Copy/Printing 4
Auto 7 Stationery/Office Supplies 4
Body Care/Cosmetics 7 Used/Thdft Shops 4
Appliance/PhonerrVNideo 7 Toys 2
Movies/Music 7 Pharmacy 2
Government Agencis 7 Pet 2
Health/Fdness 6 Lodging 1
Eye Wear 6 Postal Service 1
Total 348
Source: B.I.A. Directory of Retail 8 Services
Children/Women/Men/SporWLingerie/Shoesfrailoring
"Coffeehouse/Snack/Dessert, DeJUSandwicWPiaa, Markets, Restaurants
Potentially Affected Downtown Stores
Only 2.6% of B.I.A. stores will be affected by the Prado Road Project. The following
are key identified Downtown Businesses that might be potentially impacted by stores at the
Prado Road Project.
Downtown Electronic.Audio and Video. and Appliance Stores:
- Audio Video Concepts - Cellular One
- Audio Ecstasy - Phone Center
- E.E. Long - Telephone Gallery
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B1 San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 14
Prado Road Property Retail Development,Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Downtown O97ce Bundy Stores:
- Mission Office Supplies
Downtown Pet Stores:
- Pampered Pets
- Golden Paw
Potential For Prado Road Project Stores to Locate Downtown
The issue was raised as to whether stores in the Prado Road Project could be located
Downtown. It was found that due to limitations of store access, size and parking, the
location of these stores Downtown is impractical. In April of 1996, the available vacant
retail space sizes in the Downtown San Luis Obispo area ranged from approximately 870
square feet to 8,485 square feet.
The old Earthling Book store space was the largest available at 8,485 square feet. The
Earthling bookstore has since been purchased or leased as a microbrewery. Most current
retail spaces in the Downtown area are generally in the 800 to 3,500 square foot range.
Rental prices ranges from $1.20 to$2.00 per square foot,triple net. There is not sufficient
square footage or parking to accommodate the Prado Road Project tenants.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 2250 Peach Street,Suite B1 San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 15
-- Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Potential Retail Impacts of
The Prado Road Proiect
Potential Contribution to The City of San Luis Obispo Retail Sales
Projected sales for the Prado Road Project is estimated at $25.3 million annually.
Circuit City will be approximately 28,670 square feet, with an estimated annual retail sales
at approximately $13.5 million.
The Office Max will have an approximate size of 23,500 square fed, with an estimated
annual retail sales of$6.8 million. The PdSmart has an approximate size of 23,567 square
feet, with an estimated retail sales of$5.0 million per year. The project's combined total of
employees is estimated to be approximately 120 people, with an estimated gross payroll of
$3 to$5 million per year,plus benefits.
Anticipated Tax Revenues to City
Potential retail sales for the following stores were estimated based on their sales per
square foot.
Prado Road Project Sales & Tax Estimates
Prado Rd. Project Square Footage Est. Retail Sales Tax To City
Circuit City 28,670 $13,500,000 $135,000
Office Max 23,500 $6,800,000 $68,000
Pet Smart 23,567 $5,000,000 $50,000
Total 75,737 $25,300,000 $253,000
Source:Stephen A. Nukes& Associates
At a City sales tax rate of 1%,a total of$253 thousand in annual sales tax revenue will
be generated by the Prado Road Project. With Circuit City's retail sales projected at $13.5
million per year, $135 thousand will be generated in sales tax revenue. Office Max's
estimated retail sales per year is appFoximately $6.8 million, with a approximate tax /
Stephen A- Nukes d Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Inds Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 16
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
revenue of$68 thousand. PetSmart has a projected annual retail sales of$5.0 million, with
an estimated sales tax revenue of$50 thousand.
In evaluating the financial impact on the City of the Project, estimates are that most will
be new sales. This will provide$253,000 of sales tax income. There are many other fees
and taxes that will be paid by the Project including business license tax fees, utility taxes,
property taxes and property transfer taxes. It was beyond the scope of this report to
analyze each of these sources and hence,they are not included
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Lads Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 17
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Potential Impacts on Downtown Retail
The Downtown is strong. Empty space are rapidly filling with many new projects
scheduled to begin operation in late 1996 or 1997. The Downtown B.I.A. retail sales totals
for 1994 were estimated at $88.8 million. For 1995/96, Downtown revenues were
approximately$107 million. The appliance/phonerfV category had an estimated retail sales
for 1994 at$2.1 million. The stationery/gift/office supplies category had an estimated retail
sales for 1994 at $2.2 million. Because of confidentiality issues, information in the pet
store category is not provided. The stores affected by the Project represent 3.1% of
Downtown revenues. The dollar impact on Downtown sales is expected to have a short
term impact of only 0.3% to 1.2% of sales. The following is an analysis of the potential
impacts on these Downtown retail stores.
Circuit City Business Impacts
Audio Ecstasy anticipates only a minor impact from a Circuit City in San Luis Obispo
because it markets to a higher end electronic market than Circuit City. Audio Video
Concepts in San Luis Obispo is already impacted by the Circuit City in Santa Maria. The
store currently markets itself as a price competitor with Circuit City.
After the novelty factor of a San Luis Obispo Circuit City wears down,AVC might find
sales increasing due to more electronics shoppers that currently leave the City to shop
staying within San Luis Obispo. A Circuit City in San Luis Obispo would bring back retail
sales to the City that would otherwise leak to Santa Maria.
off ice Max Business Impacts
Office supply stores in Downtown business areas have already been impacted by a
large scale store, Staples, which opened in December of 1995. The retail impact in sales
pie
Stephen A. Nukes A Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 18
I
Prado Road Propeny Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
has already been absorbed by Downtown stores such as Mission Office Supplies. Most of
the effect of an Office Max type of store will be directed at Staples and the Office Depot in
Santa Maria, because they would be in more direct competition with a San Luis Obispo
Office Max. Some of Office Max's customers will be generated from Staples clientele and
from other outlying areas within the county.
PetSmart Business Impacts
The projected $5.0 million in retail sales for the proposed PetSmart would be mostly
new generated sales. The PetSmart has a focus on a variety of supplies for all types of
animals but does not sell pas. The Downtown pet stores focus on grooming and on the
selling of pets as well as pct supplies. Pampered Pets does sell pet food and supplies and
may be impacted to some extent. Overall, PetSmart is anticipated to have a minimal affect
on Downtown pet businesses.
Stephen A, Mikes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite 81 San Luis Obispo.Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 19
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Proiect Economic Impact
Potential Employment and Retail Sales Impact
The total annual direct economic impact of the project is $34.3 million. Estimated new
permanent jobs created by the Prado Road Project is projected at 120 persons. Wages and
benefits are estimated at $4 million. For every job that is created by the Prado Road
Project, an indirect benefit of additional jobs and wages will occur additionally to stimulate
the economy. This is known as the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect ranges from an
additional 1.5 to 2.5 times the direct economic benefit. Because the City does not include
the multiplier effect in their computations, no analysis of the effect was included in this
study.
Model Proiect Economic Impacts
New Revenues
Project Retail Sales $25,300,000
City Sales Tax $253,000
Permanent Jobs 120
Wages&Benefits Paid $4,000,000
Additional Retail Sales $1,000,000
Additional Sales Tax $10,000
Construction Impact $4,000,000
Total Economic Impact $34,310,000
Source:Stephen A. Nukes& Associates
A projected retail sales of$25.3 million will be created by the Prado Road Project, with
an estimated City sales tax of$253,000. An additional retail sales impact of $1 million is
projected based on wages paid, with an additional local sales tax of approximately
$10,000.
Stephen A. Wakes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B! San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 20
Prado Riad Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
New Construction Impact
The Prado Road Project will have a construction impact from the purchasing of
construction materials, supplies, and construction wages. A significant number of
construction jobs will be created. Approximately 20 to 30 construction trades will be
represented, with ranges of 2 to 20 persons per trade. The number of jobs is estimated at
266 jobs, with wages and benefits at approximately $2 million.
Construction costs are estimated at $1.6 million for Circuit City, Office Max is
estimated at $1.3 million, and PetSmart is estimated at $1.1 million. An estimated total
construction cost for the Prado Road Project is approximately $4 million.
Prado Road Project Construction Costs
Square Feet Cost/So ft Total Cost
Circuit City 23,500 $59 $1,386,500
Office Max 28,670 $44 $1,261,480
PetSmart _ _ 23,567 $43 $1,013,381
Total 75,737 $48 $3,661 ,361
-- -------- _ _. -__s — _ . ._. ._._ .. ... . . _ . _ .. ._ ._..._ _.
Source: Stephen A. Nukes& Associates
The estimated materials and supplies needed for the project is approximately $2 million,
with estimated sales tax of$20,000.
Estimated Construction Impact
NOW
#Construction Jobs 266
Construction Costs:
Wages& Benefits Paid $1,994,000
Materials& Supplies $1,994,000
Sales Tax $19,940
Total Economic Impact $4,007,940
Source: Stephen A. Nukes & Associates
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street.Suite Bl San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 21
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Survev Of Affected Stores
A survey of affected small businesses in Downtown San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria
was conducted to determine the possible effects the Prado Road Project might have on
Downtown business.
Just recently a Circuit City opened in Santa Maria and a Staples in San Luis Obispo.
The effects these stores had on the Downtown businesses were used to help determine
effects that the Prado Road Project would have in San Luis Obispo. The Downtown
businesses had a slump during the 4th Quarter of 1995, so most businesses can not
attribute the entire loss of sales directly to the opening of Circuit City in Santa Maria or
Staples in San Luis Obispo. All surveys were conducted with either store owners or senior
managers.
Electronics
Audio Video Concepts (AVC) has two stores which would be affected by the Prado Road
Project. The service store felt a slight effect when the Circuit City opened in Santa
Maria, about 5%. Because it is a high quality stereo store with service, store managers
felt the service store had minimal competition with the Circuit City.
The Downtown Audio Video Concepts store had a significant decrease in sales
during the Christmas Season. The managers believed that this decline was partially due
to the opening of Circuit City of Santa Maria. To minimize the effect of the loss, the
store matched the Circuit City prices, and promoted the high quality of service Audio
Video Concepts offers. They feel that Circuit City has lesser service, so the effect in
sales loss may not last.
AVC believed, that if a Circuit City came into San Luis Obispo, their store would
feel a great impact. Because the competition would be more local, the store would be
impacted more than the opening of the Santa Maria store. Some recovery would be
possible once the novelty effect of a new store would wore off.
Siephen A. Nukes & Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 22
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Audio Ecstasy was lightly affected by the Circuit City in Santa Maria. The Store Managers
believe that they are an upscale store and cater to different types of customers. Their
store offers better quality service than Circuit City. If a Circuit City moved into San
Luis Obispo they believe they would be marginally affected, but were not able to
estimate the amount.
Telephones
The Phone Center believes a light impact from the Santa Maria Circuit City. Their
approach to the market is different because they are a specialty store. Their employees
offer experience in phone services and are not on commission. They believes they had
more of an effect from Staples than Circuit City. If a Circuit City came to San Luis
Obispo,they believes they would believe an effect in sales of possibly 25-30% initially
until the novelty wore off.
The Telephone Gallery believes that they had a light impact for the Santa Maria Circuit City
store and a medium effect from the Staples opening. Loss in sales was difficult to
determine because of many factors. Extra steps in service were used to minimize any
additional losses. If a Circuit City came to San Luis Obispo they believe it would have
a moderate effect in their sales.
Office Products
Mission QVgg Products believes a medium affect from the opening of Staples. Loss in
sales were difficult to determine because of the general slump in 4th quarter 1995. The
store has since picked up sales in January. A loss of about 20% was seen in sales
overall. To minimize the effects of the Staples opening, the store advertised more,
increased service, and tried to match prices with staples. Office delivery gives them a
competitive advantage. An Office Max in San Luis Obispo would not additionally
affect them, and any effects would be temporary.
r-j 93
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite B1 Sam Luis Ohispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 23
Prado Road Property- Retail Development Ec•unutmic Impact Anal)sis October 1996
Circuit City & ice Max Effects in Santa Maria
The opening of Office Max and Circuit City in Santa Maria in 1994 were used to
illustrate local retail sales impact and actions taken for recovery. We spoke to Bob Hatch,
the Executive Director of the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce, about the Circuit
City and Office Max impacts. He felt in order to deter such impacts, the smaller businesses
should find out what the bigger stores do not offer and supply the consumer with these-
needs.
heseneeds.
Audio Video Ciry
Audio Video City in Santa Maria believed their business increased by approximately
40% when Circuit City came into their market area. They believed that consumers were
able to see that their service was better and that their prices were the same or lower. They
believed that they carry different and better quality items than a Circuit City does. They
also stated that most of their customers had just come from the Circuit City store and were
disappointed in the service.
Computer King-in Santa Maria felt an impact in sales because of Circuit City and Office
Max. The reasons were because of location rather than price or variety of stock. The
location of the Circuit City was in an area that matched consumer patterns. It disrupted
the opportunity for people to shop for better prices and other items.
Systems Stationer's in Santa Maria felt that businesses similar to an Office Max are
devastating to the small business community. This store felt an initial impact of 50%
on their retail sales. Recovery of sales was made in 7 months. The store had to have a
change in buying pattern, better service and catering to clientele. They believed that
these kinds of changes need to be made if they are to stay in direct competition with the
larger scale stores.
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B1 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 24
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis October 1996
Mitigation Recommendations
The following recommendations are designed to provide methods for impacted
businesses to mitigate the effects of the Prado Road Project tenants.
- Downtown businesses can mitigate many of the effects by emphasizing
service, price, staying open later and utilizing creative marketing and
advertising strategies. Businesses in Santa Maria have recently been
impacted by these similar tenants, and through aggressive measures have
found recovery in retail sales within 6 months.
- Downtown businesses can utilize the importance of their "quality one-on-one
service". The ratio between customer and employee for Downtown
businesses allows for personal rapport to develop. This gives the potential
of enhancing customer service.
- Competitive pricing and advertising are important tools in competing with
larger chain stores. A few businesses already have addressed this issue by
promoting themselves as a price competitor to Circuit City. Audio Visual
Concepts in San Luis Obispo and Audio Video City in Santa Maria advertise
their stores as Circuit City price competitors. Audio Video City in Santa
Maria has already seen positive change after the Circuit City impact in it's
area.
- By tying the Prado Road Project to the Downtown area, the Prado Road
Project can be used to create a positive impact on the Downtown market.
- A kiosk for advertising the Downtown area,located at the Prado Road Project,
maintained by the Downtown businesses, can remind the consumers of all
the options available to them in the Downtown area for their shopping
needs.
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates 1250 Peach Street.Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93407 (805)541-2077 25
Prado Road Propem- Retail Development &-onnmic Impact Analysis October 1996
- The feasibility of having the Downtown Trolley make periodic stops at the
Prado Road Center should be investigated. If every third or fifth trolley trip
included a loop to the Project, it would offer the opportunity to bring a
significant number of shoppers to the Downtown area.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite BI San Luis Obispo. Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 26
f ,
_Prado.Road PropertyRetail Developfhent_Ecimomic'::_ItnpacrAndllsis__ _ Oadber_1996
Aggendix.
1.Mission Office Products Advertisement
2. Audio Video Concepts, San Luis Obispo Window Advertisement
3. Audio Video City, Santa Mafia Window Advertisement.
-/q7
Stephen A, Nukee & Assncialic 1.250'Peach Street, Suite BI ^San L'uir ObLcpn, Ca 93401 (845)54I=2077 27
� Mission office Pxod
AdvantageThe Local
u s
1''�l1(-1; h HEWLETT
CP] PACKARD
:=��-dry/ �: �� -`° ♦ .J����'� ry -
r` �...rY•nc'S4 e '
� e
r S
Pf vt ':r
Mission office;Products
i
T� -
...........
J ?�^ ���a _�`+-•i T ` '.'.
-
r
CPIt.TY
4
;Y �aCIR
WE �I TyS_. '_
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates
Management Strategy and Economic Consultants
1250 Peach Street,Suite B1
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Office(805)541-2077
Fax(805)541-2117
STEPHEN A. NUKES& ASSOCIATES BACKGROUND AND CAPABILITY
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates is a full service management consulting firm
specializing in strategic planning and economic and market research. We have been serving
the Central Coastal Region since 1975. We have provided clients with the Central Coastal
Economic Forecast since 1984. We provide independent assessments of the growth and
demographic changes taking place in the Central Coastal Region and the strategic effects of
these changes for both businesses and public agencies. We perform a wide variety of
research tailored to individual client needs and develop financial, marketing, or policy
strategies to creatively meet client objectives.
Among the areas we cover are the following.
-Strategic Economic and Marketing Planning
-Economic Forecasting and Analysis Services
-Development Project Feasibility and Impact Studies
-Retail and Demographic Analysis,Market Surveys and Focus Groups
-Management Briefings and Individual Consultations
In all our engagements we are committed to providing clear cut information and
implementable results while meeting critical client time requirements.
Our staff has extensive background in Finance, Accounting, and Marketing Analysis.
We also have the computer resources to provide a range of Financial and Strategic
Analyses, determine the consequences of various options and assist in the selection of the
best strategic course or courses.
Stephen A. Nukes has over 24 years business experience and an M.B.A. Degree in
Finance and Marketing from the UCLA Graduate School of Management. He has worked
for such companies as IBM Corporation, Transamerica Corporation, and taught Finance,
Business, Marketing and Computer Science at California Polytechnic State University in
San Luis Obispo. He has also lectured extensively on Business Financial Strategy,
Organization Strategies, Marketing, Marketing Survey Techniques, and methods to
maximize revenue and overall results.
Stephen A. Nukes & Dissociates
Management Strategy and Economic Consultants
Fremont Plaza
1250 Peach Street Suite 81
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Office(805)541-2077
Fax(805)541-2117
PARTIAL LIST OF CLIENT REFERENCES
The following is a partial list of client references who have used our Strategic
Planning, Market Analysis or Market Forecasting services.
Private Industry Clients:
Atascadero Mutual Water Company Pacific Gds&Electric Co.
All Valley Mortgage Pebble Beach Company
ARCS Mortgage Roger Snellenberger& Assoc.
Bank of America Rossetti Company
Bonita American Santa Maria Public Airport Dist.
Cambria Business Park Santa Barbara Savings&Loan
Castil Corporation Santa Lucia Bank
Century 21, Commercial Investment Division Santa Lucia Hills, Inc.
Century Federal Savings Seacoast Financial
Coldwell Banker,Commercial Division Sea Group West
Commerce Bank Spyglass Properties
Don Lee Realty Investments Squire Developments
Fust American Title Insurance Company Sykes Group
Great Western Bank T.L. Robak
Golden West Development Corporation Wells Fargo Bank
H&A Financial
Hacienda Bank
Hanson Enterprises
Heritage Oaks Bank Cay and CovermentAgairdes:
Home Base of America
Invest West Financial Corporation TheCity of Atascadem
J.H. Edwards Company The City of Lompoc
La Croix Developers The City of Morro Bay
La Cumbre Savings Bank The City Pismo Beach
Lifestyle Development The City of Redondo Beach
Halferty Company The City of San Luis Obispo
Manchester Mortage Company The County of San Luis Obispo
Midland Pacific Building Corporation Port San Luis Harbor District
Midstate Bank The County of Monterey
Ozark Industries The City of Montrey
Pacific Coastline Corportation CSU-Monterey Bay
/-020
Attachment 6
Traffic Report
L avatlab/e {-or review iw
ate G'ocu�ci/ rea�Gnq A-le
Attach ;ent 7.
Archeo ocal Ivestatio
PARKER & ASSOCIATES
2131 Sunset
Morro Bay, CA 93442
(805) 772-0117.
ARCEHEOLOG = CAL..:' = NVEST = GATION
of ''Parce3-
0 .53 - 04 -L - 034 : .
0 .53- 041 = 034: _
Sari Luis. .Ob -spo , Cal3forrnia
Prepared at the request of :
.Michael Multari
Crawford Multari & Starr
641 Higuera St. Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, GA. 93401
1991
• ti.
q_%:, Certified
A »r TITIIr A "^7TA T t-V77A 71^1 /1P7T^A 7 . YTTTT TT lY
SUMMARY
On April 11 , Michael Multari requested that the author conduct an
archeological investigation of a parcel located at the corner of
: Prado Rd. and Elks. Ln, San Luis Obispo. The purpose of the
investigation was to locate, describe, and evaluate any
archaeological or historical resources which may be present on
the property. In addition, The author was to assess the impact
which might occur as a result of the proposed development of
office buildings on the parcels.
The result of this analysis indicated that no prehistoric
archaeological resources exist on the surface of the parcel . A
historic ranch house complex was found to exist on the parcel ,
however, preliminary research indicated that the standing
structures are not "unique" as outlined in CEQA (Section
21083. 2) . Significant historicartifacts may exist underground
in buried trash pits, abandon well fill, and filled privy pits .
It is recommended' that the proposed project be approved as
planned with the provision that an archaeologist be retained to
monitor demolition, grading and trenching and to record and
recover significant ' cultural items which may be unearthed by
these activities '(see Conclusions and Recommendations Section for
details) .
INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
The field work carried out as part of this study was conducted by
John Parker. Mr. Parker holds a Masters Degree in Anthropology,
is a PhD Candidate in Archeology, and is certified by the Society
of Professional Archeologists . The field work took place April
14, 1991 .
The parcel investigated covers 9 acres of land and is located at
the northeast corner of the intersection of Prado Rd. and Elks
Ln. , between San Luis Obispo Creek and Hwy 101 at the south end
of San Luis Obispo. The property is depicted on the San Luis
Obispo 7. 5 ' USGS topographic map as existing in NE 1/4 of the NW
1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 3, T31S, R12E (see attached map) .
Soil across the parcel consisted of a rich dark gray/brown
alluvium which is likely the result of overbank deposits from the
flooding of San Luis Obispo Creek. The property has supported
agricultural crops and grazing for the past 200+ years. From the
late 1800 ' s till 1940 , the parcel fronted the Pacific Coast
Railroad [where Elks Ln. and Hwy 101 now sit] (Krieger 1988 ,
Sanborn Insurance Maps 1900 , Henderson 1890 , Harris 1874) . The
existing historic ranch house, barn and out-buildings are
oriented toward the rail bed to the west and it is probable that
a road extended from the house to the rail line before the
construction of Prado Rd.
Prior to European settlement, the project ' area would have been
controlled by the Obispeno subdivision of the larger Chumash
cultural group. The Obispeno are believed to have controlled a
territory which extended from the Pacific Ocean eastward to the
Carrizo Plain and from Morro Bay south to Pismo Beach (Greenwood
1978) .
The proposed project calls for the demolition of all structures
currently on the parcel as well as grading and trenching for
foundations, utilities, and access -rbads to enable new
development.
FIELD METHODS
Prior to the field inspection, a record search was conducted at'
the Regional Archaeological Information Center (Dept. of
Anthropology, U. C. Santa Barbara) . This records review revealed
that the parcel had not been the subject of an archaeological
inspection in the past. However, one prehistoric archaeological
site had been previously recorded within 500 feet of 'the project
area.
The field work consisted of an intensive surface examination of
all portions of the property. This inspection was conducted by
walking transects across the property at 5 to 8 meter intervals.
Although spring vegetation was well developed, open patches
between plants allowed complete inspection of the ground surface '
. over the entire area. Special attention was given to examining
the ground around the historic structures for traces of previous
buildings , trash deposits, etc. The structures were also
examined in an effort to determine their use, style and period of
construction.
. The only area where ground inspection was not possible was the
southwest corner of the study area. A _service station is
constructed atop fill in this area and the entire corner is
covered with asphalt (see attached map) .
Following the field inspection, historic documents were examined
in an effort to determine the significance and age of - the
historic structures .
STUDY RESULTS
No prehistoric cultural materials were encountered during the
field inspection, However, due to soils morphology in the area,
there is the potential for buried archaeological remains .
-040
Farm Rouse
Upon inspection, the farmhouse turned out to be a simple
rendition of a Victorian Queen Anne Cottage. This style was one
of the favorites in the San Francisco Bay area in the late 1880 ' s
and throughout the 1890 ' s . The style is characterized by a showy
front gable which is usually filled with textured shingles ,
stained glass window, etc. Front porch and window areas often
contain turned supports, gingerbread trim, etc. It is safe to
assume that the house was constructed sometime between 1890 and
1910. The house and water tower were both constructed with bevel
siding suggesting the two were constructed at the same time. The
house was later covered with a second layer of siding (it no
longer resembles the water tower) .
Additions to the house include internal plumbing and electrical ,
and the addition of a rear utility porch. Internal plumbing and
electrical probably occurred shortly after construction (1906-
1915) as evidenced by exterior vent pipes and sewer line. The
back porch was constructed prior to the installation of the new
exterior siding. The interior of the structure didn' t show any
signs of wall or room additions or demolition. With the
exception of paint; wallpaper, and floor covering, the interior
is as it was when the house was first constructed.
Out Buildings
Standing structures included a garage (facing Prado Rd. ) , a hay
barn with side shed-roofed areas to store tack, a fuel shed,
water tower, pump/well house, chicken coup, two other small
sheds , and fence lines .
The garage was likely built following the construction of Prado
Rd.
There were no period indicators associated with the Barn, fuel
shed, chicken coup, or smaller sheds . The pump house and new
well appeared to be a relatively recent addition with electric
pump and pressure tank.
It will be possible to determine the age of these structures by
recovering associated cultural items during the demolition and
grading of the area.
Other Features
Non structural features included the remains of the original
brick-lined Well, two areas of historic artifact concentration, a
concrete slab and- clothes line setup, and several pieces of
agricultural equipment (plow, discing machine, etc. ) .
1-,2O7
The brick-lined well is likely to be filled with progressive
layers of historic cultural material . Such features are often
used by their owners as an almost bottomless garbage can. When
excavated, their contents can provide an excellent insight into
the daily life of the people who owned them.
Similar historic materials are likely to be recovered from old
privy pits and trash pits. These features will often not be
obvious from surface examination, but may show up as
concentrations of broken glass, pottery,'• etc. on the surface.
Through documentation, the agricultural equipment can be compared
with equipment from different areas and different time periods to
provide information on the independent development of new
techniques and ideas for tillage, planting, harvesting, etc.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEENDATIONS
Prehistoric Archaeological Resources
No surface remains of Native American habitation were observed.
Though it is unlikely that buried prehistoric materials exist on
the parcel, the soil morphology indicates that there is a remote
possibility that buried cultural material might not have been
apparent during the surface inspection.
It is recommended that an archaeologist be retained to monitor.
grading and trenching. In the unlikely event that significant
materials are encountered, equipment should be temporarily
directed to work on other areas of the parcel while these remains
are documented and removed. In the event that prehistoric Native
American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor
should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document
and remove the items .
Farm House
Although this structure is a good example of the Queen Anne
Cottage style of the 18901s, there are several structures of this
style in and around the city if San Luis Obispo which are being .
well maintained by their owners . It is recommended that photo-
documentation be conducted prior to demolition.
Out Buildings
The water tower should be photo-documented prior to demolition.
The other utility buildings don' t represent any significant style
and do not require any special treatment prior to demolition.
An archaeologist should be on hand to monitor demolition of all
structures and record and collect any significant historical
materials or cultural artifacts which may turn up as a result of
this work.
Other Features
The abandon brick-lined well and areas of surface concentration
of broken glass are likely to contain quantities of buried
historic artifacts . In addition, there.'. ; is a high probability
that buried trash pits and privy pits exist on the property.
It is recommended that an archaeologist be retained to monitor
. the grading and trenching in and around the farm house complex.
If significant concentrations of historic materials are
encountered, the archaeologist should work closely with the
backhoe operator to carefully expose, record and remove such
.materials during the grading and trenching phase . of project.
! development.
General
If the recording and recovery of historic materials becomes
necessary during the grading and trenching phase of the project, "
such work should be conducted alongside, and in concert with,
earth-moving activities to avoid any unnecessary costs or time
delays during construction.
In the area of the ranch house complex, ' one archaeological
monitor should be '. on site for each piece of earth moving
equipment used.
Throughout the rest of the property, only one archaeological
monitor is necessary, regardless of the amount of equipment used.
Bibliography
Greenwood Roberta
1978 "Obispeno and Furisimeno Chumash" Handbook of North
American Indians, Vol. 8, Smithsonian Institute, Washington,
D. C.
Harris, R. R.
1874 "Map of San Luis Obispo County" , copy on file at the
San Luis Obispo. County Government Center.
Henderson, Chas
1890 "Map of San Luis Obispo County" , copy on file at the
San Luis Obispo County Government Center.
Krieger
1988 San Luis Obispo County;_L,Qp1{ n �ckwetq_ g
Mj`aa�e Frkgdom, Windsor Publications Inc, Northridge, CA.
i-cW
Sanborn Insurance Maps
1900 "San Luis Obispo Street Maps" Microfilm on file with
the San Luis Obispo County Library.
GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION
...........
%cl.
: es —
2 a. erg
.113 BLVD 0
23
ST
A
AAlOWA • • Z'1:K11 11 Tj�1 I.- 1-1
1S Vo Ii � LL: % nty ar�
sleff.1
"IffrA
I L14
Iltlll
All I eo
!F • F.2. ?I
od
-let. •
ink Mo. Ill lilt I,
•
..Water I j
Tank 27,
I , V 8 is .o..(.
..... .....
(KSBY-IV) We
:iIV
4"
V h
-1. 60
0! f-I 25V
PEI u s �!s
�L * 15i 11 1
a us
11M.W3 5
V Air Ili see (I
g.watl el
410
't;,, _r 77
IV, v -Park
?%P3tk t
tMUCINLANDS
43M.
'40r, 5 '24
anon'
ir
% �
a
oc
%
34 Z1X Vi �.0 A 0 it ace.5D 0.
n.35 1I Hill % 'Do
,
w
Jtl fT
r
so, I
fill r
A
Dar
A.v r
Pill
,
•
t.
Radio I aSiII g]; ark
0I
.(KATY)
S S
n in r
Park
0t'� .11 Water ".
3
..ai 'Tank '.%ZOL
SOL
y Y)
I
%
rack
vi
dRcurr
ral
T
I nm 221 Pat
7;
'0101 ry
"ink16
P.
16
I;jllel
ilk II vy
11161
Ire'
(Z 110
aller 21)
Park P- Grillo
P,l t %
l4
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF.
35120-C6-TF-024
1965
PHC)TOREVISED 1979
AREA INSPECTED
. _, .... _......
i �� t6 � •• •b
�, a ••msµ
6
Z- f ••.. T 'Y• ���
co
• f �.. O
(y • a W
Z �+ t• h•
4 ?3 +ter n
go
2 • , C
Te
• a
3 ?
a
... •ab
t
�J ...af.fo o.. r• .
PX It
.1/N•Q Gq, \ T ..amu.•.. .,....
cy �'. ..Thi / .. •� �I
^. ♦ JJ P dim-... •'�•`
- f•• /•7a Ji� 1 y
M
300' IZADIV
F
t
lam• � O �
1
s
v ¢
r
4
1
DETAIL OF RANCH HOUSE COMPLEX
i
I*
X(�5f16D h1,4Y Bo.PI✓ IN
LLII o.�x i
• t'10 ESC \
4Z.�M
T,log•
li/ ��T'
ff
� aa'.tff�E
DFft/57D.e/f r. f x.\
.
ISO* =a'E ^1
.tf�MG�•+� `
• Co c�7�'A770,v
1 � .
CGA/PAGE
7z
J- �
•T,N �
SYCSO 8'
� tet• I
up
+ r fr
1
Attachment 8
EDA Flood Anal- s s
li�ll
A i� city of sAn luis oBiso
P
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
February 21, 1992
Warren Hamrick
Studio Design Group
641 Higuera Street, Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Flood Analysis by EDA for 40 Prado Road
Dear: Warren,
The letter report prepared by Keith Crowe of EDA (dated 2-3-92)
analyzing the effects on a proposed project .at 40 Prado Road is
acceptable as to meeting the requirements of the City's Flood
Damage Prevention Regulations. The results indicate that the
project would not raise the 100-year storm inundation level
across the flood plain.
As indicated earlier, the City Engineer has recommended that the
project be required to raise the grade around the structures to
preclude flooding, as opposed to simply raising the structures
above existing grade. This will serve to protect the structures
and contents from flooding and "eliminate" the requirement for
costly flood insurance, under Federally guaranteed loans per FEYIA
regulations.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me
at 781-7194.
Yours very truly,
WAYNE A. PETERSON �.
CIT ENGINEER, -�
Gerald W. Kenny
Supervising Civil Engineer
Attachment: EDA letter (2-3-92) .
c: K Crowe (EDA)
K Bruce/P Ricci
HB/XB file
P: \jerry\40PradFl.wp
1,21S,
EDA RECE , VE
ENGINEERING
DEVELOPMENT / `
/�.� FEB s 1992
ASSOCIATES r,
CITY Linc p5ic
-February 3 , 1992 " EDA #201251
Jerry Kenny
Department of Public Works
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
955 Morro
San Luis Obispo, Ca, 93401
RTE: F1 ood =atu-s. 6t 4 Q pr--r9n 'Pc;_A
Dear Jerry;
As we discussed the other day, I am providing this statement of the
flood status, effect of the 100 year flood on the proposed project
and the effect of the project on the 100 year flood. As required
by City Ordinance the basis of the following information is the
Flood Study for the City of San Luis Obispo. Discussion related to
another study follows the required analysis.
Existing Flood Status
According to the Flood Information Rate Map for the City of
San Luis Obispo, the site is lochted in a flood zone. The
flood elevation shown on the map is 135 over the entire site.
The creek profiles published with the FIRM map indicate the
flood level to be 135.5.
The flood profiles indicate that the site is in the backwater
of the flow restriction caused by the Prado Road bridge. The
backwater extends about 650 feet upstream of Prado Road. The
site extends about 550 feet upstream of Prado Road.
Effect of Flooding on Project
Because the site is inundated by the -- 100 year flood the '
proposed buildings must be protected from flood damage. The
first element of protection is to design the structures so
that the contents and occupants are protected. This is done
by designing the structure so that the finish floor of the
:structures are at least one foot over the flood level. In the
case of commercial and industrial buildings floodproofing to
the same level is generally acceptable in lieu of the raised
floor. however, city staff has indicated that flood proofing
is not acceptable for this project.
For this project the finish floors of residential structures
' should be at a minir„um elevation of (135. 5+1) = 136.5 feet.
PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SU 'RVEYING�-�6
1320 NIPOIAO ST. SAN LUIS 03ISPO. CA 93401 ■ 805-549-8658 ■ FAX 805-549-8704
The second element of protection is to design the structure to
resist hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads imposed on the
structure by the flood water.
When specific site -and -building configurations are generated
then these loads can be determined. If building pads are
raised to or above the flood leve d ostatic and
hydroaynamlc loads are nonexistent.
Effect of Project on Flood Levels
Because- the project is located in the backwater of the Prado
X1. A.r1C:.j8,' ii�flii vi the flood`plairi v�iil *nut - increase the
flood elevation. Since the rate of flow through the bridge is
dependent on the elevation of the water surface just upstream
of the bridge, when the water is at elevation 135.5 the full
flood flow will pass through the bridge. Regardless of
development of the flood plain, as long as the floodway is not
restricted, once the 100 year flood reaches elevation 135.5 it
can go no higher.
Consideration of Nolte Studv
A more detailed study of this area of San Luis Creek was
completed by Nolte and Associates. The study indicates a
slightly more complicated pattern to the flow of the 100 year
flood.
According to this study flow breaks out of San Luis Creek
downstream of the Elks Lane Bridge. The resulting "sheet
flow" then flows toward Elks Lane and continues to the
northwesterly corner of the City Corporation Yard.
The study indicates that in a 100 year. flood the project area
is . surrounded by sheet flow on the west and creek overbank
flow on the. east. If the mitigation measures. suggested above
are imple3nehted and 'applied to the f'sood information' from the
Nolte Study then the project will meet' all flood hazard
mitigation criteria.
If I can answer any questions or provide further information please
call.
e1ROFESS/p��l
Sincerely; �Q ZN V. Cq
Engineering Development AssociatesNo.31
�}
Keith V. Crowe �E ,
LN
ENGINEERI-NG DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES
1320 NIPOftikO ST. SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93"101 905-544-RRSR FAY Qnc_-An o
4
MEMORANDUM
November 7, 1996
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance Uti
SUBJECT: IMPACT OF PROPOSITION 218 ON PROPOSED
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR PRADO ROAD INTERCHANGE
At its November 7, 1996 meeting, the Planning Commission requested a written response to the
question: "what is the impact of Proposition 218 on the formation of an assessment district to
fund construction of the Prado Road interchange?"
As I responded at the meeting, the short answer is: none, if the property owners support the
district.
While Proposition 218 will have far-reaching impacts on general benefit assessment districts for
maintenance and operation purposes where assessments are spread over a number of properties
(like 1972 Act lighting and landscape maintenance districts, and the one that was envisioned for
open space protection under Measure O), it will have no significant impact on the future
formation of assessment districts to construct special improvements (like the Prado Road
interchange) assuming there is significant property owner support for the improvements.
In short, while there undoubtedly will be procedural changes as a result of Proposition 218 in
forming improvement-oriented assessment districts, it should not affect capital projects where
property owners who account for over 50% of the overall assessment want the improvements.
If you have any further questions regarding the impact of Proposition 218 in general, or on this
project in particular, please feel free to contact me at 781-7125.
PROPMYCR
a• f
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 3 9G ITEM
Dear Mayor Allen Settle,
I write you this letter regarding the proposed rezoning at 40 Prado Rd. for big box retailers.
Please do not give away our retail vitality! The issue is not whether big box chains can come to SLO.
Mr. Nukes, at the beginning of the Planning Commission hearing admitted that with the movement of a few
interior walls, sufficient space in Madonna Plaza exists if these retailers want to compete with existing
business on an even playing field.
With ample retail vacancies in SLO, the only issue is do we give these big boxes the killing edge they need
to dominate our markets? Do we create a new freeway frontage retail area,just for the big boxes?
Do we give them special advantage that we do not, and have not given to any SLO businesses in the past?
All businesses would benefit from instant freeway access and unlimited, easy, usable parking. Why do we
consider giving outside business the unfair advantage?
It is truly sad that Council has been given so little important and essential information on our local
economy. Between developer and staff,you would think we are typical of all downtowns in major
population areas. Nothing gives a clue that we have a limited population, unique downtown and actual
retail vitality. Few facts on the impact locally have been officially presented to you for your consideration.
LOCAL ECONOMIC ISSUES NOT SUFFICIENTLY CONSIDERED:
1. Local businesses generate 2 to 4 times more payroll per retail dollar than the big boxes.
2. Local businesses buy ALL support services locally.
3. Local businesses keep ALL their profits and growth in this community.
4. Local businesses CARE about local issues.
COMPARE 1 MILLION OF CHEAP THRILLS RETAIL SALES WITH 1 MILLION IN BIG BOX RETAIL SALES
CHEAP THRILLS BIG BOX
Payroll Generated: $220,000 50,000
Local goods&services purchased 200,000 -0-
Reinvested Dollars: 80.000 -0-
TOTAL LOCAL $500,000 50,000
- ":CAO ❑ RAECHIF-
���� ® �aT-O �
' rY ❑ fib`/DIR
�::
Cheap Thrills payroll is higher than most local businesses, but the magnitude of the impact is still
comparable if other local retail were only half as good at retaining capital in the local economy as Cheap
Thrills. This means every local sales dollar puts at least 5 times the money into our economy as the
same sales dollar does in a big box store.
Economists say every dollar kept locally circulates 10 times. Local retailers keep 5 times the money (or
more) locally than big box retailers, multiplied by the recirculating factor of 10, is a 50 to 1 local sales
economic advantage in retaining capital. This recirculating capital generates sales tax! Take away the
recirculating local money and you take away sales tax revenue. This is why big boxes rarely solve the
economic troubles cities have. They usually make things worse.
Using only the 5 to 1 figures and the estimated 25 million in sales cannibalized by the big box retailers,we
can extrapolate a potential effect on the local economy. The big boxes must do 125 million dollars in sales
to equal the same positive overall effect of 25 million dollars in the local sales they will steal. If we take into
account the 50 to 1 recirculation factor they would need to do over 1.25 billion to produce the same positive
effect of the local 25 million in sales they will replace. Impossible.......of course!
Huge impacts and numbers like this are not even hinted at in the reports before Council,yet we have all
seen the pieces of the puzzle before. We all know money kept locally recirculates and generates sales
taxes as it does! If my analysis is only partially correct, the final implication to the local economy could be
massive.
Our city's staff is totally disconnected from the realities of our limited population's retail economy, and
despite examples everywhere (in the ruined remains of a majority of California's downtown districts,) staff
can do little but parrot the developer's propaganda.
Please do not be fooled into thinking there will be significant sales tax gains, When all is settled out,the 50
to 1 local retained capital advantage is lost,our downtown is weakened and our uniqueness is diluted.
There will be a net loss in final tax revenue.
If there were the unmet retail demand the developer claims,there would not be lots of empty retail spaces
in the mall, Town Center or Marigold Center, and the big boxes would not insist on having the freeway
advantage.
IN CONCLUSION
1. NO SPECIAL DEALS FOR BIG BOXES.
If they want to come there is ample appropriate space existing.
2. NO REZONING TO CREATE A NEW RETAIL AREA.
Follow the General Plan in regard to retail.
3. PLEASE SUPPORT A HEALTHY LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY.
Keep local dollars recirculating locally to keep a strong economy.
M: 'r
w
We have, in SLO,a golden goose that continues to lay golden eggs. Don't let misguided"Don Quixote"
attempts to garnish imaginary sales tax gains be the axe that kills the golden goose of downtown.
Sincerely,
Richaro. Ferris, Manager
Cheap Thrills Records
P. S. The time between the November 13th Planning Commission and the December 3rd Council leaves
no time to properly organize and prepare for Council. The Thanksgiving break and beginning of Christmas
make this one of the worst two weeks in a retailer's year. The BIA said they would be organizing a
resistance but we have not heard from them. Many businesses affected are outside the BIA and some are
actually unaware that any of this is happening. No attempt to contact all affected retailers has been made.
If you cannot reject this"Trojan Horse" proposal outright, then please consider rescheduling to February
so there is time for the affected businesses to speak to you. This would also allow time to get some
realistic economic information taking into account the factors mentioned in this report. Relying entirely on
the developer's report cannot be prudent on an issue as important as this.
1.
ANALYSIS & COMMENTS
regarding the proposed
REZONING OF PRADO ROAD & 101
for
"BIG BOX" SPECIALTY RETAILERS
t
The "Nukes" Report is a fabrication with little regard to accuracy or factuality.
This report, bought and paid for by the developers, is a shallow propaganda effort with the
intent of deceiving staff and council as to the true facts and consequence of this project.
The major problems with this report are in these areas:
1 Overstating the new sales and new taxes to be generated.
2 Totally misstating the effect on local and nearby County business.
3 Incorrectly identifying the "leakage" factor.
4 Misstating effect on local employment.
5 Downtown impact statement is totally misleading.
1. OVERSTATING NEW SALES & NEW TAXES TO BE GENERATED
The "Nukes Report" doubles the possible sales the project could ever produce
NET CONTRIBUTION TO THE CITY'S SALES TAX IS GROSSLY OVERSTATED!
Because businesses not within the city limits will close, there could be some initial net
sales tax gain for the city of SLO at SLO County's expense, but most of the project's sales
will be at the expense of the businesses nearby. The net gain to the city will be little. This,
plus overstated sales estimates promise a conservative estimate of NET GAIN closer to
$50,000 in tax revenue once the settling out and failure of local businesses is completed.
This does not include the ripple effect of all the LOCAL goods and services the LOCAL
businesses use that the "Big Box" retailers do not use.
Petsmart projects to do an average of $1,149.00 an HOUR, 365 days a year, 12 hours a
day. This equals or exceeds the TOTAL existing pet business done in this count
Office Max projects doing $17,000.00 per day average, 365 days a year, a number that
WITHOUT a "Staples" store already in SLO might be possible, but with the "Staples" store
included, the figures are wildly unrealistic. Eventually either Office Max or Staples will
leave, and a replacement "big box" retailer will surprise us all, a surprise we have no ability
to influence.
Circuit City projects average sales of $38,000.00 a day. That's $3.166.67 per HOUR!
These might not be unrealistic numbers in a 60,000 sq. ft. store, in LA, but not SLO! For
Circuit City to do $38,000.00 a day, EVERY person in San Luis Obispo would have to
spend $308.92 per year! Every family of four would spend $1,235.68!
The "Nukes" report states none of these sales will come from any local businesses, the
sales will ALL be NEW tax revenue. This is totally untrue.
MORE THAN 90% OF WHATEVER SALES THESE NEW BUSINESSES DO, WILL BE
TAKEN FROM EXISTING BUSINESSES AND EXISTING TAX REVENUE.
2. TOTALLY COUNTY BUSMISSTATESSES ING THE EFFECT ON LOCAL AND NEARBY
IN
Where are the new customers coming from?
"Nukes" says the sales are simply recaptured from leakage to Santa Maria. Fie imagines a
combined leakage recapture of$25,300,000.00 a year, without any effect on local
businesses.
How can this be believable to ANYONE. To believe that businesses 30 miles away will be
greatly affected, but businesses already here will not be affected at all, is not reasonable.
"Big Box" specialty dealers never come to an area without the belief that they can
dominate the market. There must already be enough existing local business to cannibalize,
before they will open in a marketplace.. .......
The success of most big box specialty stores rests in the failure of most other local,
competing businesses. There are NO new customera only ne&STnRFC r., share
3. INCORRECTLY IDENTIFYING THE "LEAKAGE"FACTOR
PETSMART STOPS NO LEAKAGE TO SANTA MARIA.
Big box pet stores normally annihilate nearly all local and neighborhood pet stores. Stores
as far away as Paso Robles could be affected. There is currently no known leakage in the
pet store category. SLO county has 14+ pet stores, and many more related stores that
supply goods and services at the local community level. Petsmart must cannibalize ALL
these sales. There are no NEW customers and there is no leakage. Local pet businesses
all must suffer for Petsmart to do HALF their proposed volume.
OFFICE MAX STOPS NO LEAKAGE TO SANTA MARIA!
"Leakage" to Santa Maria was a primary consideration when Staples came to town. We
were told it would stop the leakage in the office supply category. We and Staples feel it
has.
With Staples and seven other office supply businesses in SLO, claiming that Office Max
will stop 7 million dollars from leaking to Santa Maria is not remotely believable.
"Nukes" report used sales tax information from 1994 which is prior to Staples
opening. Therefore any conclusions regarding leakage and sales are neither valid, nor
accurate!
"Nukes" 'leakage" figures are "guesstimates" and "theories", not actual verifiable sales
figures based on truly valid research parameters. Using SLO county zip codes as a sample
base ignores the reality of how close Nipomo and surrounding areas are to Santa Maria.
2
w -
CIRCUIT CITY WILL CAPTURE 10% LEAKAGE OR LESS!
Circuit City will harm our downtown. It will affect a large number of businesses including
many not mentioned in the "Nukes Report".
Circuit City uses music CDs as a "loss leader" to draw customers into their store. By
operating the CD department as a "leader" they can harm our vital, unique and healthy
record store market. Not having to operate at a real profit gives them an unfair edge over
our local record stores as well as an advantage over our existing audio stores.
Record stores are one of SLO's retail jewels. Both Boo Boo Records and Cheap Thrills
Records both enjoy reputation and sales from far beyond the city limits. Both stores are
tourist destinations and both stores draw heavily from Santa Maria. Both stores offer
selection and variety not found in LA or SF, let alone Santa Mariall We already have the
Wherehouse chain. There are NO new local customers, so the CDs Circuit City sells as a
loss leader must come at the expense of existing local stores.
Circuit City will damage or destroy all existing audio and video and car stereo specialty
stores. The "Nukes Report" failed to identify any of the three car audio specialty
retailers in SLO!
Camera stores and appliance stores carrying video and accessories will also be adversely
affected. Many other stores have major departments that will be hurt by Circuit City.
To do even half its proposed business, Circuit City must draw large amounts from local
businesses. Unless EVERYONE buys TWICE as much, Circuit City sales will be former
local merchant sales, not new tax revenue.
"The Nukes Report" states that SLO is a net capturer.of retail sales in comparison to Santa
Maria. Fie then builds his entire report on our losses to Santa Maria, but does not consider
the negative effects on the businesses that currently are maintaining the NET GAIN. This
project, by harming local sale-capturing businesses, could hurt the NET balance between
SLO and Santa Maria more than it helps.
4. MISSTATES EFFECT ON LOCAL EMPLOYMENT
LOCAL EMPLOYMENT WILL SUFFER NET LOSS OF JOBS FOR THE AREA
It is the norm that after a 1 to 3 year"settling in" period that every job provided by a big box
store is at the expense of 2 to 3 existing jobs. (Big boxes are known for their efficiency of
their employee cost relative to sales.) In music CD sales, Cheap Thrills generates four
times the payroll per dollar sold and retains more than 10 times the money in local
economy per dollar that Circuit City will.
3
- r
SLO on the whole, retains only a portion of the sales tax and minimum wage jobs with the
box stores. With local merchants every dollar except buying merchandise stays in the
SLO Area.
The second and third level businesses that are supported by local enterprise are normally
not used at all by the big box retail stores. The impacts on all second and third tier
businesses are not identified, addressed or taken into account.
Future impact on jobs and businesses startups not considered.
Once a "big Box" specialty store dominates a market, new startup businesses in their
category are rare. When "Big Boxes" each cut multiple paths from the available categories
of retail, soon there are too few viable categories to make a viable commercial downtown.
Empty spaces stay empty and the usual pattern of downtown decay sets in.
i.
5. THE DOWNTOWN IMPACT STATEMENT IS TOTALLY MISLEADING!
A significant number of businesses will be affected, some fatally,. The total businesses
affected contribute significantly to Downtown's total sales, not the 3%-4% in Nukes' report.
Many individual businesses affected EACH contribute more than this amount.
Nukes statement was to "expect only a temporary 30% downturn" in affected business,
then "they would recover in 6 months".
Actual examples to the contrary are everywhere. These big box stores open and existing
businesses sales drop 30% initially, and often continue to fall until failure! Some may
survive, but even those no longer prosper or grow. Most are put out of business! An easy
look to any town but SLO can show what "Big Box" and "Strip Malls" leave of a downtown.
The SLO "Businesses Impacted" list is missing more than it contains. Even this is not a
complete list of businesses effected; none of these were considered.
Some of those not mention by the "Nukes Report" are:
Cheap Thrills Records Pacific Computer Idler's
Boo Boo Records Computer Center Octal Plus
The Wherehouse Computerland Audio Visual City
Liquid CD's Sears
Witco Computers Gottschalk's
Jim's Campus Camera Car Audio Center
Home Appliance Sales Car Stereo Store
Central Coast Appliance Software Outlet
Staples University Car Stereo
Those mentioned by the "Nukes Report" are:
Audio Video Concepts Audio Ecstasy
E.E. Long Appliance Cellular One
Phone Center Telephone Gallery
Mission Office Products Golden Paw
Pampered Pets
The statement regarding impact on pet stores is so misleading, that it is best to be
considered false. Petsmart sells items that directly compete with over 90% of existing pet
store retail sales.
DOWNTOWN MITIGATION RECOMMENDATION
P.
This section of the Nukes' report is mostly wishful thinking. Mr. Nukes statement that
Santa Maria stores recovered in 6 months, (only Audio Video City is saying positive
things...) is not consistent with most retailer experience. Talk to .Soundtrends in Santa
Maria. You'll hear the typical story.
STAFF REPORT
The staff report reflects that RPM and Associates enjoys a suspiciously close relationship
with staff. Every thing in the Nukes' report must have been accepted by staff as factual.
Conclusions were based on "Nukes' Nonsense" and passed on as professional and
factual. Whatever doubt existed, the developer must have been allowed to "clear it up". I
feel that there is reason for concern over staff attention to detail in examining the
developers data.
Based on "Nukes Report" figures, city staff leap to some amazing conclusions that are
horrendous in their scope and inaccuracy.
1. Staff accepts without question ALL sales figures and developer's figures for
increased tax revenue.
2. Staff agrees all sales will generate ALL NEW sales tax and there will be NO
redistribution of sales. (i.e. NO businesses in SLO or elsewhere will be affected.)
There has NEVER EVER been a large retail project that has not had an effect on local
competing businesses; this would be the first time in business history.
The entire staff report is based on the developer's assertion that nearly all sales will come
from stores 30 miles away, and NOTHING will come from local stores. WHO could
reasonably believe this?
5
The "Nukes Report" identified ONLY 9 stores that will be affected. 21 more were listed
herein and probably 25 more will experience a lesser degree of impact.
By accepting the developers "information" blindly, staff did not notice they had failed to
identify far less than 1/3 of the businesses affected, as well as allowing the dollars involved
to be misstated significantly.
Additionally staff failed to identify the key nature of freeway access for box specialty stores.
By allowing the LA box stores to dominate the southern entrance to our community we are
giving them an unfair advantage. Box stores know close freeway access is key to
dominating the market. (In Santa Maria, Circuit City refused all deals to build away from
the freeway, even a year's free rent!)
i IN CONCLUSION:
When you drive to LA, notice almost all box stores are by freeway ramps. This easy
freeway access and visibility is unlike any that existing SLO businesses have.
If these box stores want to be in SLO, let them compete fairly. They can lease space in
Madonna Plaza or the Central Coast Mall. There is space in the Marigold Center and the
Brickyard Center. There is lots of large empty existing commercial space. We don't need
this additional commercial space.
To dominate our market they need a special deal from the whole town! (Nobody can keep
them out if they lease existing space.) Existing space is not good enough! We are being
asked to give out-of-town Big Box stores the killing edge against our local businesses.
Please don't let the southern entrance to our city turn into a LA-style strip mall.
PLEASE SUPPORT A HEALTHY SLO.
NO SPECIAL DEALS OR REZONING FOR LA "BIG BOXES"!
Sincerely,
Richard W. Ferris, Manager
Cheap Thrills Records
San Luis Obispo
6
ADDENDUM TO ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS
REGARDING PROPOSED REZONING
OF PRADO ROAD AND HWY 101
V BIG BOX SPECIALTY RETAILERS
SPECIFICALLY REGARDING
MUSIC STORES AND PET STORES
AND THE CREDIBILITY OF THE NUKES REPORT
PREPARED BY
RICHARD W. FERRIS AND ASSOCIATES
November 26, 1996
RESTAURANT
Mr. Nukes report starts with background and information on the proposed restaurant. In general, Mr.
Nukes restaurant report is a general "pooh-pooh" of any impact. Granted, as the restaurant"financial
pie" is large and has many slices, there will not be the individual impact that the hardgoods and pet stores
will suffer, but it is not prudent to think that significant NEW sales tax will be generated by the transfer of
restaurant sales that will be the primary result. How many tourists, after pulling off the freeway for a buffet,
will skip SLO altogether? It is hard to see any net benefit from this type of restaurant/retail combination that
attempts to kill the interactions that are necessary for a downtown.
Mr.Nukes says their average ticket is about$7.00. Divide a$7.00 ticket into 2.5 million in sales, divide
again by 365 days, means they will average about 1000 meals a day and the traffic this will entail. Mr.
Nukes' analysis- 9 there is enough traffic- but doesn't concern himself with too much traffic.
Mr. Nukes' Prado Rd. traffic volume data is"funny". He says 566 cars travel at peak hour to reach 101 and
Prado Rd. So,for 5,077 cars to travel (daily average) on Prado Rd. we must experience 8 hours of peak
traffic daily?? Funny data again... 566 cars an hour at peak, is almost a car every 6 seconds-considering
the traffic light cycles at Prado Rd. and Higuera...this seems hard to achieve at peak times, let alone 8
hours a day.
RECORD, TAPE AND CD STORES
The portion of the report dealing with record, tape and CD stores, (in which I have over 30 years of actual
experience) is the primary focus of this report. Mr. Nukes correctly identifies three out of four of the San
Luis Obispo record retailers. (He leaves out Liquid CD's, a new store in downtown on Higuera St.) From
there on he doesn't hit a mark!
Mr. Nukes says Circuit City does sell CD's and tapes, and claims they represent 2-3% of annual sales. My
understanding is that this number may be close for the chain as a whole, but, as not all stores carry CD's,
it distorts the impact of a store that does carry CD's. Some of Circuit City store's CD and tape departments
do 10-15% of their total store sales, not the 2-3% mentioned.
Mr. Nukes estimates Circuit City sound recording sales being $200.000-400,000 annually, although this
may end up being the best they can do in our intensely competitive market, it is not what they hoped for.
For a store doing the volume of sales they are projecting, they are wishing to do considerably over a
million dollars in CD and tape sales.
It's true the downtown stores offer a better level of service and better selection than Circuit City, but
Mr. Nukes totally understates Circuit city's selection and impact.
Mr. Nukes states because of Circuit City's- limited selection they do not have a significant overlap of
customers in terms of shopping at BooBoo and Cheap Thrills Records.
Circuit City tries to carry at least the top 500 sellers. These constitute over 314 of all the sales of new
product record stores sell. To minimize, and say the impact with a limited selection would not be
significant, is to be ignorant of the selection Circuit City carries and the price sensitivity of CD's and tapes.
Mr. Nukes goes further to say that their CD and tape sales are targeted towards impulse purchases from
regional customers shopping for hardware. This is not true. Circuit City has a corporate philosophy that
puts CD and tape departments in their stores to draw people to the store who would otherwise not come.
The hope is that while the people are coming to Circuit City just for a super discount CD or tape ,they will
see the"hardware", and hopefully when buying "hardware", will buy it at Circuit City where they're already
shopping for CD's. The fact that Mr. Nukes has this totally turned around and misstated the actual purpose
and reason for CD's and cassettes at Circuit City, is disturbing. Is it that Mr. Nukes doesn't really know
Circuit City's goals, or that he does not understand the concept of"leader" items or lines, in a marketing
effort?
Mr. Nukes statement that Circuit City has an average gross margin on CD's of 13-17% and this should
�. ally the concerns that Circuit City is offering CD's as a loss leader is either misstating or misunderstanding
the retail situation. Only a person unsophisticated, not knowledgeable in retail markups and margins and
unaware of the difficulty of staying in business would be totally fooled by his glib statements.
The statement is that Circuit City uses CD's as a"loss leader" . By this , it is meant that Circuit City sells
CD's below the level at which they (or anyone) can operate at a profit.
1. Circuit City sells the majority of its hardware in the 25-40-/c margin range.
2. Circuit City as a corporation does not net 5% at the end of the year.
3. Circuit City sells CD's at 13-17% margin.
4. CD's sold at Circuit City are 7-18% below break-even for the corporation. (Assuming an
optimistic 5% net corporate profit.)
Most people realize that a loss leader is wherein a chain or large retailer runs a department as an
attraction, and does not plan to have that department pay the payroll, overhead and other costs
associated with being in business. This is what is meant by loss leader, giving them an advantage over
local retailers. This strategy successfully attacks both local music and local equipment stores.
Mr. Nukes further says Circuit City would be a regional draw and that will minimize the impact upon our
stores. Mr. Nukes does not know that both Cheap Thrills and BooBoo's are regional draws already.
Without our customers from Atascadero, Paso Robles, 5 Cities and even Santa Maria, I don't think either
store would be able to operate profitably.
Cheap Thrills and BooBoo's are two of many local stores that keep the ratio of "leakage" between San
Luis Obispo and Santa Maria positive in SLO's favor. Please remember that nowhere does Mr. Nukes or
anyone identify the many stores that create the positive balance we currently enjoy. When Mr. Nukes
does find two stores that help create the balance he minimizes and misstates the impact this project would
have.
Mr. Nukes says that he believes The Wherehouse with it's larger sales volume has had a greater impact on
sales than Circuit City will, again showing Mr. Nukes' lack of understanding of the CD and tape
marketplace. By running their CD department at margins below that which a business can actually,
survive, Circuit City will take a significant part of the volume of all three stores little by little.
We are already competitive with LA discount stores and way cheaper than the "Wherehouse",who also
must show a profit.
With an ad budget greater than all CD and tape stores, and probably all stereo and hardgoods stores
combined, plus using sound recordings as a "loss leader", Circuit City will be able to beat up on the CD
and tape stores, the audio, car stereo and other hardware and appliance stores that aren't able to use CD's
and tapes as a"loss leader" to draw people to the store.
DOWNTOWN PET STORES AND GROOMING SALONS
�. Mr. Nukes has finally acknowledged the fact that Petsmart is a competitor. Contrary to Mr. Nukes'earlier
report, he now acknowledges that Petsmart indeed, does compete head to head with the existing pet
stores in almost all areas.
From this point on,what Mr. Nukes writes regarding pet stores should only be viewed as a slick sales p�cfj
by someone not knowledgeable in the pet store market. Often the words are well chosen, but the
meaning is shallow. His statements are simplistic at best, and reflect little of the reality of retailing in the pet
market. Further, his report on pet stores exclude the impact on the pet stores in the rest of the county, only
the downtown area is mentioned. When all the county pet stores fail, the extra traffic generated was not
taken into account in his report, nor were the other traffic elements.
AUTO STEREO STORES
Mr. Nukes' report failed to even identify, let alone address the impact of Circuit City on the three prospering
auto stereo stores in town. Although Circuit City would no doubt completely wipe out all three auto stereo
stores retail activities, it was not addressed in Mr. Nukes report.
APPLIANCE STORES
The impact of Circuit City on appliance stores in the San Luis Obispo area, has not been addressed.
Other than identifying E.E. Long's, the Nukes report failed to address the impact on the appliance store on
Tank Farm Rd. (That area could eventually be annexed to our city and be a part of our sales tax figure,) as
well as not addressing the impact on Idler's Appliance. In addition, the impact on Sears and the other
large retailers in town that do carry appliances that Circuit City will compete with.
Please realize that Circuit City sales will come primarily from existing sales. The fact that the developer
and his paid propagandist say contrary should not keep this truth from your view. Please look around and
find one example of a community where the type of freeway development being proposed was allowed
and the community continued to have a healthy, prospering downtown and local business community. A
town like SLO is a rare jewel, and it is the lack of freeway big boxes that allow an economic environment
wherein local business can start,grow and progress: It does not take very many strategically located big
boxes to destroy the overall viability of a downtown.
Mr. Nukes spends considerable time at the back of his supplemental report going into his qualifications.
He talks about clients who have hired him. (As if that's any criteria of expertise.) If I was needing a report
to promote a project I was doing that otherwise might receive an unfavorable review, I would not hesitate
to hire Mr. Nukes. His slick presentation, his unflappable demeanor and professional appearance certainly
present the illusion of accuracy and officiousness.
Mr. Nukes"cooks" the data throughout his report. For example: To show how little impact on downtown
there will be, Mr. Nukes identifies less than 1/3 of stores impacted, then compares his understated volume
with the sales volume of SLO's five retail areas not just the downtown area. Please be wary of all Mr.
Nukes'data and conclusions as they are selling tools, not factual information.
QUOTING DIRECTLY FROM STEVEN NUKES AND ASSOCIATES
BACKGROUND AND MISSION STATEMENT
"We perform a wide variety of research TAILORED to individual client NEEDS and develop financial,
marketing or policy STRATEGIES to CREATIVELY MEET CLIENT OBJECTIVES."
Please remember that Mr. Nukes has not been hired to provide an independent or impartial analysis.
Nowhere do I see that either of the reports he's put together would meet the objective criteria of an
accurate and insightful report. I would say both reports meet quite well the part of Mr. Nukes' mission
statement above.
1
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates
Management Strategy and Economic Consultants
Fremont Plaza
1250 Peach Street, Suite 131
MEET iNG AGENDA San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
DATE 1.2" "L'6 ITEM # Office(805)541-2077
Fax(805)541-2117
M�t;UUNCIL
� e CAO ❑ FiM DiR I I l Y
N ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
53 ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR �UV L ' lyytl
Mayor Allen Settle ; _
CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
Mayor U MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR CITY CoP Spp.GA
City of San Luis Obispo I ° c R p FILE ❑ U11L DIR I I SAN
P.O. Box 8100 ❑ °r $='I�
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
November 21, 1996
Dear Allen:
Attached is the Downtown Economic Impact Report on the 40 Prado Road Project.
Our findings are discussed in detail in the Report and are summarized as follows:
- The Project offers the opportunity to stem over $42 million of general
merchandise sales annually that currently "leaks" to Santa Maria.
-The market for the Project is freeway and regional and has minor overlap with
the Downtown markets.
- The Project will have a minimal impact on the Downtown as a whole,
affecting only 12 out of over 600 B.I.A. member businesses and less than
I% of downtown sales. There are mitigations available to those businesses
affected.
- The Project will create 250 permanent jobs, will generate over $28 million in
sales and will produce$283,000 annually in sales tax to the City.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen A. Nukes
President
SAN/sse
Enclosure
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates
Management Strategy and Economic Consultants
Fremont Plaza
1250 Peach Street, Suite 131
MEETING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
DATE_Z2-Lf9ITEM # Otf e(805)541-2077
Fax(805)541-2117
Downtown San Luis Obispo
Economic Impact Analysis
of the
40 Prado Road Development
prepared for:
The City of San Luis Obispo
Downtown Business Improvement Association
Zelman Retail Partners
RRM Design Group
Prepared By
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates
November 20, 1996
Prado Road Property .fermi Development Downtown Npact Analysis November 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND...................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY.................................................................................3
FINDINGS.........................................................................................4
TARGETED COMMUNITIES&MARKETS.................................................6
DailyCommuters.........................................................................6
CalPoly University.......................................................................7
SAN LUIS OBISPO RETAIL SALES&LEAKAGE........................................9
Retail Sales Distribution in San Luis Obispo. ...... ..... ...............9
....... ..... ...
Retail Sales Per Capita Comparison, San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria...........10
San Luis Obispo City Retail Sales Leakage............................................11
San Luis Obispo City Retail Sales Captures...........................................12
DOWNTOWN RETAIL IMPACT...............................................................13
San Luis Obispo Retail Sales Revenue By Geographic Area........................13
Downtown Retail Business Distribution...............................................14
Potentially Affected Downtown Stores.................................................14
HOMETOWN BUFFET RESTAURANT ANALYSIS ......................................16
TargetMarkets ............................................................................17
Pricing......................................................................................17
NewEmployment.........................................................................17
Revenues& Sales Tax ...................................................................17
Freeway Traffic Markets.................................................................18
POTENTIAL RETAIL IMPACTS OF THE PRADO ROAD PROJECT...................20
Potential Contribution to The City of San Luis Obispo Retail Sales................20
Anticipated Tax Revenues from the Project..........................................20
POTENTIAL MIPACTS ON DOWNTOWN RETAIL.......................................22
Electronics and Appliances..............................................................22
OfficeProducts:...........................................................................22
Pet Supplies and Grooming Services....................................................23
Restaurants ................................................................................24
Record, Tape and CD Stores ............................................................25
Camera and Photographic Stores .......................................................25
PROJECT ECONOMIC IMPACT...............................................................27
Potential Employment and Retail Sales Impact........................................27
New Construction Impact.................................................................28
SURVEY OF AFFECTED STORES............................................................29
Audio Video Concepts (AVC)..........................................................29
AudioEcstasy.............................................................................30
ThePhone Center.........................................................................30
The Telephone Gallery...................................................................30
Mission Office Products .................................................................30
Downtown Restaurants..................................................................31
" Prado Road Property Retail Development Downtown bnpact Analys.. November 1996
CIRCUIT CITY&OFFICE MAX EFFECTS IN SANTA MARIA........................32
Audio Video City in Santa Maria ........................................................32
Computer King in Santa Maria.........................................................32
Systems Stationer's in Santa Maria..:..................................................32
MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................33
Appendix.............................................................................................35
1.Mission Office Products Advertisement ............................................35
2. Audio Video Concepts, San Luis Obispo Window Advertisement..............35
3. Audio Video City, Santa Mari Window Advertisement..........................35
Prado Road Property Retail Development Economic Impact Analysis November 1996 "
TABLES AND GRAPHS
Prado Road Project Proposed Tenants..........................................................1
Prado Road Project................................................................................2
CommuterMarket..................................................................................6
Prado Road Project Target Communities .......................................................8
San Luis Obispo Retail Sales (in $000).........................................................9
1994 Retail Sales Comparison&Per Capita Sales ............................................10
Downtown San Luis Obispo Business Distribution...........................................14
Hometown Buffet Summary .....................................................................16
Hometown Buffet Revenue and Sales Tax .....................................................17
Hwy 101 Madonna Road Interchange Traffic Volume........................................18
Downtown Restaurants Surveyed...............................................................19
Prado Road Project Sales&Tax Estimates.....................................................20
Total Estimated Economic Impact................................................................27
Prado Road Project Construction Costs..........................................................28
Total Estimated Construction Economic Impact................................................28
Downtown Restaurants Surveyed................................................................31
Mission Office Products Advertisement.........................................................36
Audio Video Concepts, San Luis Obispo Window Advertisement..........................37
Audio Video City, Santa Maria Window Advertisement......................................37
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
BACKGROUND
The Prado Road Project is located at the intersection of Prado Road and Highway 101
in the City of San Luis Obispo. The Project is proposed to consist of a Circuit City, Office
Max and Pct Smart or equivalent types of tenants, with 85,737 square feet of retail space.
The project plan also includes a restaurant,proposed to be a 10,000 square foot Hometown
Buffet. This restaurant will be all-you-can-eat and highway oriented.
City Council members have asked that this study be performed to find out the effect that
the Prado Road Project might have on Downtown businesses and on the retail sales tax
contribution to the City of San Luis Obispo. This report analyzes the retail potential of the
Prado Road Project, the ability of San Luis Obispo to absorb additional retail and
determines the possible economic impacts such a development might have on Downtown
businesses and City revenues. The report does not analyze economic impacts outside the
Downtown area.
The report also looks at the overlap of products that Circuit City offers with regard to
CD and record sales and the impacts that a Circuit City would have on downtown camera
and photographic stores. The overlap of PetSmart product lines with the existing pet stores
and grooming salons was also examined
Prado Road Project Proposed Tenants
Prado Rd. Project Square Footage Est. Retail Sales Tax To Cit
Circuit City 28,670 $13,500,000 $135,000
Office Depot 23,500 $6,800,000 $68,000
Pet Smart 23,567 $5,000,000 $50,000
Hometown Buffet 10,000 $3,000,000 $30,000
Total 85,737 $28,300,000 $283,000
Source: Stephen A. Nukes It Associates,zeiman Retail Partner
The proposed tenants have an estimated retail sales of $28.3 million. Estimated retail
sales figures are based on public information on store sales by size and sales and estimates
per square foot from the Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers.
Stephen A. Nukes 8c Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B1 San Luts Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 1
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Prado Road Project
FF�
Bee Roe,
al-
�`l IN 93451 . Estrella
' MI f1 Adelaida xw+ra
Sen Simeon: `�'
\3,52 r,{ Robies ~ Md"o'ni
M.M J Klsu � 93446 „ _
e.+w 93465
C brie 93428
e,, _ Templeton
•� HarmoIffluea,
R°dg 93432
Orchard a.+" ton
W" I-INktyR °93422
r
LL
."...�"..� r, r 934$3 I
I �I 93442 r , ants I �.
,W+�Mo -Be sor..l., t rBarlto
q `� i -%
93402 los �sS" ozo
, Osoa S ��
EEMODEL 93401 06
PROJECT a 4
93424 Avila :M ,r+
Bosch AbpWff
,erY 93449t'
' SShellSan Luh �93433c O o . 93420ArrI
Paciric � Grranyd* Huasno
Ocean 93445 °O ,
H cYon t4-�
(tomo ti
93444
Qnidiie SMarti ti
YY 9
Stephen A. Nukes&Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 2
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
METHODOLOGY
This study was designed to measure four key areas asked for by the City.
-Does the City of San Luis Obispo have the ability to absorb additional retail sales
of the type involved in the Prado Road Project?
-What will be the impact of such a project on Downtown?
-Where will the markets for the project come from?
-What will be the financial sales tax contribution of the project to the City?
The scope of the study included only the impacts on the Downtown area and did not
evaluate effects on other businesses and areas outside of the Downtown.
To determine the effects on the City of San Luis Obispo of a project of this type, a
review of the City's current retail sales and retail sales potential was performed. To
determine available markets, a leakage study was developed to determine retail spending
that currently occurs outside the City and the potential for additional retail sales within the
City. An analysis of the Downtown area was performed which included determining the
distribution of businesses within Downtown. The number and types of Downtown
businesses that have similar product lines to the Prado Road Project including appliances,
electronic equipment, office and pet supplies were also analyzed and studied
The potential target markets of the proposed project were examined and the overlap
with existing Downtown businesses was reviewed. Anticipated tax revenues to the City
were developed and the potential communities within San Luis Obispo County that would
be served by the project were identified A survey of potentially affected businesses within
the Downtown was also conducted to determine their feelings on the impacts of large scale
stores on their businesses. Selected businesses within Santa Maria were also surveyed to
determine the direct effects a Circuit City and an Office Max had on their businesses.
Based on this analysis, estimates of the potential effects on Downtown were established A
section on actions the Downtown can take to mitigate effects of the Project has also been
included
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2071 3
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996 '
FINDINGS
The following findings are based on a analysis of the Downtown retail markets:
- Project Conclusions- The conclusions of the study are that the Project has the ability
to capture significant retail sales that are currently leaking out of the City, has
minimal impact on the Downtown, in the 1% range, and will further enhance retail
purchases in San Luis Obispo by attracting shoppers that currently bypass San Luis
Obispo for other shopping areas.
Project Economic Impacts - The project has significant positive impacts of
approximately $39.6 million annually. Approximately 250 permanent jobs will be
created with project sales tax benefits of over$283 thousand annually.
- Anticipated Downtown Impact - There will be minimum impact to the Downtown
as a whole, generally only in the 1% range. The Downtown is growing and strong.
1994 retail sales for the Downtown were $88.8 million. Downtown BIA revenues
in 1995/96 have grown to $107 million. The majority of Downtown businesses
will not be negatively affected by the Prado Road Project tenants. There may even
be a positive effect of drawing more potential customers into San Luis Obispo.
Revenues that may be affected by the Project represent only 0.3% to 1.4% of
annual Downtown income. The Prado Road Project will have a partial, short-term
impact on a limited number of Downtown businesses ranging from 10% - 35%
until the novelty effect of a Circuit City wears off. There are mitigation's that these
specific Downtown businesses can implement to address these impacts.
- Retail Sales Market-The approximate size of the retail sales market for the Project is
231,300 persons including 61,237 people within the City of San Luis Obispo. The
population of San Luis Obispo residents includes 43,700, and an additional 17,537
daily commuters. Additionally, 170,063 people are also included in the market
count from the North Coast, North County and South County who shop within San
Luis Obispo.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2071 4
' 1
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
- Retail Sales Leakage-Retail leakage from the City of San Luis Obispo is significant
as compared to Santa Maria. Approximately $42.2 million in the General
Merchandise category which includes electronics and appliances leaks from the City
annually.
- Potential Contribution to the 01y of San Luis Obispo - Retail Sales for the
Prado Road Project is estimated at approximately $28.3 million annually. Sales
Tax Revenue to the City of San Luis Obispo from the Project, is estimated at
$283,000 annually. It is felt that most of that figure will be new sales and not come
from existing businesses. Potential new jobs created by the opening of the Prado
Road Project is estimated at 120.
- Downtown Businesses Impacted - The businesses within the Downtown area that
may be affected include Audio Video Concepts, Audio Ecstasy, E.E. Long,
Cellular One, Phone Center, Telephone Gallery, Mission Office, Golden Paw,
Pampered Pets, Cheap Thrills, Boo Boo Records and Liquid CD's. These stores
represent 2.6% of Downtown BIA stores.
- Potential Increases in Markets - Based on experiences in Santa Maria, retail
stores selling electronics saw sales increase after the novelty effect of a new Circuit
City wore off. Store managers attributed this increase to additional shoppers being
drawn into Santa Maria by Circuit City who also shopped in their stores after
comparison shopping.
- Potentiator Cross Marketing - The Prado Road Project has the potential to bring
significant numbers of shoppers into San Luis Obispo. Through the availability of
a promotional kiosk at the retail center advertising Downtown, shoppers can be
directed to the Downtown for their additional shopping needs.
Additionally, the feasibility of having the Downtown Trolley make periodic
loops to the Project site should be investigated If every third or fifth Downtown
loop included a trip to the Retail Center, significant numbers of shoppers may be
brought to the Downtown.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 5
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Targeted Communities & Markets
The Prado Road Project is anticipated to serve four key markets that currently may
bypass San Luis Obispo. These are daily commuters to San Luis Obispo, residents from
the North Coast, North County and South County communities that may bypass San Luis
Obispo for other retail stores, local residents that shop out of town for purchases that are
perceived to not be available to them at a competitive price in San Luis Obispo and Cal Poly
students that currently shop at the book store for computers and electronics.
Daily Commuters
In addition to the San Luis Obispo population of 43,700, there is a commuter factor of
17,537 people that travel to San Luis Obispo everyday for work. This population is a
viable market source.
Commuter Market
North County
Atascadero 2,375
Paso Robles 720
Templeton 283
North Coast
Cambria 260
Cayucos 306
Los Osos 2,701
Morro Bay 1,377
South County
Arroyo Grande 1,193
Grover City 1,406
Nipomo 310
Oceano 624
Pismo Beach 1,177
Other Areas
Santa Maria 514
Unincor orted Areas 4 291
Total 17,537
Source: Stephen A. Nukes 8 Associates, SLO COG
Commuters from the North County total 3,378 people, North Coast totals 4,644, South
County is 4,710,and other areas that contribute to the commuter market total 4,805.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 6
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
North Coast
The Prado Road Project is anticipated to serve the North Coast communities of
Cayucos, Morro Bay, Los Osos and Cambria. There is no significant alternative to the
Prado Road Project tenants in this area.
North County
North County,which includes Paso Robles, Atascadero, Santa Margarita, Templeton,
San Miguel,and North County rural areas, is currently served by Wal-Mart in the City of
Paso Robles. As indicated by commute patterns to San Luis Obispo, North County
commuters are a significant market that may be served by the Prado Road Project.
Additionally, Wal-Mart does not have the breadth of options that Circuit City would
provide.
South County
South County residents, who live in Shell Beach, Grover Beach, Pismo Beach,
Oceano, Arroyo Grande and Halcyon, currently drive to Santa Maria for electronic and
general merchandise purchases. They are a high potential market for a Circuit City in the
City of San Luis Obispo.
Cal Poly University
Not counted in the San Luis Obispo population estimates are an additional student
population of approximately 17,000 Cal Poly students. The Cal Poly bookstore sells
computers and other electronic and office type supplies in which the City does not receive
sales tax from the university. The Retail Center has the potential of capturing a portion of
this market.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 7
Prado Road Property Prado Road Dawntawn Impact Addendum November 1996
Prado Road Project
Tar et Communities
r...�r tiw.. ..
■
San Simeon. Adeldds
Palo
93452 �� Rob1
Kiau 3446
93465
embrta 93428
Templeton
e7 ""
Har
93430 Ore and �
Wo
C�yutoa 1�93Zad
j' ' 93422 O
r i of 93453
93 L t t \ anta O
.. .... t roarlta
n.w
a.w `pat I
9 Los h
Oaoa S
M
93401-06 . M.
424 Avn ■Ow"
each 93449
San o a She
hera 3420
Arroye aaa
no . Oranda
.
93445 R
CM
r + MPomo
,r 93444
�w'P ••Santa
c;a6dilMaria
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 $
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
San Luis Obispo Retail Sales & Leakage
The City of San Luis Obispo generates over half a billion dollars annually in taxable
sales. Total taxable sales for 1994 were over $543.7 million dollars. Retail sales within
the City totaled $458.8 million. San Luis Obispo City retail sales are the highest in San
Luis Obispo County because the City of San Luis Obispo is the major retail hub in the
county and it's market has high tourism, Cal Poly University and commuter content.
San Luis Obiso Retail Sales (in $000)
SLO City 1994 #Permits $ Sales $ / permits
Retail Stores
Apparel 62 $29,189 $471
Gen. Merchandise 15 $65,645 $4,376
Drug 8 $14,570 $1,821
Food 46 $25,503 $554
Packaged Liquor 10 $3,662 $366
Eating/drinking places 143 $61,130 $427
Home fum/appliances 68 $16,214 $238
Bldg.matrl.and Farm impl. 23 $22,309 $970
Auto dealers/supplies 32 $110,759 $3,461
Service stations 24 $36,507 $1,521
Other Retail Stores 261 $73,360 $281
Retail Store Totals 692 $458,848 $663
All Other Outlets 1100 $84,941 $77
Total All Outletsl 1,792 $543,789 $303
Source: Stephen A. Nukes and Associates;Calif. State Board of Equalization
Retail Sales Distribution in San Luis Obispo
Auto dealerstsupplies was the largest retail category at$110.7 million in sales. General
Merchandise in San Luis Obispo also had a high level of sales at $65.6 million during
1994. Eating/drinking; establishments had $61 million in retail sales and service stations
had$36.5 million. Average sales per retail store in the City of San Luis Obispo was $663
thousand.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 9
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Retail Sales Per Capita Comparison. San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria
In order to compare San Luis Obispo City retail sales with other communities, retail
sales per capita was analyzed Sales per capita in the cities of San Luis Obispo and Santa
Maria was determined by dividing retail sales by population. Total per capita retail sales in
1994 for San Luis Obispo City was $12.4 thousand. Auto dealerships/supplies had the
highest per capita spending at $2,535 due to auto sales areas located in the City. General
Merchandise also had a high per capita sales at $1,502. Eating/ddnldng establishments had
per capita sales of$1,399.
1994 Retail Sales Com arison & Per Capita Sales
Retail SLO City Santa Maria SLO City Santa Maria
Stores Sales Sales Per Cap Per Cap
Apparel $29,189 $27,040 $668 $399
Gen. Merchandise $65,645 $167,327 $1,502 $2,468
Drug $14,570 $16,226 $333 $239
Food $25,503 $34,619 $584 $511
Packaged Uquoi $3,662 $6,068 $84 $89
Eating/drinking places $61,130 $56,157 $1,399 $828
Home fum/appliances $16,214 $17,847 $371 $263
Bldg.matd.and Farm Impl $22,309 $93,472 $511 $1,379
Auto dealers/supplies $110,759 $117,834 $2,535 $1,738
Service stations $36,507 $30,529 $835 $450
Other Retail Stores $73,360 $58,617 $1,679 $865
Retail Store Totals $458,848 $625,736 $10,500 $9,229
All Other Outlets $84,941 $117,994 $1,944 $1,740
Total AD Outlets $543,789 $743,730 $12,444 $10,969
Source: Stephen A. Nukes& Associates
1994 SLO Population 43,700,Santa Maria Population 67,800.
Although Santa Maria has a higher total retail sales level, sales per capita compared to
San Luis Obispo was lower. Santa Maria's highest per capita spending was in general
merchandise at $2,468. Auto dealerships/supplies had a per capita spending of $1,738.
Per capita retail sales in the building material and farm implements category was$1,379.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 10
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
San Luis Obispo City Retail Sales Leakage
In analyzing the potential for additional retail sales, a leakagetcapture analysis was
performed When analyzing leakage, sales per capita are used. The sales per capita are
compared with a base City or county to determine if the subject City is receiving less or
more per capita sales than the comparison area. If a City receives less sales per capita, this
indicates a "leakage"of sales out of the area. If an area has higher per capita sales, the area
"captures" sales from other areas. For comparison purposes in determining San Luis
Obispo's leakage, the City of Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo County were used
Figures in parentheses indicate leakage.
San Luis Obispo City Retail Leakage And Capture
Retail SLO City SLO City Leakage SLO City Leakage
Stores Retail Sales Com pared to Santa Maria Com pared to SLO Co.
Apparel $29,189,000 $11,760,563 $19,263,073
Gen. Merchandise $65,645,000 ($42,204,409) $31,823,883
Drug $14,570,000 $4,111,649 $4,395,438
Food $25,503,000 $3,189,574 $4,581,601
Packaged Liquor $3,662,000 ($249,086) $216,823
Eating/drinking places $61,130,000 $24,934,412 $21,064,109
Home turn/appliances $16,214,000 $4,710,845 $5,940,816
Bldg.matrl.and Farm impl. $22,309,000 ($37,937,702) $1,741,471
Auto dealers/supplies $110,759,000 $34,809,947 $75,166,833
Service stations $36,507,000 $16,829,754 $10,938,627
Other Retail Stores $73,360,000 $35,578,836 $48,121,691
Retail Store Totals $458,848,000 $55,534,383 $223,254,366
All Other Outlets $84,941,000 $8,888,820 S5426 649
Total All Outlets $543,789,000 $64,423,204 $215,018,389
Source: Stephen A. Nukes and Associates
1994 SLO Population 43,700,Santa Maria Population 67,800.
In comparison to San Luis Obispo County, the City of San Luis Obispo has a net
capture of$215 million. In comparison to Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo had an overall net
capture of$64.4 million. This net capture is due to San Luis Obispo's role as San Luis
Obispo County's retail hub, the high commuter employment base, Cal Poly students and
faculty and high tourism.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B1 Sm Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 ll
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendwn November 1996
Although San Luis Obispo had a net capture when compared to Santa Maria, the San
Luis Obispo City General Merchandise category had a very high leakage of$42.2 million
in retail sales when compared to Santa Maria. General Merchandise stores include stereos,
VCR's, television sets, microwaves and other general merchandise.
The packaged liquor category had a minor leakage of$249 thousand. Building material
and farm implements also showed leakage of $37.9 million. This leakage is due to the
nature of the Santa Maria market and to larger size building material and farm implement
dealers in the City of Santa Maria.
San Luis Obispo City Retail Sales Captures
Retail stores in general in the City of San Luis Obispo captured sales from surrounding
areas. A net total retail sales capture compared to Santa Maria of$55.5 million was seen in
1994. Auto dealers and supplies had a capture of$34.8 million,as did eating and drinking
establishments at $24.9 million. Apparel stores had a capture of $11.8 million when
compared with Santa Maria spending. The home fumishings/appliances category also had
a net capture volume of$4.7 million.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 12
Prado Road Property Prado Road Do,vM"Impact Addendum November 1996
Downtown Retail Impact
San Luis Obispo Retail Sales Revenue By GeogWhic Area
The Downtown area in San Luis Obispo is very healthy. The Downtown B.I.A.
contributed the highest geographic retail sales revenue to the City of San Luis Obispo in
1994 at $88.8 million or 19% of total retail sales revenue. Downtown revenues in 1995/96
totaled$107 million.
The Madonna Road area had the second highest contribution in 1994, at 18% or $85.4
million. South Higuera had $81.6 million, Laguna/Los Osos Valley road had $74.9
million. Santa Rosa/Monterey had $50.4 million, the Foothill/Chorro/Santa Rosa area
contributed $30.4 million. Santa Barbara/South Broad had $35.9 million and all other
stores contributed$44.2 million in retail sales revenue.
1994 Retail Sales Revenue By Geographic Area
Al Other Outlets
Santa Barbara/ 9% B.I.A. 19%
South Broad
B%
Santa Rosa/ • 0••••■•
u••ueu•een•
•u•u•euo•eu■eun••
Monterey ■••■•■•■•
11%
Madonna Road
Area
18%
South Higuere FoothiNChorro/Santa Rosa
12% Laguna/Los Osos Valley RD. dye
16%
Retail Sales Revenue Toted $458,848,000
Source: Stephen A. Nukes& Associates, Hinderliter,de Llamas& Associates
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)341-2077 13
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Downtown Retail Business Distribution
The Downtown area has 348 B.I.A. members listed in the Downtown Directory of
Retail And Services. The largest categories include food service, apparel, gift stores,
beauty/hair/nails and saloons.
Downtown San Luis Obispo Business Distribution
Food Service" 71 Florists 6
Apparel' 53 Books/News 6
Gift/Hobby/Games/Education 37 Variety Merchandise 6
Beauty/Hair/Nails 26 Points of Interest 6
Saloons 11 Real Estate 6
Art/Framing 11 Banks 5
Jewlers/Gems 11 Photos/Cameras/Studios 4
Home Furnishings 11 Travel Services 4
Sporting Goods 10 Copy/Printing 4
Auto 7 Stationery/Office Supplies 4
Body Care/Cosmetics 7 Used/Thrift Shops 4
Appliance/Phone/TV/Video 7 Toys 2
Movies/Music 8 Pharmacy 2
Government Agencis 7 Pet 2
Health/Fitness 6 Lodging 1
Eye Wear 6 Postal Service 1
Total —3-5 2
Source: B.I.A. Directory of Retail & Services
' Children/Women/McNSports/Lingerie/Shoes/railoring
"Coffeehouse/Snack/Dessert, DelUSandwich/Piaa, Markets, Restaurants
Potentially Affected Downtown Stores
Only 12 B.I.A. area stores will be directly affected by the Prado Road Project. The
following are key identified Downtown Businesses that might be potentially impacted by
stores at the Prado Road Project.
Downtown Electronic Audio and Video,Appliance Stores•and CD Stores
- Audio Video Concepts - Cellular One
- Audio Ecstasy - Phone Center
- E.E. Long - Telephone Gallery
- Cheap Trills - Boo Boo Records
- Liquid CD's
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite Bl San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 14
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Downtown Qffice S—Wly Stores:
- Mission Office Supplies
Downtown Pet Stores:
- Pampered Pets
- Golden Paw
Potential For Prado Road Proiect Stores to Locate Downtown
The issue was raised as to whether stores in the Prado Road Project could be located
Downtown. It was found that due to limitations of store access, size and parking, the
location of these stores Downtown is impractical. In April of 1996, the available vacant
retail space sizes in the Downtown San Luis Obispo area ranged from approximately 870
square feet to 8,485 square feet.
The old Earthling Book store space was the largest available at 8,485 square feet. The
Earthling bookstore has since been purchased or leased as a microbrewery. Most current
retail spaces in the Downtown area are generally in the 800 to 3,500 square foot range.
Rental prices ranges from$1.20 to$2.00 per square foot, triple net. There is not sufficient
square footage or parking to accommodate the Prado Road Project tenants.
Stephen A. Nukes A Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 15
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996 "
Hometown Buffet Restaurant Analysis
The Hometown Buffet restaurant is characterized as a family-oriented all-you-can-eat
dining facility that serves lunch and dinner on a daily basis and also serves brunch on
Sundays. The restaurant is catered toward providing customers with convenience,
affordability and unlimited food in a family oriented atmosphere. Unlike a cafeteria-style
restaurant,patrons are served in a buffet style manner. Self service hot and cold stations
provide a broad range of menu items to include make-your-own and prepared salads, soup
as well as main entree courses. Dinners include everything for one price including
unlimited drinks and all-you-can-eat desserts. No alcoholic beverages are served.
Hometown Buffet Description
Annual Sales $2-$3 million
Size 10,000 sq. ft
Hours M-Th 11:00-8:30
Fri.&Sat. 11 :00-9:00
Sun.8:00-8:30
Seating Capacity 360 seats
Target Markets Primary-Freeway Travelers
Seniors
Families
Regulars
Neighborhood Residents
Nearby Business Employees
Prices:
Sunday Brunch $5.99
Lunch $5.69
Dinner $7.49
Employees 125
Format All-You-Can-Eat Soup/Salad/Maln Entrees
Family Style Atmosphere
No alcoholic beveraxcies are served
Stephen A Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street, Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 16
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Target Markets
Target markets for the restaurant are primarily highway travelers between Los Angeles
and San Francisco, families, seniors, regulars and neighborhood residents and business
employees. The proposed restaurant will be approximately 10,000 square feet with a
seating capacity of 360.
Pricing
For adults,prices range from$5.99 for breakfast, $5.69 for lunch and$7.49 for dinner
with reduced prices for senior citizens and children under the age of twelve.
New Employment
Approximately 125 people are estimated to be employed by the Hometown Buffet
Restaurant.
Revenues & Sales Tax
Hometown Buffet revenues are estimated at $2 to $3 million in annual sales. Annual
sales tax is estimated at $20,000 to$30,000.
Revenue and Sales Tax
Hometown Buffet
Estimated Annual Sales $2,000,000-$3,000,000
Estimated Annual Sales Tax $20,000-$30,000
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite Bl San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 17
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum - November 1996 ~
Freeway Traffic Markets
To determine if there is sufficient drive-by traffic to support a restaurant of the size and
volume of a Hometown Buffet, Hwy. 101 traffic counts for intersections, interchanges and
roads nearby the Hometown Buffet site were evaluated. Based on Caltran's 1995 traffic
volumes, it is estimated that there are 75,000 daily travelers during a peak month passing
the Hwy. 101 and Madonna Road Interchange. On an average day, there are 63,000
average daily travelers with 7,200 daily travelers at the peak hour.
Hwy 101 Madonna Road Interchange
Traffic Volume
Peak Hour 7,200
Peak Month ADT 75,000
Annual ADT 63 000
Source:Cal Trans 1995 Traffic Volumes
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B1 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 18
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Downtown Restaurant Market Targets
The downtown already has significant competition in the food service sector. There are
currently over 71 downtown restaurants. These establishments segment themselves into
coffeehouses, snacks and desserts, deli/sandwich and pizza and restaurants and saloons. A
representative sampling of restaurants downtown was surveyed to determine their primary
markets and the type of services they provide. Business hours for the sandwich shop
category were generally 10 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with the exception of Thursday Farmers'
Market nights. Some restaurants that served the breakfast trade were open at 8:00 a.m. or
before.
Restaurants open for lunch primarily cater to downtown visitors, college students, local
business owners/employees and government employees. Restaurants that open in the
evening indicated that they catered to patrons seeking a finer dining experience and to
college students. None indicated that freeway traffic was part of their prime market. Many
restaurants served alcoholic beverages and noted that these beverages are a major part of
their sales. Hometown Buffet will serve no alcohol including beer or wine.
Downtown Restaurants Surveyed
Angelos
Big Sky Cafe
Buona Tavola
Burrito Wagon Stop
China Bowl
F.McClintocks
Firestone Grill
Fresh Choice
Golden China Chinese
Hudson Grill
Linn'sFruit Bin
Louisa's Place
Mo's Smokehouse
Mother's Tavern
Nothing But the Best
SLO Brewing Co.
SpIke's Place,The Creamery
Taco Bell Express
Tio Albertus
Tortilla Flats
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite Bl San Zeis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2071 19
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Potential Retail Impacts of
The Prado Road Proiect
Potential Contribution to The City of San Luis Obispo Retail Sales
Projected sales for the Prado Road Project is estimated at $28.3 million annually.
Circuit City will be approximately 28,670 square feet, with an estimated annual retail sales
at approximately$13.5 million.
The Office Max will have an approximate size of 23,500 square feet, with an estimated
annual retail sales of$6.8 million. The PetSmart has an approximate size of 23,567 square
feet, with an estimated retail sales of$5.0 million per year. Hometown Buffet sales are
estimated at $3 million. The project's combined total of employees is estimated to be
approximately 250 people, with an estimated gross payroll of $4 to $5 million per year,
plus benefits.
Anticipated Tax Revenues from the Project
Potential retail sales for the following stores were estimated based on their sales per
square foot.
Prado Road Project Sales & Tax Estimates
Prado Rd. Project Square Footage Est. Retail Sales Tax To Cit
Circuit City 28,670 $13,500,000 $135,000
Office Depot 23,500 $6,800,000 $68,000
Pet Smart 23,567 $5,000,000 $50,000
Hometown Buffet 10,000 $3,000,000 $30,000
Total 85,737 $28,300,000 $283,000
Source: Stephen A. Nukes& Associates
At a City sales tax rate of 1%, a total of$283 thousand in annual sales tax revenue will
be generated by the Prado Road Project. With Circuit City's retail sales projected at $13.5
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 20
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown bnpact Addendum November 1996
million per year, $135 thousand will be generated in sales tax revenue. Office Max's
estimated retail sales per year is approximately $6.8 million, with a approximate tax
revenue of$68 thousand. Pet$mart has a projected annual retail sales of$5.0 million, with
an estimated sales tax revenue of $50 thousand. And Hometown Buffet has projected $3
million in annual retail sales and an estimated sale tax revenue of$30 thousand.
In evaluating the financial impact on the City of the Project, estimates are that most will
be new sales, and will provide $283,000 of sales tax income. There are many other fees
and taxes that will be paid by the Project including business license tax fees, utility taxes,
property taxes and property transfer taxes. It was beyond the scope of this report to
analyze each of these sources and hence,they are not included.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite Bl San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 21
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Potential Impacts on Downtown Retail
The Downtown is strong. Empty space are rapidly filling with many new projects
scheduled to begin operation in late 1996 or 1997. The Downtown B.I.A. retail sales totals
for 1994 were estimated at $88.8 million. For 1995/96, Downtown revenues were
approximately$107 million. The appliancefphone(W category had an estimated retail sales
for 1994 at$2.1 million. The stationery/gift/office supplies category had an estimated retail
sales for 1994 at $2.2 million. Because of confidentiality issues, information in the pet
store and record store categories was not provided The stores affected by the Project
represent 3.1% of total Downtown revenues. The dollar impact on Downtown sales is
expected to have a short term impact of only 0.3% to 1.4% of sales. The following is an
analysis of the potential impacts on these Downtown retail stores.
Electronics and An liances
Audio Ecstasy anticipates only a minor impact from a Circuit City in San Luis Obispo
because it markets to a higher and electronic market than Circuit City. Audio Video
Concepts in San Luis Obispo is already impacted by the Circuit City in Santa Maria. The
store currently markets itself as a price competitor with Circuit City.
After the novelty factor of a San Luis Obispo Circuit City wears down, AVC might find
sales increasing due to more electronics shoppers that currently leave the City to shop
staying within San Luis Obispo. A Circuit City in San Luis Obispo would bring back retail
sales to the City that would otherwise leak to Santa Maria.
Office Products
Office supply stores in Downtown business areas have already been impacted by a
large scale store, Staples, which opened in December of 1995. The retail impact in sales
has already been absorbed by Downtown stores such as Mission Office Supplies. Most of
the effect of an Office Max type of store will be directed at Staples and the Office Depot in
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite Bl San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2071 22
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Santa Maria, because they would be in more direct competition with a San Luis Obispo
Office Max. Some of Office MwCs customers will be generated from Staples clientele and
from other outlying areas within the county.
Pet Supplies and Grooming Services
PetSmart will offer grooming services,veterinary services,the sale of fish and birds as
well as pct supplies and goods. It is our understanding that reptiles will not be offered at
PetSmart. Because of the overlap of existing services offered by Pampered Pets and the
Golden Paw,PetSmart may have significant impact upon these stores.
Because the Golden Paw primarily offers grooming services and has a stable and
exceedingly loyal clientele, they will probably not notice any significant effect from a
PetSmart. Once a pet owner has chosen a groomer and as long as the service is satisfactory
and their pet is happy,there is very little inclination to change. Price does not seem to be
an issue, as pet owners are far more interested in the care, familiarity and comfort that their
pet will receive by taking them to a familiar grooming location.
Pampered Pets will be impacted far more by a PetSmart than the Golden Paw.
PetSmart will sell fish and birds as does Pampered Pets. In addition, PetSmart will also
sell pet supplies as does Pampered Pets. The keys to lessening the impacts on Pampered
Pets comes from the expertise of the owners, Bob and Paula Davidson. By actively
promoting service and the expertise that comes from the experience of the long time
owners, gives them a potential advantage that may not be available to a new retail clerk at
PetSmart that does not have the experience and service orientation possessed by the
Davidson. This provides an opportunity for Pampered Pets to promote their expertise and
draw people into their store by having questions answered regarding selecting appropriate
pets and supplies.
Pampered Pets may potentially have to match prices or become somewhat price
competitive with PetSmart. This can be done while maintaining reasonable margins by
offering quantity deals to customers, allowing the unit price to go down with the more they
purchase. This will allow for a higher margin on small purchases and a lower margin on
larger purchases but more gross sales flowing into the business. Also direct promotion to
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 23
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
loyal customers is another mitigation that Pampered Pets can use. Capitalizing on the
loyalty of a long time customer base as well as using promotion to attract new customers
can offer mitigation to the effects a PetSmart might have to the downtown store.
Restaurants
The Hometown Buffet Restaurant is seeldng a different market than that of the
downtown restaurants. High volume will come from freeway travelers. Downtown
patrons are generally seeking a different dining experience than that provided by a
Hometown Buffet restaurant.
Camera & Photographic Store Impacts
There was concern that Circuit City would impact the downtown camera stores. There
are five camera stores and studios that are located in the downtown area.
- Cal Photo
-Jim's Campus Camera
- Larry Jamison Photography
- The Photo Shop
- Photo 101
Circuit City's sales of camera and photographic equipment is limited to video
camcorders only. Circuit City does not sell 35 mm or other non-electronic cameras. None
of the camera stores in the downtown sells camcorders or other video camera equipment.
At one time Jim's Campus Camera did sell televisions but has since discontinued that line.
Circuit City should have no direct impact on the downtown camera and photographic
stores.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite Bl San Lids Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 24
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Record Tame and CD Store Impacts
Currently, there are only four record and CD outlets in all of San Luis Obispo not
counting Melodia, primarily a Spanish language purveyor of CDs and tapes. Three of
these record,tape and CD stores are located in the downtown.
- Boo Boo Records
- Cheap Thrills
- Liquid CDs
Blue Note Music is also located downtown but sells a very limited number of
specialized CDs and tapes. Their primary emphasis is acoustic string instruments including
guitars, violins and mandolins.
Circuit City does sell CDs and tapes. CD and tape sales at Circuit City represent
approximately 2% - 3% of annual gross sales. The estimates for CD and tape sales of a
Circuit City located at Prado Road are in the $200,000 to $400,000 range annually. This
level of sales is significantly less than that of The Wherehouse located on Madonna Road
across the freeway.
The downtown record and CD stores offer significantly higher levels of service,
expertise and range and selection of offerings than that offered at a Circuit City. Circuit
City's selection of CD's is limited to popular titles, is totally self-service and is aimed
toward purchasers of home and car stereo systems providing them programming for their
newly acquired equipment. Their CD and tape sales are targeted toward impulse purchases
of owners of new audio equipment. It is believed that the Wherehouse with its larger sales
volume has a greater impact on downtown sales than a Circuit City will.
The issue was brought up before the Planning Commission that Circuit City uses their
CD sales as a loss leader and because they can offer a lower price will drive the other
record stores out of business. Circuit City has indicated that their average margin on CD
sales is in the 13% - 17% range. This would belie the assumption that they are offering
their CDs at a loss. The market for Circuit City CD sales will be primarily the regional
customers that will come to Circuit City for major electronic purchases. Because of their
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 25
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown bnpact Addendum November 1996
limited selection, they should not have a significant overlap of customers that currently
patronize Boo Boo and Cheap Thrills Records. Those wishing to purchase from a chain
already have access to the Wherehouse.
The expertise that is offered at Cheap Thrills and Boo Boo Records as well as the
ambiance of being downtown have allowed these stores to effectively compete with the
large chain retailers such as The Wherehouse. We expect that because of this expertise and
breadth of selection, that the downtown record, CD and tape retailers will be able to
continue to hold their market.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 26
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Lnpact Addendum November 1996
Proiect Economic Impact
Potential Employment and Retail Sales Imnact
The total annual direct economic impact of the project is $39.5 million. Estimated new
permanent jobs created by the Prado Road Project is projected at 250 persons. Wages and
benefits are estimated at $5 million. For every job that is created by the Prado Road
Project,an indirect benefit of additional jobs and wages will occur additionally to stimulate
the economy. This is lmown as the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect ranges from an
additional 1.5 to 2.5 times the direct economic benefit. Because the City does not include
the multiplier effect in their computations, no analysis of the effect was included in this
study.
Model Proiect Economic Impacts
New Revenues
Project Retail Sales $28,300,000
City Sales Tax $283,000
Permanent Jobs 250
Wages&Benefits Paid $5,000,000
Additional Retail Sales $1,250,000
Additional Sales Tax $12,500
Construction Impact $5,000.000
Total Economic Impact $39,562,500
Source: Stephen A. Nukes& Associates
A projected retail sales of$28.3 million will be created by the Prado Road Project, with
an estimated City sales tax of$283,000. An additional retail sales impact of$1.25 million
is projected based on wages paid, with an additional local sales tax of approximately
$12,500.
Stephen A Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B1 San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 27
Prado Road Properly Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
New Construction Impact
The Prado Road Project will have a construction impact from the purchasing of
construction materials, supplies, and construction wages. A significant number of
construction jobs will be created. Approximately 20 to 30 construction trades will be
represented, with ranges of 2 to 20 persons per trade. The number of jobs is estimated at
266 jobs, with wages and benefits at approximately $2 million.
Construction costs are estimated at $1.4 million for Circuit City, Office Max is
estimated at $1.3 million, and PetSmart is estimated at $1.0 million. An estimated total
construction cost for the Prado Road Project is approximately$4.1 million.
Prado Road Project Construction Costs
Square Feet Cost/So ft Total Cost
Circuit City 23,500 $59 $1,386,500
Office Max 28,670 $44 $1,261,480
PetSmart 23,567 $43 $1,013,381
Hometown Buffet 10,000 $50 $500 000
Total 85,737 $49 $4,11 61 361
Source: Stephen A. Nukes& Associates
The estimated materials and supplies needed for the project is approximately $1.9
million, with estimated sales tax of$19.9 thousand.
Estimated Construction Impact
New
#Construction Jobs 266
Construction Costs
Wages&Benefits Paid $1,994,000
Materials& Supplies $1,994,000
Sales Tax $19,940
Total Economic Impaci $4,007,940
Source: Stephen A. Nukes& Associates
Stephen A. Nukes A Associates 1250 Peach Sheet,Suite BI San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 28
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
r
SurveyOf Affected Stores
A survey of affected small businesses in Downtown San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria
was conducted to determine the possible effects the Prado Road Project might have on
Downtown business.
Just recently a Circuit City opened in Santa Maria and a Staples in San Luis Obispo.
The effects these stores had on the Downtown businesses were used to help determine
effects that the Prado Road Project would have in San Luis Obispo. The Downtown
businesses had a slump during the 4th Quarter of 1995, so most businesses can not
attribute the entire loss of sales directly to the opening of Circuit City in Santa Maria or
Staples in San Luis Obispo. All surveys were conducted with either store owners or senior
managers.
Electronics
Audio Video Concepts (AVC)has two stores which would be affected by the Prado Road
Project. The service store felt a slight effect when the Circuit City opened in Santa
Maria, about 5%. Because it is a high quality stereo store with service, store managers
felt the service store had minimal competition with the Circuit City.
The Downtown Audio Video Concepts store had a significant decrease in sales
during the Christmas Season. The managers believed that this decline was partially due
to the opening of Circuit City of Santa Maria. To minimize the effect of the loss, the
store matched the Circuit City prices, and promoted the high quality of service Audio
Video Concepts offers. They feed that Circuit City has lesser service, so the effect in
sales loss may not last.
AVC believed, that if a Circuit City came into San Luis Obispo, their store would
feel a great impact. Because the competition would be more local, the store would be
impacted more than the opening of the Santa Maria store. Some recovery would be
possible once the novelty effect of a new store would wore off.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B! San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 29
Prado Road Property Prado Road Dowmtown bnpact Addendum November 1996 1
Audio Ecstasy was lightly affected by the Circuit City in Santa Maria. Store manages
believe that they are an upscale store and cater to different types of customers. Their
store offers better quality service than Circuit City. If a Circuit City moved into San
Luis Obispo they believe they would be marginally affected, but were not able to
estimate the amount.
Telephones
The Phone Center believes a light impact from the Santa Maria Circuit City. Their
approach to the market is different because they are a specialty store. Their employees
offer experience in phone services and are not on commission. They believe they had
more of an effect from Staples than Circuit City. If a Circuit City came to San Luis
Obispo, managers believed an effect in sales of possibly 25-30% initially until the
novelty wore off.
The Telephone Gallery believes that they had a light impact for the Santa Maria Circuit City
store and a medium effect from the Staples opening. Loss in sales was difficult to
determine because of many factors. Extra steps in service were used to minimize any
additional losses. If a Circuit City came to San Luis Obispo they believe it would have
a moderate effect in their sales.
Office Products
Mission trice Products believes a medium affect from the opening of Staples. Loss in
sales were difficult to determine because of the general slump in 4th quarter 1995. The
store has since picked up sales in January. A loss of about 20% was seen in sales
overall. To minimize the effects of the Staples opening, the store advertised more,
increased service and tried to match prices with staples. Office delivery gives then a
competitive advantage. An Office Max in San Luis Obispo would not additionally
affect them and any effects would be temporary.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B! San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2071 30
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Restaurants
Downtown Restaurants already have significant competition in the food service sector.
There are currently over 71 downtown restaurants. These establishments segment
themselves into coffeehouses, snacks and desserts, deli/sandwich and pizza and
restaurants and saloons. A representative sampling of restaurants downtown was
surveyed to determine their primary markets and the type of services they provide.
Business hours for the sandwich shop category were generally 10 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
with the exception of Thursday Farmers' Market nights. Some restaurants that served
the breakfast trade were open at 8:00 a.m. or before.
Restaurants open for lunch primarily cater to downtown visitors, college students,
local business owners/employees and government employees. Restaurants that open in
the evening indicated that they catered to patrons seeking a finer dining experience and
to college students. None indicated that freeway traffic was part of their prime market.
Many restaurants served alcoholic beverages and noted that these beverages are a major
part of their sales. Hometown Buffet will serve no alcohol including beer or wine.
Downtown Restaurants Surveyed
Angelos
Big Sky Cafe
Buona Tavola
Burrito Wagon Stop
China Bowl
F.McCllntocks
Firestone Grill
Fresh Choice
Golden China Chinese
Hudson Grill
Linn'sFruit Bin
Louisa's Place
Mo's Smokehouse
Mother's Tavem
Nothing But the Best
SLO Brewing Co.
Spike's Place,The Creamery
Taco Bell Express
Tio Albertos
Tortilla Flats
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite Bl San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077 31
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
Circuit Cid ce Max Effects in Santa Maria
The opening of Office Max and Circuit City in Santa Maria in 1994 were used to
illustrate local retail sales impact and actions taken for recovery. We spoke to Bob Hatch,
the Executive Director of the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce, about the Circuit
City and Office Max impacts. He felt in order to deter such impacts,the smaller businesses
should find out what the bigger stores do not offer and supply the consumer with these
needs.
Audio Video City in Santa Maria believed their business increa by approximately
40% when Circuit City came into their market area. They believed that consumers were
able to see that their service was better and that their prices were the same or lower. They
believed that they carry different and better quality items than a Circuit City does. They
also stated that most of their customers had just come from the Circuit City store and were
disappointed in the service.
Computer King in Santa Maria felt an impact in sales because of Circuit City and
Office Max. The reasons were because of location rather than price or variety of stock.
The location of the Circuit City was in an area that matched consumer patterns. It disrupted
the opportunity for people to shop for better prices and other items.
Systems Stationer's in Santa Maria felt that businesses similar to an Office Max are
devastating to the small business community. This store felt an initial impact of 50% on
their retail sales. Recovery of sales was made in 7 months. The store had to have a change
in buying pattern,better service and catering to clientele. They believed that these kinds of
changes need to be made if they are to stay in direct competition with the larger scale stores.
Stephen A. Nukes A Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (8o5).541-2077 32
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown bnpact Addendum November 1996
Mitigation Recommendations
The following recommendations are designed to provide methods for impacted
businesses to mitigate the effects of the Prado Road Project tenants.
- Downtown businesses can mitigate many of the effects by emphasizing
service, price, staying open later and utilizing creative marketing and
advertising strategies. Businesses in Santa Maria have recently been
impacted by these similar tenants, and through aggressive measures have
found recovery in retail sales within 6 months.
- Downtown businesses can utilize the importance of their "quality one-on-one
service". The ratio between customer and employee for Downtown
businesses allows for personal rapport to develop. This gives the potential
of enhancing customer service.
- Competitive pricing and advertising are important tools in competing with
larger chain stores. A few businesses already have addressed this issue by
promoting themselves as a price competitor to Circuit City. Audio Visual
Concepts in San Luis Obispo and Audio Video City in Santa Maria advertise
their stores as Circuit City price competitors. Audio Video City in Santa
Maria has already seen positive change after the Circuit City impact in it's
area.
- By tying the Prado Road Project to the Downtown area, the Prado Road
Project can be used to create a positive impact on the Downtown market.
- A kiosk for advertising the Downtown area,located at the Prado Road Project,
maintained by the Downtown businesses, can remind the consumers of all
the options available to them in the Downtown area for their shopping
needs.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Lids Obispo,Ca 93401 (805)541-2071 33
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum November 1996
- The feasibility of having the Downtown Trolley make periodic stops at the
Prado Road Center should be investigated If every third or fifth trolley trip
included a loop to the Project, it would offer the opportunity to bring a
significant number of shoppers to the Downtown area.
Stephen A Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI Smi Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2071 34
Prado Road Property Prado Road Downtown Impact Addendum - November 1996
Annendix
1.Mission Office Products Advertisement
2. Audio Video Concepts, San Luis Obispo Window Advertisement
3. Audio Video City, Santa Maria Window Advertisement
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite BI San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2071 35
,y
Mission SOffce `Products:
1,0 �hP� HEWLETT r al
M X77.0;/C S, r 1/PACKARb
ly.,i%JTJ-/ �I'/�• yY r.y�yjY..lfy�{. , �,, �� �
Y
f r��/-�/�ij/ rr��✓�7� f .rte 'ii y..l�.0 '��1 '' 1 � r _� / i �i;�
c/%irf. „(•(f; , ',: I l,f:r u l �Nk JPt k
Y 1
�"• +�Tr•^Z'b�n. r4lr.vivE7 /.J,:1!N�i.:'1 u�
qtr;rl�iJ,r 1 f r
allot • , •
<�Mission�OffiCe :Products.
r � �
- L ,
1 L
t
w
1 +M
7
44 1 P 1Y I lv
Al
S
r f
>��� �. f : .-,� :. �x .� Yf r}� �'IPS �• 1 l gni
t•A— F f4�:r" v I �...-�...i... ... ^`d,!i'tr�: 5.�i.�i v+ ]� a..�2F O
/ /
E. 0 Cf I TYf -
r
.10
A 1
^LL Y�_
f 1
S.'
r� .. ... y -
S
r4,i,
1
e 1 + f
V.�]ay$ � �.IZ t t '� 7f;�Q• rth�{1k1h 1 rfj r � v I -
1
11 ��
1 J rf
tryES1:/ � til
t
71
Prado Road Property Retail Development Downtown Impact Analysis November 1996
STEPHEN A NUNS&ASSOCIATES BACKGROUND AND CAPABILITY
Stephen A. Nukes & Associates is a full service management consulting firm
specializing in strategic planning and economic and market research. We have been serving
the Central Coastal Region since 1975. We have provided clients with the Central Coastal
Economic Forecast since 1984. We provide independent assessments of the growth and
demographic changes taking place in the Central Coastal Region and the strategic effects of
these changes for both businesses and public agencies. We perform a wide variety of
research tailored to individual client needs and develop financial, marketing, or policy
strategies to creatively meet client objectives.
Among the areas we cover are the following:
- Strategic Economic and Marketing Planning
-Economic Forecasting and Analysis Services
-Development Project Feasibility and Impact Studies
-Retail and Demographic Analysis, Market Surveys and Focus Groups
-Management Briefings and Individual Consultations
In all our engagements we are committed to providing clear cut information and
implementable results while meeting critical client time requirements.
Our staff has extensive background in Finance, Accounting, and Marketing Analysis.
We also have the computer resources to provide a range of Financial and Strategic
Analyses, determine the consequences of various options and assist in the selection of the
best strategic course or courses.
Stephen A. Nukes has over 24 years business experience and an M.B.A. Degree in
Finance and Marketing from the UCLA Graduate School of Management. He has worked
for such companies as IBM Corporation, Transamerica Corporation, and taught Finance,
Business, Marketing and Computer Science at California Polytechnic State University in
San Luis Obispo. He has also lectured extensively on Business Financial Strategy,
Organization Strategies, Marketing, Marketing Survey Techniques, and methods to
maximize revenue and overall results.
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B1 Scot Iasis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077
Prado Road Property Retail Development Downtown Impact Analys,-- November 1996
REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF CLIENTS
The following is a representative list of client references who have used our Strategic
Planning,Market Analysis or Market or Economic Forecasting services.
Private Industry Clients:
All Valley Mortgage Pacific Gas&Electric Co.
ARCS Mortgage Pebble Beach Company
Atascadero Mutual Water Company Roger Snellenberger& Assoc.
Bank of America Rossetti Company
Bonita American Round Table Pizza
Cambria Business Park Santa Barbara Savings&Loan
Castil Corporation Santa Lucia Bank
Century 21, Commercial Investment Division Santa Lucia Hills, Inc.
Century Federal Savings Santa Maria Public Airport Dist.
Coldwell Banker, Commercial Division Sea Group West .
Commerce Bank Seacoast Financial
Don Lee Realty Investments Spyglass Properties
First American Title Insurance Company Squire Developments
Golden West Development Corporation Sykes Group
Granite Construction T.L. Robak
Great Western Bank Thomas Property
H& A Financial Wells Fargo Bank
Hacienda Bank
Halferty Company
Hanson Enterprises
Heritage Oaks Bank City and Government Agencies:
Home Base of America
Invest West Financial Corporation CSU -Monterey Bay
J.H. Edwards Company County of Monterey
La Croix Developers Monterey County EDC
La Cumbre Savings Bank City of Monterey
Lifestyle Development City of Redondo Beach
Kaufman&Broad City of San Luis Obispo
Manchester Mortgage Company County of San Luis Obispo
Midland Pacific Building Corporation San Luis Harbor District
Midstate Bank City of Monro Bay
Monterey Federal Credit Union City of Atascadero
Ozark Industries City of Lompoc
Pacho Limited Partnership City Pismo Beach
Pacific Coastline Corporation SLO Regional Transit Authority
Stephen A. Nukes &Associates 1250 Peach Street,Suite B1 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 (805)541-2077
AMft*N 1
40
pETs1AAR�
DAMEETING AGENDA
TE "ITEM
Where pets are family
10000 N. 31st Avenue e Suite C 100 Phoenix, Arizona 85051 602 944 7070
November 23, 1996
UOUNCIL 2 Lit,
CAO 11 RN DiR
XACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF
:ATTORNEY 0 PW DIR
VIA FACSIMILE CLERWORIG 0 POLICE CHF!:
AND REGULAR MAIL 1 :71 FjiwrTEAIVI D REC DIR
G R;-:A:)F:1LE
0 UT(L DIR
Mr. Allen K. Settle ......
Honorable Mayor
City Of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: PETsMART, Inc.
Proposed Retail Development
Northwest corner of Prado Road & U.S. 101
San Luis Obispo, California
Dear Honorable Mayor & Council Members:
PETsMART, Inc. the original, and largest pet super store chain, is the industry
leader in the pet food and supply business. PETsMART currently operates 315
stores in 35 states.
PETsMART is committed to opening a store in San Luis Obispo County. We have
reviewed a number of alternative locations that are far less desirable and wish to
inform you that this is the only location in the City of San Luis Obispo that meets
our criteria. This Development has been approved by PETsNIART's Senior
Management subject to this project moving forward.
It is truly hoped that this project will be approved on your December 3, 1996 City
Council meeting as PETsMART would be delighted to be a part of your
community.
RECEIV F--D,
NOV Z 3 1996_
CITYCOUNCIL
PETsMART, Inc.
Page 2
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
Da
Tom CA
Director of Real Estate
PETsMART, Inc.
cc: Mike Metzger (via facsimile)
Vick Montgomery (via facsimile)
Steve Leider (via facsimile)
7- 'fJ��f AGENDA
DATE - -96 ITEM #
Project Economic Impact
Annual Revenues $28 million
cA0 LQ I'li i L`i
P/:CAO O FIRE CHIEF
# of New Jobs 250 ftyEY 0 P
;LEF.!GdRIG p POLIUCECE
CHS
J f1GUTPEAM ❑ REC DIF
f, Un Din
Sales Tax Revenue $280,000
from the Project
Retail Markets Regional:
N 240,000 persons
Freeway:
N 63,000 cars per day
San Luis Obispo $42.2 million
General Merchandise
Leakage vs. Santa Maria
Downtown Businesses 12 of 544
Impacted
Downtown Revenue 0.4% - 1 .7% of
Impacts Downtown Revenues
Circuit City CD $200,000 - $400,000
& Software Revenues 2 - 3 % of sales
No Impact on Downtown
Camera Stores
RECEIV'r"D
DEC 1 19yo
CITY COUNCIL OM AGENDA
R � s oBISPoE CADATE,���/�� ITEM #
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce /
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543.1255
e-mail: slo-chamber@slonet.org
David E. Garth, Executive Director
November 27, 1996
CAO ❑ FIRE CHIC;`
G'.^•P:EY ❑ PW DIR
Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council ?K''�?'G ❑ Pol_:OE GAG
❑ hlaCi?!T T_.�iAN ❑ REC 01r,City of San Luis Obispo r3 LMS D
IRA
990 Palm Street R a'r:::
San Luis Obispo,California 93401 ¢
Honorable Mayor Settle and Council Members:
The Chamber would like to comment on your upcoming decision regarding the proposed Prado 40 project. As a
general policy our Chamber of Commerce does not support or oppose individual projects,and we do not intend to
make a specific recommendation regarding the Prado 40 project at this time. As the results of your decision will
undoubtedly have city-wide consequences,however,we feel that there are several overarching issues that need to
be taken into consideration when evaluating a project of this nature. We will attempt to limit our comments to
those general issues.
Our fust concern is in regard to the proposed land uses for the site in question. We feel that the city should always
attempt to provide the highest quality and best use of sites under its jurisdiction. With regard to the Prado site,we
feel that the best use for the area is as a retail site. Given the proposed Dalidio annexation,as well as possible
redevelopment of the Central Coast Mall site,this entire area stands to achieve critical mass as an important
regional retail zone. The area is a prime location for freeway-generated retail uses,especially considering the
improvements to Highway 101 that will take place as a result of development. These improvements,which are
really only feasible for retail developments to contribute into,would allow the city to improve its circulation
patterns,as well as plan the entire southern retail gateway to be aesthetically pleasing and of high quality.
San Luis Obispo currently faces a severe problem of retail leakage visa-vis our neighbors to the north and south.
We feel that it is vitally important for our city to remain competitive in the retail environment if we wish to
continue to enjoy our high quality-of-life standards. Additional cutbacks in property tax revenues from PG&E,
coupled with the passage of Proposition 218,mean that raising revenues for important city goals will become
increasingly difficult in the future. Our recent defeai in passing Measure 0 is indicative of the problems in raising
revenues even for popular projects—imagine the difficulties in trying to raise fees to provide additional sewer
service given the new%majority vote requirement under Proposition 218. Our local schools stand to suffer as
school bonds are forced to compete with other issues on increasingly crowded ballots. The list of problems
Proposition 218 may cause are endless—retail sales tax revenues provide one of the few possible solutions to the
problem.
By denying a project of this type,San Luis Obispo stands to lose out competitively on a number of
fronts. The most obvious is the immediate loss of potential sales tax revenue from the tenants. In TEN YEARS
addition,these tax losses ripple into the Madonna Road area and even downtown as San Luis Obispo
becomes less of a regional draw,and these losses must be factored in as well. We can look at San
Luis Obispo's experience with Festival Cinemas,and its subsequent location in Arroyo Grande,as a
good example of how negative retail ripple effects can occur. The retail area surrounding the ACCREDITED
cinemas in Arroyo Grande is booming,making that city a more effective competitor for other retail ""'RER W COMMERCE
establishments. Conversely,we feel that the addition of quality retail developments in the Prado,Dalidio,and
Madonna Road areas will lead to positive ripple effects, as the regional draw of establishments in those areas will
increase the number of people shopping downtown.
On a more subtle level,we need to ask what image San Luis Obispo paints for itself after projects endure a defeat
such as Prado 40 experienced at our Planning Commission. The Chamber agrees that not every business fits in
with our town. If the City truly does not desire to locate a potential business here,however,we ask you to make
that message clear right from the start With prior City Council and Planning Commission votes allowing projects
like Prado 40 to go forward,only to be stopped after a lengthy and expensive planning process,developers receive
a message that San Luis Obispo is a city that cannot deliver on its intent. It would be much better for the City to
be forthright from the beginning,so that those businesses that you do want to locate here do not begin to doubt the
City's good faith.
We would also like to address the question of competition with existing businesses. We understand the opposition
of marry downtown businesses to the Prado 40 development because of potential negative impacts on sales. Many
of our members are downtown businesses,and we certainly do not want to see them hurt. We feel that attempts to
limit competition as a method of protecting businesses,however,are ineffective and harmful to the entire business
community in the long run. Our Chamber consistently opposes decisions that result in reduced competition in the
business environment.
Finally,we understand that the area in question is a highly visible gateway area into the city. We agree that we do
not want to look like Santa Maria with regard to the types of buildings that are located in our city. Please
understand,however,that any project in the area,be it on Prado 40,Dalidio,or the Madonna Road area,will be
subject to intensive architectural review. With proper planning,the entire area can be a high-quality,retail
gateway into the city that is aesthetically pleasing. We must look beyond just the tenants and examine the quality
of the developments themselves. We feel that aesthetically pleasing,high-quality projects can take place in the
area,regardless of tenant mix. Indeed,developers are aware of San Luis Obispo's requirements for high-quality
projects when drawing their plans.
In summary,we are not recommending that you take a particular position on the Prado 40 project. We understand
that the issues surrounding the project are complex,and that you must base your decision on what you feel is best
for the community. We would like you to make your decision,however,knowing that the decision you make will
send a message to developers that will have an effect on the retail competitiveness of San Luis Obispo. Any retail
project has an impact on the size of the same revenue stream that provides for education,protection of open space,
or vital infrastructure improvements. In addition,retail projects are a much greater tributary to that revenue stream
than any office project We ask you to judge the Prado 40 project based on its merits and the quality of its design,
and to judge any proposal for the Prado site with the knowledge that a retail use is the highest and best use for that
particular piece of property.
Thank you for allowing us to comment on these issues. As always,we know that you will vote consistently with
what you believe to be in the best interests of our community.
Yours very truly,
Robert L. Griffin
President
MEETh.,, AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
December 1, 1996
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
In today's vernacular I would be considered a "pro-growther," therefore it might come as a
surprise to you that I am opposed to the current proposal for Prado Road.
The first and most obvious problem is the freeway access...those arriving from the North and
leaving for the South will have to negotiate a maze. To say that we may have a proper
interchange ten years down the road is not good enough.
I am an advocate of competition and I am not a downtown "protectionist" You are dreaming if
you believe that this new center will draw customers from South County and generate
$250,000.00 of new tax revenue...it is likely that any revenues will be siphoned off from Farm
Supply, Lemos Ranch,Mission Office Supply, Staples, Audio Ecstasy, Audio Video Concepts
Gottshalk's, Sears, E.E. Long, Idler's, etc. There is ample competition among the various
products that will be sold by Prado Road stores.
To take another tack,the ill conceived no growth policies practiced over the last several years
have unfortunately squelched this town's population base to a point that this Prado Road project
will likely push some long time enterprises out of business.
Sincerely, (�
Lawrence Pennington
761 Grove St. ui�Ii
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -ca0 ., Z
1-,1CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
1- " ORNEY ❑ PW DIR
❑-Cl ER'VOR:G ❑ POLICE CH.
❑ MGMT TEw ❑ REC DIR
0 C READ.F;:-.-: C LIM MR
2 1996
CITY CLERK
SAN LUS 061S?O,CA
MEETING AGENDA
CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM DATE i`ITEM #
December 3, 1996
TO: City Council
FROM: Bonnie Gawfa
SUBJECT: Rezoning - 40 Prado Road
I received a telephone call today from Mr. Myron Graham stating he wants Council to uphold
the denial on Prado Road.
DLEC
.. eITY CLERK
0:171 i
✓C. o ❑ FIRE CM77- !
RECEIVED "ORIXY ❑ PF1 D!R
UrL J IYYo G' :C ❑ POLi:E C.':
CITY COUNCIL T r-•r ^
MEETING AGENDA
Economic Forecast Project DATEMI ITEM #�---
P.O. Box 1031, Santa Barbara, CA 93102
681-1072 voicc 893-2754 fax
❑ hi: .::..
December 2, 1996 ❑
�_. .
Ben Reiling
Zelman Development Co.
707 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 3036
Los Angeles, CA 90017 (/
Dear Ben:
I have prepared some updated economic information about the city of San Luis Obispo which
strongly suggesls Thal the retail climale in the city is lacking due principally to significant.
leakage of consumer retail spending to other cities in San Luis Obispo County,but especially
to the city of Santa Maria.
The retail recovery that began in California in 1994 has accelerated in 1996. Retail spending is
now particularly strong in Pismo Beach, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Oxnard, and
Thousand Oaks, to name just the largest retail centers in the tri-counties economy. That same
strength has not yet affected the city of San Luis Obispo. The principal reason for this is the
lack of affordable retail centers, the type which now exist in Paso Robles and Santa Maria.
Clearly, these two cities have experienced incredible growth in general merchandise retail
sales since Wal"Mart in Paso and CostCo in Santa Maria opened.
A priman, retail market for a shopping center is typically a 50 mile radius. Clearly. cite of San
Luis Obispo residents and shoppers are within the retail market.of Santa Maria and Paso
Robles. And there is no question that residents of San i.uis Obispo and the five cities area
travel Lu Santa Maria and Paso Rubles lu spend retail dollars the more affordable general
merchandise retail stores there. The data show quite clearly that general merchandise retail
sales adjusted for inflation have been in serious decline in the city of San Luis Obispo since
1987. 1 cannot find another"retail" city.in the tri-counties area where this is true.
From the evidence on the retail climate that we have to date, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
• the retail recovery in the city of San Luis Obispo is quite austere, compared to the
retail recovery occurring{elsewhere in the state and vis a vis the two closest retail
markets in Santa Maria and Santa Barbara. Retail Sales are up 7 percent in the city
this year, but.they have increased 11.1 percent in Santa Barbara, and 9.6 percent in
Santa Maria. See attached charts.
• Except for the city of Atascadero, retail sales in all cities of San Luis Obispo County
are increasing faster than retail sales in the city of San Luis Obispo this year. See page
8 of the 1991 San Luis Obispo County Economic Outlook. Atascadero had its retail
revival in 1995 so the rate of growth is less spectacular this year. Compared to nearly
��4�,CEi%V1 ►
clry COUNCIL
Ben Reiling
December 2, 1996
page 2
all other cities in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, the retail recovery in
the city of San Luis Obispo that begun in late 1994 is one of the most anemic.
• the official retail sales information for the city of San Luis Obispo complete through
calendar year 1995 and for the first half of 1996 clearly shows that inflation adjusted
retail sales per retail store is now at one of the lowest levels in 25 years. There has been
only marginal (and insignificant) improvement in retail sales per store since 1993.
• general merchandise retail sales in the city of San Luis Obispo (the kind of retail sales
that will be generated by the Prado 40 development), adjusted for inflation, have been
in a serious decline since 1987. With the retail recovery gaining steam this year,we
have observed only slight. impruvement in real general merchandise retail sales in Lhe
city of San Luis Obispo.
It is quite evident from the analysis of retail markets in the Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo
County economies that a significant leakage of retail dollars now exists in the city of San Luis
Obispo. Furthermore, the retail recovery is anemic in the city,and retailers are generally
facing a difficult climate for new and expanded resident spending as the local economy grows
stronger and population in the county continues to increase.
On November 21, 1996, 1 presented the 1997 Economic Forecast for San Luis Obispo County.
There are many positive indicators of economic growth in the county at this tinie. However,
retail spending in the city of San Luis Obispo is not among the principal highlights of the
current, local economic review. Retail spending in Paso Rubles and Pismo Beach have shown
spectacular growth in 1995 and 1996. Incomes are rising in the county and tourism is
booming. It is therefore inconsistent with nearly all other economic indicators that consumer
spending in the principal retail center of the County, i.e., San Luis (:)bispn city, is showing only
modest improvement. Elsewhere, the retail improvement is much more dramatic and
predictable.
With the onset of affordable retail stores in the city of San Luis Obispo,a number of events will
result:
(1) a major part of the retail leakage from the city will cease as dollars by local residents
become directed into the affordable centers. It is very clear that the city will be able to
"recapture"some of the major sales leakage that is now occurring into Santa Maria and Paso
Rubles.
(2) other retail shops in the city will benefit because San Luis Obispo County residents will
have fewer reasons to leave the area and more reasons to remain in the city to do their
principal spending. Consequently, they will spend at both the new affordable centers and at
the existing retail shops in the city.
Ben Reiling
December 2, 1996
page 3
(3) San Luis Obispo city will itself become a destination retail center for residents of the S
cities area, Morro Bay, and Los Osos. Paso Robles and Atascadero residents will travel over the
grade to stores in San Luis Obispo that do not currently exist in the north County, such as
Circuit City, and Office Max. Auto dealers, restaurants, and clothing stores will benefit from
the increased consumer destination traffic in the city of San Luis Obispo.
(4) the affordable retail centers will generate substantial revenues due to the recapture of the
sales leakage. Those revenues will result in non-negligible fiscal impacts to the city of San
Luis Obispo.
A more detailed analysis follows this cover letter which provides support for these conclusions.
Given the mountain of evidence on retail sales at centers all over the tri-counties, and the
current retail spending patterns of consumers, there is little doubt that the city of San Luis
Obispo and the retail community in general would significantly benefit from placement of new
affordable retail discount stores in the local area. While 1 am not an advocate of the Prado 40
development, it is these kind of retail centers that would significantly enable the growth of the
city's retail markets and fiscal health by serioVsly reducing the retail sales leakage that now
exists from the city of San Luis Obispo.
Please call me if I can provide you any additional information about the economic and retail
climate of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties.
Sincerely,
Mark Schniepp
attachments
Analysis of Retail Sales and Spending Patterns in
the Local Economy
by Mark Schniepp• December 2, 1996
Leakage of retail spending from the City of San Luis Obispo
The leakage of consumer spending from the city of San Luis Obispo is quite evident from the
retail sales information available quarterly and annually from the State Board of Equalization.
With the opening of CostCo in 1988 and Toys R Us in 1990 to name only a few examples,
general merchandise sales increased 121 percent in the city of Santa Maria between 1987 and
1996. Much of this gain was at the expense of San Luis Obispo County general merchandise
retailers whom haveshown virtually no gain in sales in 9 years. Paseo Nuevo opened in the
city of Santa Barbara in August of 1990. General merchandise retail sales have boomed 85
percent between 1989 and 1996.
General merchandise retail sales have jumped 307 percent in Paso Rubles just between 1993
and 1996. The Wal*Mart which opened in September of 1994 has been a phenomenal success
in Paso Robles. But other retail categories of stores in Paso Robles are showing healthy
increases as well.
In Pismo Beach, total retail sales have soared 40.6 percent in just 2 years.1 While much of this
is due to tourism spending. the concentration,of stores comprising the factor,outlet center
also gives 5 city residents and residents of San Luis Obispo City reasons (such as one-stop
shopping) to purchase apparel and general merchandise in Pismo Beach and not the city of
Sari Luis Obispo.
Overall, retail sales volume will rise in the.city, beyond what is generated by
the new shopping centers
As more general merchandise retail stores opened in the city of San Luis Obispo, general
merchandise retail sales would be recaptured from Santa Maria and Paso Robles. Clearly. the
city can expect to increase its retail share if more affordable retail centers are permitted. More
affordable retail centers can potentially provide a significant retail boost to a city. San Luis
Obispo County residents who are now spending their retail dollars in Santa Maria and Paso
Robles will avoid having to make the 30 minute trek to those communities as often as they
now du. More dollars are spent in the local community because there are fewer reasons to
travel to Santa Maria and Paso Robles. Local consumers will spend more of their dollars at the
affordable centers in the city and in the downtown area because they will not travel as much to
Santa Maria and Paso Robles as they do now. Consequently, many other stores in San Luis
Obispo city will benefit from affordable retail shopping centers located within the city.
1Total retail sales in Pismo Beach were$72.4 million in 199.3.For the full calendar year 1995,retail sales were
$101.8 million.a 40.6 percent gain.
This phenomenon has occurred in Paso Robles and Lompoc where Wal*Mart stores were built
recently. Upon opening, retail sales soared in both cities, above and beyond the total sales
attributable to the Wal*Mart stores alone.
The Paso Robles experience
A 135,000 square foot Wal*Mart opened in Paso Robles September 27, 1994. General
Merchandise retail sales for the 4th quarter of 1994 and the first quarter of 1995 increased by a
factor greater than 3 in the city of Paso Robles. General merchandise retail sales in the city of
Paso Robles rose $26.4 million due to Wal*Mart in calendar 1995 versus calendar 1994.
(adjusting for the 4th quarter of 1994 when Wal*Mart was fully operational). This $26.4
million recorded in 1995 were net new sales, i.e., sales that were previously leaking out of Paso
Robles. Dividing$26.4 million by 135,000 square feet equals nearly$200 per square foot in
net new sales. Note that this sales per square foot number does not include any sales that were
diverted from existing stores in Paso Robles to the new Wal*mart.2 This year (1996), general
merchandise retail sales will reach $47 million in the city of Paso Robles. Compared to 1993,
this is a net increase to the city of$32 million.
Most of this gain in retail sales is attributed to Wal*Mart but not all of it can be, given the
retail sales record. Whereas, the general merchandise retail sales increased by $26.4 million
between 1994 and 1995 in Paso Robles, total retail sales rose by$33.4 million. In 1996.
general merchandise sales will reach a net gain to the city of$32 million but total retail sales
will be up by$57.5 million, compared to 1993 sales.
There are spin-off effects occurring in Paso Robles due to Wal*Mart, or any large discount
store that prevents resident consumers from leaving the area to do their principal spending.
For restaurants in Paso Robles, sales have increased 5.9 percent in 1995 and 8.5 percent in
1996. For automobile dealers in Paso Robles, sales rose 23 percent in 1995 and 12.3 percent in
1996. For most other categories of retail sales that are not attributable to Wal*Mart, sales
have increased in the city, reflective of evidence that keeps local residents from traveling
elsewhere lu spend on allernalive goods and services like food, aulumubiles, and apparel.
The Lompoc experience
A 100,000 square foot Wal*Mart opened in Lompoc in October 1993. General Merchandise
retail sales rose 520.0 million between calendar 1992 and calendar 1994. Net new sales of
$200 per square foot may be attributable to Wal*Mart in Lompoc. Total sales per square foot
are higher. Auto dealers in Lompoc now have higher sales as do eating and drinking places.
Auto sales climbed 3 percent in 1994, 10 percent in 1995,and are on pace to record another 4
percent gain this year (1996).
Restaurant sales increased 5 percent in 1994, 2 percent in 1995 and are on pace to grow
another 6 percent in 1996.
Affordable centers will generate substantial sales revenues
According to the ICSC (Shopping Center Taclgq, a monthly periodical), U.S. retail shopping
standards now in use to estimate the viability of opening new retail operations indicate that
21n other words,total sales per square foot are higher.
2
affordable retail discount centers principally generate $225-$275 per square foot for general
merchandise,such as what Wal*Mart sells. Wal*Marts in Lompoc and Paso Robles are
currently producing in this range. See the above analysis of both the Lompoc and Paso
Robles stores.
Recause of the higher valued inventory, discount electronic stores like Gond Guys and Circuit
City (as well as discount appliance stores) typically produce between$350 and$600 per square
foot. It is estimated that sales at Circuit City stores in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria are now
exceeding these benchmarks.
Consequently, for a 50,000 Square foot general merchandise discount store, total sales per
year of $13 million is not uncommon or unique. A 20,000 square foot discount electronics
store can generate$10 million or more per year in retail sales. Obviously, more sales than the
particular ICSC benchmarks are attainable if there is less competition in the area.
Potential sales increase for San Luis Obispo
The city of San Luis Obispo could increase its general merchandise retail sales if affordable
retail outlets were present. Since the growth of general merchandise retail sales has been
extremely weak, while quite robust in Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, and Paso Robles, it appears
that the city of San Luis Obispo has significant potential for catch-up. Even a 50 percent
increase in general merchandise retail sales (which is much less than the increase noted in
Paso, Santa Barbara, and Santa Maria since each of these cities invested in new retail
infrastructure), would enable the city to realize over $31.) million in new retail sales per year!
Furthermore., in view of the evidence for the cities of Santa Maria, Lompoc,and Paso Robles,
there would be increases in other categories of retail sales in the city of San Luis Obispo if
more affordable retail centers were built. This is because consumers would remain in the city_
to spend and there would be more broad based spending at all retail outlets in general.
word count: 2,585
3
N to
d r N 00 .+
v
i
Too d
CO
ms °
Cl. Q a
N
R
V
N L
0) O f% LL
CO) O
m m ti M N
CF) i r r t
O
Cl) a° w 0
c m
o
•— m
y r CD co O V
I*- � ti c
� � d
T oToo m
•— N E
aNi i
W0 co
a
V CLN o.
i N
•— L. cd 3
•a. m m >
N m ca
U CDrn
i 3
+w+ +w+ ai
Vcc
7
z
U)
cc
:. . - ^ CO
.j:; ;;r.�ap•et�i:..,vim. T .�
as
L u +m r } + rbaa O
OM
0 Zi IL
ow CL
cis
coq
O
////��
^V/ ■� /y�l�/ _ s r,t ! t{a 5�7 :.3 i` T1s -z" a.u ! �rS. C'./`� G
W Cl)N O
� 4, T
' v rE ' m LL
cz~ � E In
_psc cn
F r•.,i4..
co
4. .W AA��
O [ V ui3rT '!3 (n W
T .c
CDoil �
Y i(
" ` co
41.x..
co
(0 d
0) �
3xr+� ��rS,`u°• `W'"f+..x '�..4r�vy u .n,ip >� ✓err tom. �,t:-•q T L
A` y5 -�irvt Y/
cm
;int , t. -'is-'-�'.•, ='.tri.f-.,''.
tCS 'a Ln00 O 0 O 0 O 0 C T
co to a CD co co N N
00
y...r
T^ 1
� r3ltrr - .}r._•.' ".a.�. r. rj g � `"c,.c r
. •.. �._�__ t— .�.__�Y^NtLSSt.I C' la.._ .1_.JCJ"_.
.^.':X C +a..w- .•ZryZ '3� .T` �tr tf �-V T ...Ps. `+YI'±ry"�' �.■� it
you O
Y/ a s.je- .�.•,� ty".r ^' - N d
Q/ L sr
Tom
1 i .�... . a .h
ca
! ••' rJ. _� m �'t � ! s v.sC'.�- '_„r, ^�a..�,'„�`.q'`�''zed' y O
LL
7.5
L
N1 dx 1•. CD
a � •O
co
Lu
_ >..... CV (D m
Cc ti aO co cn
Q I
L r
00CO
LM
t,
iTom
C
CL
CM
O 0
!n 0 T
coo CD Ln M
E
T
CD
LO
C)CY
..
ca
CM
EM
7TV LL
,V (7) •
vcn _
.err_: sx•sa-,.rr$5-�y+�-r T_ �
Igo
■� i .rte - - - ' v:.y�z`..�-..3'_.t.3..-
LL
/i W4, _ -L�W.mCr i.rA�_ -^s Tom- ,�� E:L r<';5 a,. '.. .a.p.
C.)
CD
Too
:m
Q) +
cc
co
^� ;- -- co
.�i.'k_.�~-' moi' •��'w-n:.r.-__ `
j .P.si.i•G. J .Fig :S .:¢'`wY;�i
co
co
0 CO
PAZ--cl-FEL
p LO 0 LO d' '[t m N N COr In O T
CO T T T T T T T T T
CD
r
_ co
.. ti ;; c4' �' a sem• ''K:
ev KF:� :.J: _ .f�:.J _,.K..rJ...r.w_tv3-:..•54.46 4J
W cl
'ixry-'.�
'r�.�3 r .
.�.'-'.w�d.
it � , �-+-.; �i "€�•�'",�S,r-'- a /�� p
co
co 0
f1� Q & coC cm V
C) cu
Co E
'i d
cc o
T y l9 � �+---fes`= 3 •G
Z lcLLI
N y T v
CO Z
cn
Q.
ME
7.
� T
4�4
Eli N
p O t N O Go
co
N
CD_
E a)
T
co
0)
CL ; I
a 0A
N , C V
cr) CL
U9 iI n r V
(n
co /, r. N o
r •� C � II o
% T C
R
� � 00
�
cl) O' C)Cc
co V
a�
.a
(DM eLa ' cc16M CLm
m II J vii c a
cc
c ) ; i / ; a0 r
� n
c�//�� l
V/ � i N m
O (15
N O co
c Q�
O et M M N N r T
—_
0)
T
51 VI
�T
.L7i
• M 'o
V/ tzcz
o
N N x N o
4)
0
(� Q T �_
cn X
E i I v' w
Co r T m
i CO
Qj m
Q >d cr
Li 00 a
I � cr) m
i T cC
CLN
G
Im
T
cn
O -Q LO � T
C 0
C 0)
T
I
M o
CL
CO N I I 4b WWI
,.�.
04
_ 0 +
CL LU
cc
co
as
mrrr-t'.•.-.�rxl •:A"+r,�: s*'Ix�4¢�tl�i�� 4
c
N
N 4 W
LRMMM
o 0.(
1 Vi
LnO
O Ln Ln qcr tt r
T
• wa.erY4'AIF W' Sti%rs' i�1� � NW/, ...:• 1' JI
-�_1 _ li -1.—�'l �� �.�. _ .(.� cYJpd.l"..♦Y:�' T
Y/
hTN. �a-1f e., i per t� r�s'�. /y��•
C) V
1 Lt V�
•0
qF
Cf) a
N
LL
M /V�)�
N Q ' I :Y•`j nr>t -a t� L�.� wf' +r� xt`^`-_tir � (�
� I T' 1 b �x r,F• sK < r l7J
O i co
_ T7 C)
:...a 't. _ l r•� � W
T� � �...._...:-. ..::.—•-•'... -:�—..-.�.:+��c.. /yam Y
i
.�.- 00 C
co
/y /L
1
co
o coo
C: 70 O N O O O t1 N T-
o
O N N N N T T r r
T
_�F.� ✓: MEETING AGENDA
�`.;,"::� ❑ F�:, : DATE IZ%37�& ITEM #
Kathryn Keller �� ❑
972 Buchon Street ; .7 11 r.r:I ..
SLO, CA 93401
541-1148
Mayor Allen Settle
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
December 3, 1996 �^
Re: Proposed Prado Road Project CFYG'1::=!K
Dear Mayor Settle,
I am writing to you because I'm concerned about your vote on the proposed Prado Road
Project. I don't feel this project is in the best interest of the downtown retailers nor the
residents of SLO. Additionally it is counter to the stipulations of the Land Use Element
of the General Plan, a document which was created in a very public process with copious
input from San Luis residents. I do not agree that the Prado Property should be rezoned.
As a patron of the downtown I think it is crucial that we encourage downtown business by
not developing large chain competitors that will inevitably drive small businesses out of
operation and leave "holes" in our downtown.These vacancies are often filled by shops that
cater to the tourist population (art galleries and souvenir shops). I support our tourist
industry. However, it is very important to maintain downtown as a place to shop for the
necessities of life as well as specialty items. Other retailers in town must also be
encouraged to continue to do business in SLO. San Luis currently has numerous restaurants
and retailers who sell pets, office supplies, music CD's and audio visual equipment. Do
you think we really need Hometown Buffet, PetsMart, Office Max and Circuit City at the
gateway of our beautiful city? These national corporations add nothing to the unique
character of San Luis.
Of even greater concern is the fact that the proposed project clearly violates the prescribed
land use for the Prado Road area as outlined in our General Plan. If you feel it's vital to
have these particular businesses added to the retail mix, how about encouraging them to
join the Central Coast Mall or to use other existing commercial properties? It may be
RECEIVED
ULi;
CITY COUNCIL
VAN ^on n3
difficult for the developers of new projects and the owners of the existing commercial
centers to come to agreements on how best to use these existing spaces, but if we stand firm
as a community and let it be known that we will not continually amend our General Plan
they will perhaps be more motivated to negotiate. As you are well aware, consolidation of
retail space is a very wise use of land already devoted to commercial interests. It preserves
open space and reduces auto traffic.
I realize that Zelman Development Company was originally encouraged by the Planning
Commission and the Council to proceed with the process for developing; however, I hope
you do not feel compelled to acquiesce to them simply because they have invested time
and money. I would like to remind you that you were elected by and represent San Luis
business owners and residents, not Los Angeles-based developers.
Tonight you will vote on an issue that will greatly influence San Luis's future development.
I hope you will oppose rezoning for this project and.any other project of its kind until the
residents of the city of San Luis Obispo can come together in a public forum to modify
the General Plan and Land Use Element.
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful consideration on this matter for the future of
San Luis Obispo and its residents.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Keller
✓^._ ..:.,... -✓ is� _..
MEETING -�, AGENDA
DATE �2=ITEM #
Kathryn Keller ;:✓�� ' p'{J{
.►.E 1Gi7•.0 �7 FGA{•^.c C..
972 Buchon Street .
_1 i�sr� ,��,i'j ❑ �ir-.v LSI
SLO, CA 93401
541-1148 ✓ �
�G
Councilwoman Dodie Williams
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
December 3, 1996 :
Re: Proposed Prado Road Project DEC
Dear Councilwoman Williams, CA
I am writing to you because I'm concerned about your vote on the proposed Prado Road
Project. I do not feel this project is in the best interest of the downtown retailers nor the
residents of SLO. Additionally it is counter to the stipulations of the Land Use Element
of the General Plan, a document which was created in a very public process with copious
input from San Luis Obispo residents. I do not agree that the Prado Property should be
rezoned.
As a patron of the downtown I think it is crucial that we encourage downtown business by
not developing large chain competitors that will inevitably drive small downtown
businesses out of operation and leave "holes" in our downtown.These vacancies are often
filled by shops that cater to the tourist population (art galleries and souvenir shops). I
support the tourist industry. However, it is very important to maintain downtown as a
place to shop for the necessities of life as well as specialty items. Other retailers in town
must also be encouraged to continue to do business in SLO. San Luis currently has
numerous restaurants and retailers who sell pets, office supplies, music CD's and audio
visual equipment. Do you think we really need Hometown Buffet, PetsMart, Office Max
and Circuit City at the gateway of our city? These national corporate chains add nothing
to the unique character of San Luis. Competition is healthy in a free-market economy, but
do these businesses offer "fair" competition to our present restaurants and retailers?
Of even greater concern is the fact that the proposed project clearly violates the prescribed
land use for the Prado Road area as outlined in our General Plan. If you feel it's vital to a
�FI V
►jLt, J ►yy�
,. ..nuNCIL
have these particular businesses added to the retail mix, how about encouraging them to
join the Central Coast Mall or to use other existing commercial properties? Consolidation
of retailers is a very wise use of land already devoted to commercial interests. It preserves
open space and reduces auto traffic.
Although you initially voted to encourage Zelman Development Company to proceed
with research and studies for their project, I hope you do not now feel compelled to
acquiesce to them simply because they have invested time and money. I would like to
remind you that you were elected by and represent San Luis business owners and residents,
not Los Angeles-based developers. I hope you will oppose the rezoning for this project and
any other project of its kind until the residents of the city of San Luis Obispo can come
together in a public forum to modify the General Plan and Land Use Element.
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful consideration on this matter for the future of
San Luis Obispo and its residents.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Keller
MEETING AGENDA
Kathryn Keller .n,0 ❑ Fi= DATE a 3- ITEM #
�•-Y.le.�. t , n
972 Buchon Street
El PVI
SLO, CA 93401 - :;�5;, ,
r
541-1148
G
Councilman Dave Romero
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
rn
December 3, 1996
Re: Proposed Prado Road Project
Dear Councilman Romero,
I am writing to you because I'm concerned about your vote on the proposed Prado Road Project. I
do not feel this project is in the best interest of the downtown retailers nor the residents of SLO.
Additionally it is counter to the stipulations of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, a
document which was created in a very public process with copious input from San Luis Obispo
residents. I do not agree that the Prado Property should be rezoned.
The proposed project clearly violates the prescribed land use for the Prado Road area as outlined
in our General Plan. If you feel it's vital to have these particular businesses added to the retail mix,
how about encouraging them to join the Central Coast Mall or to use other existing commercial
properties? Consolidation of retailers is a very wise use of land already devoted to commercial
interests. It preserves open space and reduces auto traffic .
Although you initially voted to encourage Zelman Development Company to proceed with
research and studies for their project, I hope you do not now feel compelled to acquiesce to them
simply because they have invested time and money. I would like to remind you that you were
elected by and represent San Luis residents and business owners, not Los Angeles-based developers.
I hope you will oppose the rezoning for this project and any other project of its kind until the
residents of the city of San Luis Obispo can come together in a public forum to modify the
General Plan and Land Use Element.
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful consideration on this matter for the future of San Luis
Obispo and its residents.
Sincerely,
i L6 j i>JJ
Kathryn Keller cnn CITY COUNCIL
. a
✓ . ._. . ✓�09: MEETING AGENDA
�.';' �%F,ns4•�a; DATEM=ITEM #
Kathryn Keller =::::;;
972 Buchon Street ✓;....;' '... .
SLO, CA 93401
541-1148 ✓ '`�'����
U
Councilwoman Kathy Smith
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
December 3, 1996
rn _
L,., :J
Re: Proposed Prado Road Project
Dear Councilwoman Smith,
I am writing to you because I'm concerned about your vote on the proposed Prado Road
Project. I don't feel this project is in the best interest of the downtown retailers nor the
residents of SLO. Additionally it is counter to the stipulations of the Land Use Element
of the General Plan, a document which was created in a very public process with copious
input from San Luis Obispo residents. I do not agree that the Prado Property should be
rezoned.
I'm glad that you were present at the Planning Commission's November 6 meeting. It is
valuable that you heard first-hand the opposition from the downtown business community.
As a patron of the downtown I think it is crucial that we encourage downtown business by
not developing large chain competitors that will inevitably drive small downtown
businesses out of operation and leave "holes" in our downtown.These vacancies are often
filled by shops that cater to the tourist population (art galleries and souvenir shops). I
support the tourist industry. However, it is very important to maintain downtown as a
place to shop for the necessities of life as well as specialty items. Other retailers in town
must also be encouraged to continue to do business in SLO. San Luis currently has
numerous restaurants and retailers who sell pets, office supplies and music CD's and audio
visual equipment. Do you think we really need Hometown Buffet, PetsMart, Office Max
and Circuit City representing SLO at the gateway of the city? These national corporations
add nothing to the unique character of San Luis. Competition is healthy in a free-market
economy, but do these businesses offer "fair" competition to our present restaurants and
retailers? IECEIVED
ULL J I`lib
CITY COUNCIL
cane ...on np
Of even greater concern is the fact that the proposed project clearly violates the prescribed
land use for the Prado Road area as outlined in our General Plan. If you feel it's vital to
have these particular businesses added to the retail mix, how about encouraging them to
join the Central Coast Mall or to use other existing commercial properties? Consolidation
of retailers is a very wise use of land already devoted to commercial interests. It preserves
open space and reduces auto traffic.
Although you initially voted to encourage Zelman Development Company to proceed
with research and studies for their project, I hope you do not now feel compelled to
acquiesce to them simply because they have invested time and money. I would like to
remind you that you were elected by and represent San Luis residents and business owners,
not Los Angeles-based developers. I hope you will oppose rezoning for this project and any
other project of its kind until the residents of the city of San Luis Obispo can come
together in a public forum to modify the General Plan and Land Use Element.
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful consideration on this matter for the future of
San Luis Obispo and its residents.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Keller
09:24 DEC 03, 1996 ID: DEGA TECHNOLOGY TEL NO: 1-805-546-8046 #9206 PAGE: 2/2
To: City of San Luis Obispo, City Council Members "'ETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM
From: Mark and Cindy Frauenheim
39 Chuparrosa Drive 0 FIRE CKLE.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 0 FW DIP,
--t L E: 01 0 POLICE Cr.
Date: December 3, 1996 °As.i 0 REC oil:
r.!-7,
Subject: Proposed Zoning Change for Prado Road Area .! -'. 7. , " ,
To all City Council Members:
As a nearby resident of the area under consideration,we would like you to take into serious
consideration our opposition to the proposed zoning change for the area on Prado Road. We
have 5 major reasons for our opposition to this proposal:
1) San Luis Obispo needs more light manufacturing/industrial, high technology companies in
our area to provide high paying, quality jobs that pay wages which can support a family. The
area on Prado Road is currently zoned to accommodate such businesses. The proposed stores
(PetSmart, Office Depot, etc.)will not provide the same level of employment. Please leave the
zoning as it currently stands.
2) The traffic in the Prado Road area will greatly increase if retail stores are built there. The
type of businesses allowed under current zoning would not generate nearly the volume of traffic.
As a nearby resident who lost the battle to keep Food for Less out of our neighborhood,we
cannot accept the further congestion that this proposed development would cause. The Prado
Road overpass,which would help to alleviate some of the traffic, is only in the early planning
stages. Realistically this project is several years away from completion, and there is no
requirement in place that a zoning change must be tied to the completion of the overpass. Much
of the traffic using these proposed stores would use the Los Osos Valley freeway access, adding
to the increased traffic in the South Higuera area already generated by the Food for Less
shopping center.
3) The proposed development would be an eyesore from the freeway. San Luis Obispo is
unique in that for the most part,the view of the city from the freeway is mostly of beautiful trees,
plants, and mountains. There are very few commercial buildings disrupting the view. If this
center is built, San Luis Obispo will begin to look like so many other"typical"cities,where there
is no evidence of intelligent city planning, and commercial signs and billboards vie for your
attention.
4) The proposed development Is not in keeping with the San Luis Obispo tradition of
concentrating commercial development in our beautiful downtown area. If more commercial
space is required,why keep building when there is a largely vacant mall across the freeway
(Central Coast Mall)??
5) The proposed development would take away business from downtown, and from smaller local
stores.
Thank you for considering our opinion. It is an opinion that many of our neighbors share.
Sincerely,
Mark and Cindy Frauenheim
-;� ' RECEIVED
DEL 3 Ut
rn
197U
LU
CITY COUNCIL
Caw icon no
cir(
DEC- 3-96 TUE 1005 AM DAVID E. HOLMES FAX NO, 805 547 0716 P. 2
MEETING AGENDA
DAVID E. HOLMES DATE if -ITEM #
ATTORNEY AT LAW
DOMESTIC and INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISING
1411 Marsh Street,Suite 206
(805) 547-0697 Son Luis Obispo,Coiifornio 93401 FAX (805) 54770716
December 3, 1996 FAX TRANSWIAL
Mr. Allen Settle SAO ❑ FIF12CH22=
Mayor ,ORNEY ❑ PrJDI;3
City of San Luis Obispo LE-WO�1c, ❑ POLICE CIE:.
u1urrr EA5,1 ❑ nEC CIS
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 D L17, c,
Re: Opposition to Prado Road Development
Dear Mr. Settle:
I wanted to take a few moments of your time to express my strong opposition
to the proposed Prado Road Development.
People better qualified than me can analyze the wisdom of allowing
development on this site when the appropriate freeway interchange isn't in place
and there's no guaranty as to when (if ever) it will be.
I'd like you to concentrate on something else: the quality of life in our
community and how it will be affected by this proposal.
The introduction of more "big box" stores to our city will contribute to a
change in our city's character, a change that io ne_ suggests is for the better.
What gives San Luis Obispo its special quality is the feeling that it's a small town,
somehow different from all of the other urban areas in California.
Allowing more and more of the "big box" stores will be one more step in
making San Luis Obispo just like a hundred other cities that are part of the urban
sprawl in most of this state. With a few decisions of this type, we can change our
,TM city into another San Fernando Valley or Bakersfield or Santa Maria. Do you really
Want that?' RECEIVED
DEC .;96 uta 3 I'/yb
nomY c' -:, CITY COUNCIL,
cew ..o�Spn,n4
DEC- 3-96 TUE 10:05 AM DAVID E. HOLMES FAX NO, 005 547 0716 F. 3
Mr. Allen Settle
December 3, 1996
Page 2
What we're in danger of doing is irretrievabiv changing the way our
community looks and "feels." Once that change is made, we won't be able to go
back. And why will we have made the change? So we can buy cat food a 5¢ a can
les3 than otherwise? What's in the balance is a short-term economic gain on one
side, and a permanent change in our character, taking one more step to being
another Santa Maria, on the other. dor those of us who know what's special about
living here, the choice is clear.
It seomc to me that the responsibility of public officials is to take a longer
view than the immediate impact of a few more tax dollars and a few more low-
paying jobs (with the profits largely taken out of the county.) You sit as a stoward
for future generations, making decisions that will enhance or degrade our quality of
life long after we're gone or the few Pxtra dollars are spent.
Choices in public life are never easy, but, when in doubt, it seems that the
wisest course Is to not make changes that can't be reversed and will directly impact
those things that make our city so special. If we're going to err, let's do it on the
side of preserving what we've got.
Charging the character of our community simply isn't something worth
risking. If you have any doubts about that, consider this; Where is the community
that brought the box stores in and, five years later, felt that doing that improved tho
quality of life and maintained the character of the community?
I urge you to support the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission to
reject this project.
Sincerely yours, _
David E. Holmes
P.S. Just for your information, I have no connection with any downtown business
(as one of our clients or otherwise) that would be adversely affected by this
development.
MEET. . AGENDA
DATE G ITEM #-�
I
.Cr.O ❑ RPE Chi:=.
`:=y ❑ P'uJ Q;R
December 3, 1996 -J I,ii5lfi-Z:a5i ❑ EEGs ;:;
To the San Luis Obispo City Council:
I have been following with some dismay the discussions (/
of the Prado Road development proposal. I assert that., as repre-
sentatives, you have a duty to govern which oncompas3ses regula-
tion of growth and development. In addi•t.i.on, and with respect to
the potential this plan carries for the destruction of downtown
San LUis, I am made to think of the following story:
once a woman baked a beautiful cake for her family to enjoy.
She did Lhie because she liked to give pleasure to those she
loved. She had been making cakes for them for, many years, and,
while they were not the most professionally decorated, they were
delirious, and her Ltau,ily loved to eat them.
On this particular clay, the family was about to sit down to
eat the cake, when the donrhpll rang. rt was a neighbor who had
tasted her baking before and was hoping to get a slice . "wel-
r_.nme, " • she said to the neighbor, and told her family they would
juSL get a little smaller piece of cake. Hut as she was about to
cut the cake again, once more the doorbell. rang, and the neigh-
bor's neighbors wars thara. Nnt manning to hurt anyone' s feel-
ings, she invited these people in as well . Now the pieces of
cake would have to be even emaller. There wouldn't really be
enough, but everyone was hopeful and wanted to ha npan to newcom-
ers.
But just as the woman went to cut the tales, the doorbell
rang again. This time it was some strangers who had hoard about
her cakes from some friends of the neighb'oLe . NcL wanting to
appear presumptuous, and, of course, not ]snowing the family they
wanted Lo Share with, the strangers had thought to bring some
fine gifts to offer the family for a bi.t of the cake . Looking at
the fine gifts, the woman was a hit bedazzled, Ansi thol,ght. to
herself that, even if there was not enough cake Lux: leer family,
they would certainly like the gifts. So she invited the etrang-
era In.
Well, finally, the woman cut the cake, trying to make enough
plecea Pur all the people in the room. The first pieces went to
the etrangern, because courtesy demanded that they be served
first, because they wPrP strangers and borauSp they had brought
gifts . And ghe continued Lu ✓serve out Elie Cake, next to the
neighbors of the neighbors, then to the neighbora . gut when ahe
went to serve her family, she found Chat there was not enough
left to slice up. She apologized to them profusely, saying that
she really hadn ' t falf; that she could turn anyone away. and
besides, dicili' L Lhey like they yifrs the strangers had brought?
Her family looked at her sadly, for they were all sorely
disappointed to have miRRPd roil- on the cake?. "No, " they told
RECEIVED 1
Utu 3
CITY COUNCIL CITY Cf.'M .
fi u-as Re
"G :Bd "Lt:tiL Y6/t'NALL btl(-4tl A3NN1H'13JW 1lLyL Z44SHU Y } 1
her, they really had wanted cake, not gifts, and why weren't they
more important to her than people outside her family? The wostflan
couldn't answer that question, and was herself vary sad, for in
attempting to saLlwfy everyone, she had really satisfied no one,
and had hurt those who were moot important to her in the proc-
ess . And, or course, the strangers were vary unimprnggad, not
because the cake wasn' t good, but because s-hey didn't qct a big
enough ss.lir:a t.o satisfy their appetites. R.vsn the neighbors went
away angry to have received short shrift.
Or, aFs my old granny uand to say, try to cut a pie up too
small and all you get is crumbs and di.sappoirntment .
Susan MCE11111111ey
457 Lilac Drive
Los U809, CA
520-1470 (Phone)
772-1510 (PAX)
2
L :Sd Ct:EL `Jb/t'N/"LL 4tl(-4tl h3NN1H'13JN NLYL 'LLL SWU Rq 4uws xed
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
BOO BOO RECORDS
978 Monterey St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Monday, November 25, 1996
-CA0 0 FIRE CHIE;
?!%-i yo: EY 0 PIVV Din
Mayor Allen Settle �`L E P.xj 0 F-.!C i 0 POLICE CH.'
990 Palm St. L7J 1rVG,%1.7TEAXi 0 AEC DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 i"PEA 3 F': Yr L D
Dear Mr. Settle:
I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen of San Luis Obispo regarding the proposed
Prado Road rezoning request. As you are aware,the planning commission voted 7-0
against the measure on November 13th and it comes before the City Commission on
December 3rd. As you consider this measure I would like to share with you some personal
experiences that I.have with"big box"stores and let you know that I strongly support the
decision of the planning department and urge you to support it as well.
The main reason to deny such a proposal is certainly economic. Once you get past the
half-truths and misrepresentations the reality is that"big box"retailing is not good for most
areas. It would prove to be most disastrous for San Luis Obispo and I will attempt to
illustrate why I feel that way. As a part time resident of San Luis Obispo and Dayton,
Ohio with business interests in both cities I have been through an army of"big box"
invaders and would like to enlighten the commission on ways the"big box" has affected
my hometown of Dayton, Ohio.
Two years ago this month Dayton received it's first"big box"in the form of three Best
Buy stores. Following that Dayton has seen the arrival of two Media Play stores (both of
which closed within a year),two Sun TV&Appliance centers, one Blockbuster Music
store (slated to close early next year),two Dick's Sporting Goods stores,three Circuit
City stores(slated to open early in 1997.), and the usual array of Wal-Mart, Meijer, and
Sam's Club stores . What has all of this meant to Dayton, Ohio?
According to Steve Nutt,economic development coordinator for the Downtown Dayton
Partnership,there has been no economic benefit to the greater Dayton area.Overall, retail
sales have not increased in the past two years meaning that any sales generated by the
"big box" retailers has been at the exclusive expense of the smaller specialty stores.
Furthermore,the net effect to the Downtown area has been negative with the majority of
the"big boxes"locating along the freeway corridors on the outskirts of town.
To add to the negative news a new report by American City Business Journal states that
the Dayton area ranks 83rd in job growth out of the 100 largest labor markets in the
country. Job growth between June 1995 and June 1996 was just 0.3%, well below the
national average..of -I Ac/6.The benefit of"big box" retailing was promised in Dayton, but
jobs and increased sales were not delivered. Inadditionto this Dayton now has several
empty"boxes" littering the landscape.
It is a combination of the unique business interests and diversity in this city that invite so
many tourists to this area time and time again. Everywhere I go I hear great things about
San Luis Obispo, the area in general and the Downtown in particular. As business
owners we pay high rents and suffer limited parking but together we make this Downtown
successful. My company and many others give something back to the community through
donations,sponsorships, and great customer service.This is something that Corporate
retail chains typically score extremely low marks on. We are not like L.A., San Francisco,
or any other city.in galifornia.and should be proud of that fact.To assume as the Nuke's
report does that the introduction of"big box"retailing in the San Luis Obispo area will not
have a 19M term economic impact on our Downtown is preposterous.
RECEIVED
DSU 2 UIL; 199b
C.1-Ty G: CITY COUNCIL
ram . d'A
Long term I believe we may in fact see less sales tax generated in this county with the
arrival of"big box"retailing as the center of focus moves from our unique Downtown area
to the Prado Road site and San Luis Obispo starts to look like every other urban
landscape. People visit and move to San Luis Obispo because of it's "small town"feel,
not because of it's great mega-store shopping experiences. We will never be able to
compete with other cities on that front so we should not try. We should go the other
direction and remain a clean, small town that is fun to visit, safe to live in, and unique in it's
approach to retailing. That is what we have become through great effort and there are
many cities that wish they could turn back the clock and be just like we are now.
In closing, it is my opinion that we don't need the"big box" in San Luis Obispo,there are
plenty of them everywhere else in this country. San Luis Obispo is unique and different
and that is what makes it work. Please help to preserve the SLO Ile we all enjoy and
vote no on this proposal.
Sincerely,
John M. Huffman
Partner
J.M.H.
w. Bill Roalman
Dave Romero
Kathy M. Smith
Dodie Williams
MEETING-
AGENDA
DAT
. 6 ITEM # �-
3 December 96
City Council - ^.c ❑ FIRE%Ii
San Luis Obpispo "- ",,.,-.r ° P`VM"
990 Palm ^ _'� ° P�'l` L!-1F
r
San Luis Obispo Lei—
CA
t ❑
CA 93401
To the Council Members :
Please do not add more retail space, scattered around the city,
to San Luis Obispo .
I fail to see the advantages of driving around in my car to
various strip malls : clothes at Mervyn s, office supplies at
Staples, etc . San Luis Obispo offers a fine variety of shopping
and its downtown has already been dealt a heavy blow by
the malls that the city has approved around town . We would
still have Riley' s Department Store downtown if mall competition
hadn't unfairly overpowered them.
The argument about price cutting is without merit . Staples
charges only slightly less than my local stationery store out
here in Los Osos, and doesn't offer me the personal service
and convenience I have here . It does encourage auto traffic
and directs shoppers away from local businesses .
The Central Coast Mall has already been in bankruptcy . If
Gottschalk's hadn't filled in several stores it would look
like a dark cave . The days of building a mall and finding
shoppers filling it are over .
Do not be the city council that approved the malling of San
Luis Obispo. We have years of history and other small cities'
experience from which to benefit . Promote downtown businesses
I point out the costs in time and gasoline of shopping 50
miles from home .
Yours . .
Christine Willard
556 Skyline Dr. RECEIVED
Los Osos D > ';;, ucu j I`lyb
CA 93402
CITY C." t� CITY COUNCIL
CAN ^o con,ru
T :bd MET 96/E8/ZT W<-btl h3NNIH'I30W OT91 ZLL S98 fiq ;uas x%
1 i+
MEETING AGENDA# /
THE ZELMAN COMPANIES DATE �a 3
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 3036 • LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 •TELEPHONE (213) 533-8100 • FAX(213) 533-8118
November 27, 1996
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOo
Attn: Allan Settle, Mayor f.o ❑ FIRE CKE
990 Palm Street !--;1-17�:'NEY ❑ F"A'QIR
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 ��-;L_ '''Jo(?'o ❑ POLME C
T Re: 40 Prado Road Rezoning i
zct-
W ti 0, Honorable Mayor Settle:
`
U
a The 40 Prado Road rezoning is scheduled for a City Council public hearing on
December 3, 1996. As background information for that hearing we have prepared this
letter outlining some pertinent factors for your consideration as you review this request.
1. This request for rezoning was considered by the Planning Commission and City
Council approximately 18 months ago. The concept of a regional retail use at this site
was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council by staff in order to
determine if there was support for the rezoning prior to the property owner expending
significant time and money to continue the review process. The Planning Commission,
on a vote of 5:1, indicated support. The City Council, on a vote of 3:2, indicated
support.
2. Based upon these actions your staff worked with both a traffic consultant and
economic consultant to prepare a scope of work for their studies. When the scope of
work was clear between City staff and the consultants I authorized the consultants to
commence work and paid the bills from the consultants as they were incurred. Both
studies were reviewed and criticized by City staff during preparation prior to being
accepted as final reports. To date these 2 studies alone have cost approximately
$65,000. In addition to these studies there has been considerable time and money spent
on concept site planning,processing, coordination with the City, etc.
3. This item was scheduled for final review by the Planning Commission on
i
November 13, 1996. Astoundingly, the Planning Commission recommended denial of
the rezoning. The Planning Commission motion for denial was at first based upon
inconsistency with General Plan Policies 3.1.1, 3.1.3 and 8.6. The motion was changed
C\' prior to the vote to delete reference to Gen. Plan Policy 8.6.
C-D
o I During deliberation, 3 of the Planning Commissioners referenced inconsistency with
policy 8.6 as the most significant reason for their vote to recommend denial of the
ZELMAN DEVELOPMENT CO. ZELMAN MANAGEMENT CO. ZELMAN RETAIL PARTNERS,INC.
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
R !
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Attn: Allan Settle, Mayor
November 27, 1996
Page 2
rezoning. Three of the commissioners indicated they found the rezoning was consistent
with policies 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 and that they would not support the rezoning because of
inconsistency with policy 8.6. The reference to policy 8.6 in the final motion
recommending denial was removed because staff pointed out to the Commission
that it did not apply to this site. However, the commissioners who stated this policy
was the primary basis for their recommendation for detail did not change their vote.
4. I have attached to this letter a highlighted copy of policy 8.6 and the map(Figure
10)which clearly shows that policy 8.6 does not apply to this site. Staff was not able
to present this map to the Planning Commission at the hearing.
5. In the staff report to the Planning Commission the staff reviewed the consistency
of the proposed zoning with General Plan Policies 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 Staff determined that
the proposed zoning is consistent with these policies. They pointed out to the Planning
Commission that the Commission had reviewed these policies at the prior hearing 18
months ago and on a vote of 5:1 gave the authorization to proceed with the rezoning
application processing. Nevertheless the Planning Commission has now recommended
denial of the rezoning based upon these same two policies!
Obviously this reversal of direction by the Planning Commission is very disturbing. It
is especially disturbing because of the Planning Commission's earlier authorization to
proceed based upon the same policies which are now used as reasons for recommending
denial. It is disturbing that a policy which clearly does not apply to this site was cited
as the most significant reason for several Commissioners recommending denial. It is
also disturbing that the Commission failed to take into account the economic impact
report on Downtown which the City Council specifically requested be prepared as a part
of the processing of this rezoning request. The Planning Commission stated that it
would limit its consideration of this application to land use matters, I hope this
economic report was not a waste of time and money.
6. I have included a highlighted copy of the executive summary finding from the
traffic report for your information.
7. This project is a significant step toward the City's Circulation Element goal of
connecting Prado Road to Madonna Road via an interchange and extension of Prado
Road. The approved 121,000 square foot regional office project at this site is not
obligated to contribute to the cost of the interchange. It was only required to provide
right of way. The proposed rezoning has participation in an assessment district for the
interchange as a required mitigation measure even though the retail project is only
approximately 85,000 square feet.
1 L
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Attn: Allan Settle, Mayor
November 27, 1996
Page 3
8. Also enclosed are letters from two of our tenants (Circuit City and Petsmart)
stating this is the only site in the City of San Luis Obispo which is acceptable to
them. We expect to have a letter from our other tenants prior to the City Council's
meeting.
In summary,I believe the proposed rezoning is consistent with the policies of the City
General Plan which are applicable,specifically policies 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 which describe
the purpose for General Retail uses and the location for Regional Attractions. Although
technically not a zoning issue,I disclosed who the prospective tenants for the project are
to provide assurance to the City regarding the types of regional uses intended. I hope
the City Council will take into account all of the information provided regarding this
application,keep in mind which policies of the General Plan are applicable to this site
and find that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan criteria and
provides the best available site for new regional retailers.
Very truly yours,
en eilingf�`'
President
BR/kml
cc: Vic Montgomery
Steve Leider
Steve Nukes
Jane McVey
Dave Romero
Bill Roalman
Cathy Smith
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was undertaken to evaluate the transportation impacts of a proposed shopping
center located on Prado Road adjacent to the Highway 10I/Prado Road interchange in the City
of San Luis Obispo. The proposed project consists of nearly 80,000 square feet of commercial
retail and about 4,000 square feet of restaurant on a 5 acre site.
Proposed tenants of the retail development are regional attractors including consumer electronics
(i.e. Circuit City, Good Guys, Comp USA), discount office supply (i.e. Office Depot, Office Max)
and consumer pet supply (i.e.PetSmart,PetCo) and a fast food restaurant.
Conservatively, to reflect a range of possible tenants which may be located on the project site in
the future, higher trip generation representative of neighborhood or community shopping centers
was used in the analysis. The project is estimated to add a total of about 4,900 daily trips and
about 460 p.m. peak hour trips to the surroundin-street system.
This study evaluates existing and future traffic conditions on three corridors and six intersections in
the southeastern quadrant of the City for three planning horizons, 1) existing conditions, 2) opening
day conditions (mid 1997), and 3) cumulative conditions (2010). In addition to traffic impacts the
study evaluates the following:
Pedestrian, bicycle and transit impacts
• Alternative alignments of Elks Lane and project access locations
Ultimate Prado Road widening and improvements (beyond 2010)
Key Findings and Impacts
Findings of Off-Site Traffic Impacts
The near-term and long-term analyses did not result in any significant off-site roadway or
intersection impacts requiring mitigation measures based on the City's adopted service level
standards. With the addition of project traffic all of the study facilities will operate at a p.m.
peak hour LOS D or better. One exception is the southbound segment of Higuera Street between
South and Madonna estimated to operate at LOS F with or without the project. However, since the
I i
v
80
OPTIONAL USE & SPECIAL DESIGN AREAS
INTRODUCTION
In and near the City are several areas where it is appropriate to consider a rarige or mix of uses
which do not correspond with any one open-space, residential, commercial, or public designation
used by this element. However, a particular use or mix of uses may not be desirable unless it is
chosen in combination with a specific physical design which solves problems of relationships between
activities within the site, and between the site and its neighbors. In addition, there are areas where
special design concepts can help revitalization efforts. In optional use and special design areas, the
City intends to do one or both of the following:
(A) Make a choice about appropriate land uses based on information which will become
available. In some cases, the choice will be connected with approval of a development plan,
possibly with customized limits on specific activities and requirements for off-site improvements
or dedications.
(B) Encourage innovative design concepts which help revitalize and beautify the area.
Each optional use and special design area that is,mostly open land may be designated Interim Open
Space until the City approves a plan for use of the area.
Optional use and special design areas are designated by number on the General Plan Land Use Map,
and are indicated on Figure 9. These areas and the guidelines for their development are listed below.
(The number following the decimal point corresponds to the map number.)
POLICIES
In areas 8.1 through 8.5, renovation of streetscapes, landscaping, and building facades is
encouraged. The City should work with property owners to prepare area plans containing design
guidelines and implementation programs. Programs may include implementation incentives, such
as variations from development standards or loan funds.
8.1 Madonna Road Regional Shopping Area
8.2 Foothill Boulevard Area
8.3 Broad Street Area
8.4 Santa Barbara Street Area
8.5 Mid-Higuera Area
81
The City will prepare and adopt a plan for this multi-block commercial area showing any desired
street and driveway changes, flood mitigation measures, and opportunities for a linear park along
San Luis Obispo Creek. The plan could also serve as a "conceptual redevelopment plan,"
guiding private construction on sites affected by any widening of Higuera Street or San Luis
Obispo Creek. (See also policy 3.1.4) -
8.6 Drive-in Theater Area
This 25-acre area should be further developed only if flooding can be mitigated without
significant harm to San Luis Obispo Creek. Until flood hazards are mitigated, continued
agricultural use and low-intensity recreational use are appropriate. Any use drawing substantial
regional traffic also depends on providing a full interchange at Prado Road and extending Prado
Road to connect with Madonna Road.
Once flooding and access issues are resolved, and agricultural preservation requirements are
met, the area would be suitable for government agencies' regional offices (see also policy 5.1.6).
8.7 Los Osos Valley Gap
This 16-acre site should be developed if land in common ownership to the east is permanently
preserved as open space. The following are possible uses for the area designated Interim Open
Space.
Vehicle sales;
Multifamily housing;
An open space corridor,trail, or both, to connect Laguna Lake Park and Prefumo Creek
with the Irish Hills.
8.8 Dalidio-Madonna-McBride Area
This approximately 180-acre area of prime farm land bounded by Madonna Road, Highway 101,
Central Coast Plaza, and Prefumo Creek is in three ownerships. The City intends to preserve
significant parts of this signature working agricultural landscape at the southern gateway to San
Luis Obispo.
8.9 Maino-Madonna Area
8.9.1 This 70-acre area may be developed further only if surrounding hillsides on each property
are permanently protected as open space. (See also hillside planning policy 6.2.6.K, page 62.)
8.9.2 Land southwest of the Bianchi raneh house driveway (Madonna property), designated
Interim Open Space, may accommodate a generously landscaped, low-intensity extension of the
existing tourist facilities. Development locations and building forms should respect the area's
79
8M..
ti6
- ir
F
6i4t-
FIGURE 10 OPTION USE& SPECIAL DESIGN AREAS
MeMM
MNUMBE
102
NUMBERED AREA- SEE TEXT
city Of
San LUIS OBISPO ADJACENT AREAS OVERLAP
OEM
Oil cuit City S'Oros, inc.
630 S. Leman Ave.
11/31nut. CA 917S9
(909)695.2434
November 18,1996
Mr. Ben Reiling
Zelman Development Co.
707 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 3035
Los Angeles, Ca. 90017
Noll
1996
via Fax/Mail
RE: CIRCUIT STORES, INC. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA.
Dear Ben:
Subsequent to our November 13,1996 Planning Commission hearing outcome and its
apparent negative implications to your development's approval I spoke with our Real
Estate Department regarding Circuit City's future direction on this deal.
Understanding that both economic and land use issues ultimately will be considered by
City Council potentially leading to approval Circuit City is willing to remain a part of the
development, however,be advised that Real Estate has identified alternate sites within the
county and we are prepared to move forward on those should your site rezone approval
seem impossible.
We, like you, hope San Luis Obispo becomes Circuit City's Central Coast location and
we look forward to City Council's rezone approval.
Sincerely,
CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC.
Rick L. Manners
Corporate Design Administrator
(909)869-7154
(909)869-8302 Fax
cc: Greg Kinton
Mark Mueller
Steve Leider
le-22-96 12 :38 PM T m I'S LEGAL SERVICES 60" 730 0673 P, 02
/ 9
�E1's�lARr
Where pets are family'"
10000 N . 31st Avenue Sui;e C 100 • Phoenix . Arizona 85051 602 944 7070
November 23. 1996
VIA FACSIMILE
AND REGULAR MAIL
Nlr. Allen K. Settle
Honorable Mayor
City Of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
Sim Luis Obispo, C:1% 93301
RE: PI-A sNl:%RT. Inc.
Proposed Retail Developutcnt
Northwest corner of Prado Road & U.S. 101
San Luis Obispo, California
Dear llosorable Mayor S Council Members:
I'ETsN'IAIZ'I', Inc. the original, and largest pet super sture chain, is the intlus(r)
leader in the pct food and supple business. PE'I'sMART currently operates 315
stores in 35 stales.
PETsNI ART is committed to opening it store in San Luis Obispo Count. \N a have
revieH ed a number of alternative locations that are far less desirable and «ish to
inl'a•nt you that this is (lie onlN location in the C'itN of San Luis Obispo that meets
our criteria. This Development has been appro%i•d by 11ET01AR I 's Senior
NIanagemeut subject to this project nxwim, folivard.
It is truly hoped that this project ��ill be approved on dour I)ccember 3, 1996 ( 1N
Council sleeting as PE'I's: AWI would be delighted to be a part of your
romulutlil�'.
J-22-96 12 :39 PM T & JOS LEGAL SERVICES 602 .730 0673 P.'93
J
f
PF."l'sM:%lYI', Inc.
Page 2
Should you have any questions or require additiunal information, please do not
hesRate to give me a call.
Sincerely.
Director of Kcal Estate
PETsM1•lART, Inc.
cc: Mike Nletzger (via facsimile)
Vick Montgomery (via facsimile)
Steve 1 aider is facsimile)
AGENDA
7V I I till Tr
Memorandum 64�3
I
2 December 1996
To: Allen Settle, Mayoro
City Council Members SAO ❑ FIRE CHIC; II
ORAFY ❑ PW DIR 'I
From: I BII A Board of Directors ER` (0R!C, 13 POLICE CK
tUA\ eborah Holley, Administrator I MoMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
' ❑ CR 44rI ;; ❑ UT!LC,R II
Re: 40 Prado Road J "e'— – _ C!
hI i
The following information was sent to the Planning Commission on November 12. The Planning
Commission considered the matter at its meeting on November 13 and denied the zoning change by a vote
of 7-0. The BIA continues to support its position as given below. We have heard from among our
membership that because the City Council meeting date on December 3 falls during one of the most hectic
retail times of the year, it will be difficult for them to attend. However,we do expect some will be on
hand tomorrow evening, l
During its regular meeting of 12 November, the BIA Board of Directors discussed the above proposed
project after having taken input from the business community and after having considered an updated
I!
economic study submitted by Stephen Nukes and Associates at the board meeting.
II It is the consensus of the BIA Board of Directors that this project cannot be supported by the BIA for the
following land use and planning reasons: it
• As proposed,the project becomes an isolated island of retail in the city's overall general plan.
• The project would not offer a desirable entry condition for the city.
• Freeway oriented retail is inconsistent with the San Luis Obispo approach to planning.
• San Luis Obispo has historically discouraged freeway retail frontage as evidenced by:
i
• Madonna Plaza stores orient away from Hwy 101
• Embassy Suites Hotel creates a buffer between Hwy 101 and the Mall
• Significant freeway landscaping along the entire length of Hwy 101 through SLO
eliminates freeway visible merchandising (one of the most unique stretches of
freeway through a town in the state) REL . j
• Sufficient retail zoning currently exists in the city to accommodate the proposed uses. DEC 2 D96
• Very difficult access to or from southbound 101 until the Prado Road interchange is completed. CITY Ci.FRK !FF
The aesthetic character of the community has historically been a major consideration in zoning as i
evidenced by existing land uses. The BIA recommends that the Planning Commission carefully consider
the above points when determining a zoning request of this magnitude and consequence. The gateway to a
city is a significant feature for a community as a whole and should reflect the values of its residents above
the formulas used by freeway merchandisers who have little esthetic interest in this unique community. i
cc: City Admn. De
P.O. t
O.Box 402•San Lais Obispa•CA•93406.805/541-0286•Fax 805/781-2647•e-inail:bia@sioner.nrg