Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/1999, 5 - SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING council M a cjjEi1ba izepoRt 5"` CITY OF SAN. L U.I S OBISPO FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer#44_� Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney Bill Statler,Director of Finance SUBJECT: SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CAO RECONDIENDATION I. Approve a Memorandum of.Understanding (MOU) with San Luis Marketplace Associates, LLC, and the Dalidio Family Laguna.Ranch, which outlines the principles for "new" sales tax reimbursement'in order to construct the Prado Road interchange. 2. Adopt a.resolution of intention to issue Mello-Ross District bonds in.order to finance .the interchange. REPORT-IN-BRIEF This report is the result of a sequence of steps triggered by Council actions and City policies _ dating back to the beginning of the decade. In summary, over the course of many years and innumerable public hearings, a "compromise" was struck to allow some of the 122 acre Dalidio property to be developed (about 40 acres commercial and 11 acres residential) in exchange for protecting a portion of the property in permanent open space (about 60 acres). Another 9 acres is to be held in"reserve"open space for future consideration. This General. Plan compromise attempts to balance many things, including environmental and economic interests. It also acknowledges the fact that the City can only truly control the destiny of the property if it.is annexed into the City, and it will not.be annexed without the consent of the property owner, the Dalidio Family. An application was:filed in.March.1998 to develop the 40 acres designated for commercial uses. In order for this"San Luis Marketplace"proj ect to proceed, an estimated $10 million interchange will be needed at Prado Road and Highway 101. Even though the project is not responsible for the entire interchange requirement, the developer will be responsible for financing most of it and paying the annual debt service on the bonds. This creates a cash flow barrier for the project that can be assisted through a sales tax reimbursement agreement with the City, if the project performs to certain projected new sales tax levels. In April 1999, the City Council authorized staff to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to set forth the concepts for an eventual reimbursement program. This agreement has now been negotiated, with its major provisions consistent with earlier Council direction on key "deal points,"including- 5-1 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace MOU Page 2 • Up to 50% of the net sales tax revenues can be reimbursed, not to'exceed total debt service costs. • Shared revenues are tied directly to project performance. • While the City will assist in forming a Mello-Roos financing district, debt is solely secured by the project. • Other projects will eventually share in the cost of the interchange, and the City will also be responsible for its' appropriate share. • The project is responsible for fully paying all other City fees. • The commercial project cannot start until the interchange construction contract is awarded. Although non-binding, the MOU is intended to provide both the applicant and the City with greater sense of our respective commitments and requirements, prior to making the substantial investments in time and money demanded by this endeavor. However, a binding development agreement (DA) will not be entered into until the project has received all of its discretionary approvals and environmental review,which are proceeding on a separate track. DISCUSSION Background 1991 to July 1998. A thorough background description of the Dalidio property could go on for many pages because its history is lengthy and goes well beyond the 8-9 year time frame addressed in this report. To summarize this "recent" history, in 1991 the Dalidio family presented a land use concept to the City for incorporation into the General Plan, which was being updated at the time. The concept included open space protection (about 70 acres) in exchange for some commercial (40 acres) and high-density residential land uses (11 acres). The family proposed to sell the open space to the City for about$5.8 million. The Council conceptually endorsed the land use idea, but directed staff to complete a fiscal impact analysis relative to the economics of the proposal. The study was undertaken in 1992, and when completed in early 1993, showed that the property owners would realize sufficient value from the land use change from County rural residential zoning to partial urban commercial uses to allow for the permanent protection of the open space at no cost to the City. After several months of consideration, the Dalidio family agreed to formalize this "compromise" in a proposal to the City, which the Council ultimately included in the 1994 General Plan update. Next, the Dalidio family and Bill Bird, then owner of the Central Coast Mall,jointly asked that this understanding, along with several other issues (such as interchange funding), be formalized in a Development Agreement (OA) concurrent with processing an application for "mall expansion" and annexation. Although the City did not feel a DA was appropriate at such an early stage, in 1995 the Council agreed that it would be appropriate to negotiate an MOU concurrent with the processing of the application. 5-2 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace MOU Page 3 For a variety of reasons, including a change in mall ownership and various legal issues between the applicant and the new owners, the applicant chose to not process the application further. MOU negotiations therefore never commenced. In the intervening years, the various legal issues were resolved, and in March 1998 a new project application was filed called the "San Luis Marketplace." This project was "stand alone" in nature, since the earlier mall expansion plan was no longer possible due to the ownership change. Because so many things had changed since 1995, it was necessary for Council to update its direction to staff. This occurred in July 1998. July 21, 1998 Council Action. On July 21, 1998, the Council received a presentation by the San Luis Marketplace development team, and provided staff with updated direction in a number of areas. This direction is outlined in Attachment A, and the complete agenda report is available for review in the City Clerk's Office. In summary, the major positions established by Council were: • The General Plan concept for the Dalidio property continues to have great merit. • The `open space for some development compromise" will eventually need to be memorialized in a development agreement, starting with the negotiation of an MOU. • The project can be completed in one phase—but not without building the interchange. • Sales tax reimbursement is a good way to help finance the interchange — but based on "net" sales tax (about 50%), and only after certain project performance standards have been met. • The City will assist in forming an assessment district to help finance the interchange. • In part to determine"net sales tax,"the City will be responsible for independently completing a developer-funded economic, fiscal impact and downtown marketing study. • The overall project should be processed in as timely a way as possible, starting with the economic study, followed by negotiation of an MOU. Economic Impact and Marketing Study. On September 15, 1998 the Council approved an agreement with PCR Kotin for two phases of work: Phase 1 to prepare the economic, fiscal and marketing study; and Phase 2 to assist in preparing the MOU and (after the project receives all of its discretionary approvals) a Development Agreement (DA). On April 20, 1999 the Phase 1 report was presented to the City Council. The study concluded that the San Luis Marketplace will have substantial economic benefits to the City, and will affect the Downtown in limited areas. The study also argued that the overall benefit to the Downtown will be greater with the project than without it, by attracting more regional customers to the City, and by encouraging more local shopping. After subtracting for sales tax transfer from other city retailers, the study estimated annual additional revenues of about$1 million. The Council also received the other major component of the study, downtown marketing. Its major recommendation— that a "downtown strategic plan" be developed— is now funded and an 5-3 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace MOU Page 4 RFP is being prepared. Attachment B provides a more detailed summary of the study conclusions, and the complete study and accompanying staff report are available for review in the City Clerk's Office. After considering the full PCR Kotin study, the Council approved a series of recommendations, including a reaffirmation of the General Plan concept for the property and directed staff to: "...negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding with the project applicant outlining the basic principles for an eventual development agreement, including that the City will negotiate a performance based sales tax sharing agreement. " Memorandum of Understanding Why an MOU(but not a binding development agreement)? Developing the Dalidio property involves some unique considerations. One is that the property owner is willing to commit roughly one-half the property for permanent open space protection, if the other one-half can be developed. Another is that a commercial project will trigger a major public improvement and financing requirement — the construction of a new freeway interchange at Prado Road. This improvement adds a level of cost that is disproportionate to the impact of the project, but is nevertheless needed concurrent with the project. In order to make this improvement feasible, some form of public-private partnership is needed. Given the substantial "new net" sales tax to be generated by the project,this partnership would be in the form of sales tax reimbursement. Because of the .complexities and commitments associated with such an undertaking (for all parties), a Development Agreement will eventually be needed. However, negotiating a binding agreement would be premature at this time. As the Council determined on July 21, 1998, the City should not enter into a DA until after the project has received its discretionary approvals. An excerpt from the agenda report states: "... it makes no sense [for either party] to agree upon a DA before the City has approved the project, or does so with conditions that are unacceptable to the applicant. On the other hand, without a clear understanding of the City's commitment and ground rules, the applicant can not reasonably proceed in making a significant investment of time and money in a project that has great risks under the best of circumstances. " The MOU is intended to provide the City, property owner and developer with this greater level understanding and—in a non-binding fashion — set forth the general principles that will guide the negotiation of a future public-private partnership memorialized in a DA. The MOU process does not constitute project approval While staff recommends approval of the MOU, the Council is not being asked to approve the San Luis Marketplace project. The project must proceed through the usual development and entitlement process, and the property must be annexed into the City before anything can be built. Therefore, there are a number of review and approval steps that must be completed before the final project is before the Council. At this time, the EIR process is underway, with the Draft EIR most recently reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 25, 1999. The Architectural Review Commission has also provided preliminary comments to the applicant on site layout and project design. 5-4 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace MOU Page 5 The proposed MOU. On April 20, 1999, the Council directed staff to proceed with negotiating a MOU, and concluded that the following questions should be addressed in it: • How will the interchange be funded, and how do we involve other property owners? • How much of the estimated added revenue to the City should be available for interchange reimbursement? • What will be the ground rules for forming an assessment district, if one is to be established? • What is the maximum amount the City will contribute to the interchange debt service cost? • Since this will be a performance-based agreement, how will the "performance point" be established, and should the revenue from neighboring retail properties be considered? • When can the center open vis-i-vis the timing of the interchange construction? Specific direction was presented to the staff as follows: • The amount of sales tax reimbursed will based on "net" results — the tax remaining after subtracting the percentage of tax estimated to be transferred from elsewhere within the City, and after subtracting the added services costs imposed by the new development on the City. • Any such agreement will be performance based—the project will have to perform to a certain level of performance before actually sharing sales tax revenues. To address these and other issues, negotiations commenced on May 13, 1999 and concluded on July 26, 1999 (sessions were also held on June 11, June 22, June 29, and July 21). Property owner and developer representatives generally.included Bill and Kevin Bird (the developers), Ernie Dalidio (the property owner), Mike Morris (of law firm Andre, Morris, and Buttery) and Andrew Merriam (Cannon Associates). The City team was represented by Allan Kotin (PCR Kotin), Jeff Jorgensen (City Attorney), Bill Statler (Finance Director) and Ken Hampian (Assistant CAO). The complete MOU is provided as Attachment C. Key MOU features. As summarized below, the proposed MOU fully responds to Council direction on all key"deal points:" • Sales tax sharing. The MOU provides for sharing 506/6 of the net sales tax revenues (after adjusting for internal sales tax transfers, service costs and other revenues), not to exceed interchange debt service costs. In determining these amounts, the MOU relies upon the April 1999 analysis prepared by PCR Kotin. For example, gross sales tax revenues are reduced by 34% to account for internal transfers of sales tax revenues; only 50% of the remaining "net" amount (66%) is subject to reimbursement. In the case of ongoing service costs and other revenues, these amounts are very close in the April 1999 study (ongoing revenues from other 5-5 Council Agenda Report–San Luis Marketplace MOU Page 6 revenues are projected at $195,000, and service costs at $135,000);so these are netted out in the sales tax sharing formula. • Performance-based. Shared revenues are directly tied to the performance of the project. Further, reimbursements are directly tied to the related project debt service costs, and will end once the debt is retired. On the other hand, the City's reimbursement of sales tax revenues under the formula is cumulative: in the event that the project receives less than the maximum amount that it is eligible for in any one year, this can be re-captured in subsequent years. In no case, however, will it be eligible for reimbursement for more than its cumulative debt service obligation. This recognizes that the sole purpose for the City entering into this agreement is to assist in financing the interchange. The developer is not eligible for sales tax sharing beyond this cost. • Financing assistance—debt solely secured by the project. As the Council previously agreed, the MOU envisions the City forming a Mello-Roos district and issuing limited obligation bonds for a 30 year tend to assist in financing this project. The project will be the sole security for the financing, and all debt service payments will be the property owners' responsibility. The City's only obligation is to share sales tax revenues with the project in accordance with the conditions set forth in the MOU. Further, formation of the district is subject to the City's fiscal policies regarding land-based financings. It should be noted that forming a Mello-Roos district for this type of project is very common in California. • Involving other benefiting properties. The San Luis Marketplace project is not the sole driver behind the need for the Prado Road interchange. The following is a preliminary analysis of benefit based on work performed in 1992: Average Daily Trips Estimated smgt a Interchange Interchange Total ADT Percent ADT Benefit Dandio Area Commercial 21,800 80% 17,400 50% Residential 1,900 80% 1,500 4% Prado Area 6,700 75% 4,900 14% M argarita Area 16,900 40% 6,700 19% Other Areas (Community-Wide Benefit 4,500 13% as o As reflected in this preliminary analysis, the Dalidio area accounts for about 54% of the interchange costs; the Prado and Margarita areas about 33%; and "community-wide" benefit about 13%. Under our transportation impact fee program, about 30% of this 13% "community-wide" portion (or about 4% of total project costs) will be funded through transportation impact fees; the balance (about 9% of total project costs) will come from the General Fund. On a cash flow basis, all of the"community-wide"portion (estimated at about $1.3 million based on a $10.0 million project cost) can be funded by the transportation impact fees that will be paid by the project. 5-6 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace MOU Page 7 As noted above (and stressed in the MOU), these shares are preliminary, and presented in the MOU for example purposes only. A qualified engineer will make the final apportionments based on a detailed analysis of benefit. o Funding shares for the other directly benefiting properties. As noted above; about 33% of the project benefit is attributed to the Prado Road area northeast of the interchange (14%) and the Margarita area (19%). Once the circulation planning for the Airport Area is completed, it may be included as a directly benefiting area as well. While the"fair share" cost of these areas will ultimately be recovered (either through impact fees. or annexation to the financing district), funding these costs initially is problematic. The proposed MOU resolves this by making the City responsible for these initially from the net sales tax proceeds. However, through the subsequent receipt of fees at.the time of development, the City will be fully reimbursed for any advanced costs for these other properties.. It would obviously be preferable to find a way to avoid making any advances at all. However,itis unrealistic to require funding from these areas at this time; and it is equally unrealistic to expect the project to advance the costs for these other areas. In short, if we want to build this interchange, the City will need to initially advance the funding for these.other directly benefiting areas,with the clear understanding that (except for the "community-wide" benefit portion) we will be faUy reimbursed for these advances. O Payment of all other fees. The.MOU is clear that the project-is.responsible for fully paying. all other fees attributable to it, such as development review charges and water, sewer and transportation impact fees. o Interchange construction required .for project opening. The MOU reinforces previous Council direction tying the.project to construction of the interchange: the project cannot start major construction work until the interchange construction contract is awarded. With this approach, it is possible that there may be a few months between project opening and completion of the interchange. However, this provision ensures that construction of the interchange is assured before major work starts on the project; andminimizes any potential time lag between them. Net City revenues. As set forth in Exhibit 3 of the proposed MOU; there are a number of assumptions that affect the net revenues to the.City, including the project's actual sales tax performance, interchange costs, apportionment of interchange benefits and interest rates. Based on these assumptions, PCR Kotin projects that the. City will net about $400,000 annually (in 1999 dollars after accounting for transferred sales, service costs and other ongoing project revenues) for the next 30 years. After this, the net revenues will increase to $800,000 annually. In the early years,. this net amount may be reduced to about $150,000 annually in advancing the costs for the Prado and Margarita areas. However, this will be fully offset by reimbursements, resulting in average net revenues of about $400,000 annually over the next 30 years. 5-7 Council Agenda Report–San Luis Marketplace MOU Page 8 Financial Background of the Development Team We are clearly interested in the financial capacity of the development team and its ability to successfully complete and operate the project. Our initial backgrounding indicates that the team meets our minimum expectations. However, entering into the final DA and forming the Mello- Roos financing district will be contingent on receiving more detailed information that meets the high standards of PCR Kotin as well as our financial advisor(Fieldman Rolapp). Resolution of Intent to Issue Mello-Roos Bonds As set forth in the MOU, one of the City's obligations is to adopt a resolution of intent to issue Mello Roos bonds in financing the project. This does not obligate us to actually issue these bonds. The sole purpose of this resolution is to allow initial costs—such as project design— incurred prior to the formation of the district to be included in the financing. This is a common practice, and the resolution has been prepared by the City's bond counsel (Jones Hall). Next Steps As mentioned earlier, the project itself must successfully proceed through all of the usual development permit steps, including environmental review, and approval by the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Council. In addition, the property must also be annexed. Through these processes, a number of other conditions and issues will be worked out. For example, the exact form of permanent open space protection will need to be resolved (an easement, as proposed by the property owner, versus. fee title dedication). A binding agreement with the developer will not be pursued until such time as these steps are completed. This protects the prerogatives and interests of both the City and the applicant. The above notwithstanding, approval of the MOU should be considered an indication of commitment and interest by the City, and should only be given if we remain: (1) committed to the General Plan policy for the area, and(2) interested in the overall project concept. FISCAL IMPACT • Preparing the MOU and Subsequent DA. The consultant cost of preparing the MOU (about $27,500) has been fully paid by the project applicant. We recommend that any subsequent costs for negotiating and preparing the DA should also be fully paid by the project applicant. • Net Sales Tax. As discussed above, PCR Kotin projects that net additional revenue from the project under the proposed MOU should average about $400,000 annually (in 1999 dollars) during the 30-year term. After this, it will be about $800,000 annually. In the early years, this may be reduced to about $150,000 annually due to advancing interchange costs for other directly benefiting areas. However,we will be fully reimbursed for these costs as these areas develop. 5-8 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace MOU Page.9 • Other Fees. The project applicant will be responsible for paying all other standard City fees. These are likely to total over$2 million. CONCLUSION City policy, as set forth in the General Plan, is that the Dalidio property should be developed consistent with the "some development for some open space" compromise. Staff recommends maintaining this course, believing that this concept—established over a period of years, based on extensive and diverse input — offers greater benefits to the community over the long term than other alternatives. These benefits include: City instead of County control over the property; the permanent protection of open space at a major gateway to the City; the construction of a major public improvement that implements a Circulation Element goal; improved City revenues and "position"in the regional marketplace; and increased housing inventory for senior citizens. In order to achieve these goals, however, some form of public-private partnership is necessary to construct the needed interchange. The purpose of the MOU is to set forth the principles that such a partnership will be based upon. The MOU now before the Council has been negotiated consistent with the goals and direction previously set forth by the Council in April 1999. For this reason, approval of the MOU is recommended. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council could reject the proposed MOU outright. The recommended MOU is consistent with the major parameters set forth by the Council both in July 1998 and April 1999. Therefore, this option should only be selected if the Council no longer supports the General Plan concept for the property. Although not recommended, if this were the case, a clear decision to terminate further work on this endeavor would be in the best interest of all parties involved (the EIR and Caltrans studies alone will total at least $1 million for the applicant, and substantial staff time will be spent processing the application). 2. The Council could provide direction to negotiate further and/or provide added information. As mentioned earlier, the proposed MOU is consistent with Council's major "deal points." If the Council has preferences or concerns regarding less significant aspects of the MOU, these matters can be addressed in the negotiation of the DA, if the project reaches that stage. However, the Council could still direct staff to continue to negotiate to achieve certain goals not perceived to have been adequately achieved by the proposed MOU. If this option is chosen, those goals should be clearly stated to staff so that we can quickly determine whether or not agreement can be reached on a revised MOU. Any significant delay in determining final the outcome of the MOU process will be very disadvantages to both the applicant and the City for reasons related to both time and money, as noted above. If the Council wishes to receive further information prior to a decision, then this request also should also be as specific as possible so that the added information can be provided in a timely way. Again, any major delay in taking action on the MOU is discouraged. 5-9 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace MOU Page 10 ATTACHMENTS A.. Council Direction, July 21, 1998 B. Summary of PCR Kotin Study Conclusions C. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding D. Resolution of Intent for Mello-Roos financing NOTE. The complete July 21, 1998 agenda report, and the April 1999 staff report and complete PCR%tin Study, are available for review in the City Clerk's office. 5-10 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS FROM"ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED SAAN LUIS MARKETPLACE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DOWNTOWN RETAIL ACTIVITY"(April 20, 1999 Agenda Report) • Within the regional market area, San Luis Obispo is under-represented in the retail categories of home improvement and general merchandise stores (e.g. hardware and department stores). Many local residents travel to other communities to make purchases within these categories. • San Luis Marketplace anchors are anticipated to be in the home improvement and general merchandise categories—categories not significantly overlapping with Downtown retail. • Some sub-anchors, such as electronics/appliances and office supplies, will have some impact on Downtown retailing; more significant Downtown impacts are anticipated from apparel stores, specialty stores,and restaurants in the San Luis Marketplace. • By 2002, with the project, San Luis Obispo is expected to "capture" $79 million more in "new net retail sales" than without the project.(after accounting for about a 30% sales tax transfer from elsewhere in the community). • Regarding the project's estimated impact on City revenue, after subtracting estimated transfers from other local retailers, total annual project revenues are estimated at $985,000; after subtracting annual City service costs, the annual "net" revenue is estimated at $883,600. • The Marketplace will draw approximately 750,000 to 1,000,000 new shopping trips annually to the City from within the region; conversely, if the project is not built, these trips will be directed elsewhere in the region,if these market"voids"are filled in other nearby cities. • Even with some added competition, the Downtown is expected to benefit more with the San Luis Marketplace than without it. This is because more regional visits to San Luis Obispo means more potential customers for the Downtown; fewer regional visits to our city reduces potential customers for the downtown and other retail areas of the community. • The addition of more regional chain stores in the Downtown will serve as a strong customer draw; however, such stores require 5,000 - 10,000 square feet, which will require land reuse or assemblage to create parcels not now available(such as conversion of surface parking). • A retail recruitment partnership should be established between the Downtown Association, the City's Economic Development program, property owners and commercial brokers in order to attract retailers that will enhance the Downtown's regional strength. • A more focused and larger commitment to retailing special events would also enhance opportunities in the Downtown. Attachment B 5-12 a- RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY FROM JULY 21, 1998 AGENDA REPORT 1. Reaffirm that Council believes that there is great merit to the General Plan concept of allowing some commercial and residential development on the property in exchange for permanent open space protection. 2. Recognize that processing this application will require substantial staff resources, and for this reason, clear direction should be provided to the applicant about the level of Council support for the project concept. 3. Recognize that the applicant needs to achieve an understanding with the City on key financial issues before they can proceed much further. The best way to achieve this is by preparing a memorandum of understanding that conceptually sets forth key deal principles. Negotiate the MOU and any future DDA consistent with the sequence outlined under#10 below. 4. Confirm that although Costco is no longer a part of the project, this is not a significant factor in judging the merits of the project. 5. Accept that a physical mall connection is no longer realistic; however, the applicant must make greater efforts to improve the project design, including its integration with the adjacent shopping area. 6. Allow the project to begin construction in one phase and to open before completion of the Prado Road interchange, but only in a way that assures the near term completion of the interchange (including that major project work cannot begin until the interchange contract is awarded). 7. Conceptually agree that the City will assist in forming a benefit assessment district to finance the interchange. 8. Conceptually agree to a sales tax sharing concept,but conditioned on"net" sales tax— exclusive of the Central Coast Mall— after meeting certain performance standards. 9. While funded by the applicant, direct that the City should independently complete the required downtown fiscal impact study (including marketing recommendations), similar to our approach in preparing EIR. 10. Acknowledge that a more realistic overall time estimate — given the complexities of this project (such annexation and interchange construction) — from "start-to-opening" is three to four years rather than the two year time frame hoped for by the applicant. 11. With regard to application processing and the timing for MOA and DDA negotiations, affirm that: • Staff should process the application in the most timely way possible, recognizing that timing will hinge significantly on the amount of concurrent activities the applicant is willing to financially support (and the related risk they are willing to assume); • Application processing and MOU negotiations may start when the development plan is finalized, processing fees are paid, and deposits are made to complete the EIR and fiscal impact studies; • MOU negotiations must be concluded and an MOU approved by both parties no later than 90 days after the fiscal impact study has been concluded, or the process should stop; • DDA negotiations are not to start until the project has received all of its discretionary approvals. At tach!rnI MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE ASSOCIATES,LLC INTRODUCTION The Dalidio Family, owners of Dalidio Ranch (the Annexation Area) and San Luis Obispo Marketplace Associates LLC (the Developer) desire to annex the Annexation Area into the City of San Luis Obispo which will facilitate development of a portion of the 131 acre property in the following manner: A new retail center, known as San Luis Marketplace, will occupy 40 acres. In order to accommodate this development, it will be necessary to provide a full interchange at U.S. 101 and Prado Road. Together, the retail center and interchange compose "the Project". The balance of the land will include approximately 55 acres of open space, five acres of park, an 11.1 acre residential parcel, a 9.2 acre interim open space parcel and 10.7 acres designated for road and freeway use. The cost of this interchange is projected to be in excess of 10 million dollars and will fulfill a portion of the City's Circulation Element as well as provide improved access to the Project. Although the Project cannot absorb this entire cost and remain economically feasible, the Developer has agreed to fund the interchange provided that there is a mechanism for tax-exempt debt financing and appropriate reimbursement of debt service. This may occur from some combination of future development on other sites that will benefit from the interchange and from sales tax and transient occupancy tax, if any, generated by the Project, suitably adjusted for the estimated transfer from other portions of the City. In April 1999, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo authorized its staff and consultants to proceed with the negotiation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the terms and conditions under which such reimbursement would occur. This MOU represents an attempt to provide documentation of the current understanding of the parties with respect to the terms and conditions which will ultimately be embodied in a statutory development agreement and other related documentation. R=Au Whereas, the proposed concept involves not only the construction of a retail center and interchange,but also the protection of fifty-five to seventy (55-70) acres of agricultural land to permanent open space by the current property owner, Dalidio Family Laguna Ranch; and Whereas, this dedication represents the commitment of millions of dollars by the property owner in consideration for the right to develop the remaining property in land uses currently permitted by the General Plan when annexed to the City; and Attachmen&13 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page - 2 - Whereas,this development will not occur unless the issue of financing the interchange by the Developer and reimbursing the Developer therefore is resolved; and Whereas,the City Council has directed the staff and consultants of the City of San Luis Obispo to prepare for their review a MOU describing a proposed reimbursement arrangement; and Whereas, the City is offering financial assistance to the Developer for the sole purpose of assisting in the construction of this specific public infrastructure—the Prado Road interchange; Now,therefore, the parties have prepared the following MOU. 1. ANNEXATION AREA AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Annexation Area As summarized below from the "Notice of Dalidio/Marketplace EIR," with minor amendments to reflect the July 1999 Public Review Draft of the EK an application has been filed to prezone and annex 131 acres adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo and within the City's "urban reserve" that will ultimately result in the following: a. Prezone 40 acres of land adjacent to the Central Coast Mall to Retail Commercial and develop the vacant property with new retail commercial uses and restaurants. This new retail center, referred to as San Luis Marketplace, will contain approximately 515,000 square feet of leasable space, with additional areas allocated to outdoor sales associated with major tenant spaces, including a mixture of larger and smaller retail uses and restaurants. The Project will also include the construction of a freeway interchange at Prado Road and extension of Prado Road to Madonna Road. b. Prezone about 11 acres of property west of the San Luis Marketplace and adjacent to Madonna Road for Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-PD). The applicants intend to develop this parcel with residential units, possibly for senior citizen housing. C. Prezone the remaining 70 acres Conservation/Open Space which will be made up of a 5 acre extension to Laguna Lake Park, 55 acres for permanent open space protection, and about 9 acres in "reserve" open space for future consideration of additional urban uses. The above description is subject to alteration and refinement during project review. A site plan and map of the area is provided in Exhibit 1. 5-14 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page- 3 - 1.2 Project Description (San Luis Marketplace) Although the Project per se is known as "San Luis Marketplace," the aggregated project consists of both San Luis Marketplace and the adjoining interchange which is to be constructed as part of its development. 1.2.1 Retail-Commercial Design In order to meet several objectives, the developer of San Luis Marketplace has expressed the following goals for the commercial development of the project: 1. Orient the development of San Luis Marketplace with the existing adjacent retail properties. 2. Provide a substantial open space buffer between the proposed development and Highway 101 to be under the city's dedicated control. 3. Buffer area between the commercial development and the open space reserve/buffer areas. 4. Integrate the new circulation system, including the Prado Road Interchange and extension, with the existing roads; provide an inviting pedestrian- friendly internal circulation. 5. Attract new, national retailers to the City that are not currently represented in the City, as identified in the City's 1994 General Plan. Desirable retailers include large destination stores such as Target and Lowe's. 6. Attract and retain sales tax revenues in the City, as identified in the City's 1993 Economic Strategy Task Force Report. To meet these objectives, the Developers plan includes several features. The commercial area is designed so it complements the redevelopment of the existing Central Coast Mall. The plan for the commercial area designates space for major destination stores such as a home improvement store (like a Lowe's) and Target. Smaller commercial areas with separate building pads are also included that can be used for restaurants, general retail, and support retail uses. The commercial area is designed to accommodate approximately 515,000 Gross Leasable Area (GLA) with access from an extension of Prado Road connecting the new freeway interchange at Highway 101 to Madonna Road. The San Luis Marketplace design aligns new buildings, circulation patterns, and parking fields with the existing facilities at the Central Coast Mall to compliment the new and existing commercial areas to allow easy access to both Prado and Madonna roads and 5-15 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page-4- provides a visually integrated appearance of the Madonna Road commercial center from Highway 101. The new development will be set back from Highway 101 giving wide visual buffer from the Highway 101 view corridor. Throughout the San Luis Marketplace, stores will include common areas with special pedestrian features, including benches, planter/bench combinations, and attractive colored concrete pavement. The San Luis Marketplace buildings are to be connected by a pedestrian circulation loop to promote use of the area by pedestrians and facilitate public transit usage. The building area of approximately 515,000 square feet of GLA is proposed to include two major buildings, several mid-size buildings, and a number of small-detached restaurants and attached retail shops. The remaining buildings are proposed to be used for other complementary uses. It is possible that one of the buildings retail pads could be replaced by a hotel, subject to approval by the City. 1.2.2 Prado Road Interchange The other major element in the overall project is the Prado Road interchange. While this interchange is still under design, the following general description has been excerpted from a longer description provided by the Public Works Department of the City of San Luis Obispo: 1. Prado Road will cross over Hwy. 101 at about 900 in order to accommodate development needs and the ability to connect to the extension of Dalidio drive. 2. An auxiliary lane, with one lane of traffic, will be built northbound from the Prado Road interchange to the Madonna Road Interchange. 3. The western half of the interchange will have the same layout as a standard Cal Trans"diamond interchange". 4. The eastern half of the interchange will have a slightly modified "diamond interchange" configuration. 5. The bridge structure will be wide enough to accommodate six lanes including two left turn lanes. 5-16 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page - 5 - 1.3 Remainder Areas There are approximately 11 acres of land designated R-3 for medium high density residential development and just over 9 acres designated interim open space, which is a holding designation until some future date after the present commercial and residential parcels are developed and an appropriate use can be selected. While they will be processed simultaneously with the commercial development and will contribute their proportion of development fees, these areas are not seeking City assistance or participation in the sales tax sharing described below. They are mentioned here to insure a complete description of the development proposed. Once City required roads and the interchange are deducted from the total land area, the net effect is that about 50% of remaining land will be developed and 50% dedicated to some form of open space. 2. PROPOSED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 2.1 Overall Structure To finance the construction of the interchange, there will be two sources of funds. One will be a contribution by the City of San Luis Obispo for the purely public element and the second will be the proceeds from the issuance of tax-exempt bonds with a contemplated 30-year amortization term from a Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) District formed to include all the Annexation Area. As discussed below, formation of the District by the City is conditioned upon the District meeting the intent of the City's policies for land-based financings (Exhibit 2). The initial source of repayment of the bonds shall be a special tax on the property in the Annexation Area, including both and allocated between the commercial and proposed residential areas. The City shall agree to reimburse the Developer for the debt service payments on the bond in an amount cumulatively equal to 50% the Defined Excess Sales Tax Revenue (DESTR). . DESTR shall be equal to the sum of Adjusted Sales Tax and Adjusted Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT"), if any. Adjusted Sales Tax shall be the gross sales tax generated by the Project and payable to the City,reduced by an Adjustment for Transferred Sales. Adjusted TOT shall be equal to the total TOT from any hotel developed as part of the Project adjusted for transfer effects. The mechanism and formula for any such TOT transfer effect shall be negotiated subsequent to a study commissioned by the City. 5-17 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page- 6 - In the event that State law changes in a way to modify the amount of money subvened to a city for sales taxes collected in that city, then the reimbursement program described above shall remain in effect, provided that the cumulative reimbursements made under this program subsequent to the modification of the sales tax law shall be the lesser of: (1) the reimbursements that would have been made under the prior law as described in this agreement, which is to say that if an increase in sales tax subvention occurs it shall not increase the City's obligation to reimburse; (2) one-half of the cumulative sales taxes originating at the project subvened to the City under the new law based the point of sale after reduction for the 34% transfer, which is to say that if some or all of sales tax subvention is based in the future on population and not point of sale, only that portion based on point of sale shall be considered as the starting point for calculation of the City's reimbursement; or (3) the cumulative aggregate amount by which the sales taxes from all sources subvened to the City of San Luis Obispo subsequent to the modification of the sales tax law exceed total sales taxes from all sources subvened to the City in the year immediately preceding the.modification of the sales tax law, multiplied by the number of years elapsed since the law change, which is to say that one-half of the sales taxes that accrue from this project shall continue to be devoted to the reimbursement provided that the aggregate sales tax to the City under the new law does not decline from what it would have been with a continuation of the old law. 2.2 Formation of the District Subject to the City's fiscal policies regarding land-based financings, the City agrees to form a Community Facilities District to assist with financing construction of the Prado Road interchange. Unless other properties voluntarily choose to participate in the district as discussed below, the Annexation Area property will be the sole underlying asset for the financing. 2.21 Reimbursement of Interchange Costs by Other Benefiting Properties There are three methods for ensuring that other benefiting properties pay their fair share of interchange costs as they develop in the future: 2.2.1.1 Direct Reimbursement. At the time of development, the other properties will be required to pay their share in a lump sum. These funds will be payable to the City, 5-18 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page- 7 - and the City will use them to reimburse itself for previous debt service advances or to defease bonds, at its option. 2.2.1.2 Initial Inclusion in the Mello-Roos District. Under this option, a formal contingent liability would be established for the other benefiting properties by including them in the district at the very beginning. However, they would not have any financial responsibilities for debt service until development. Properties would be included on a strictly voluntary basis. Upon development, owners of benefiting properties would have to repay their share of prior special taxes and thereafter pay their allocated share of ongoing taxes. 2.2.1.3 Annexation to the District. Under this option,benefiting property,at the City's option, could be annexed to the district at a future date, most likely upon development. In this case, annexed properties would repay their share of prior taxes and thereafter pay their allocated share of ongoing taxes. As discussed below, all of these options will require a detailed analysis by a qualified engineer to apportion the costs attributable to other specific properties on a parcel-by- parcel basis. 2.2.2 Apportionment of Interchange Costs Apportionment of costs between benefiting properties will be made by a qualified engineer. Based on 1992 traffic information, the following chart provides an example of how interchange costs might be apportioned: Prado Road Interchange Benefit Apportionment Sample Average Daily Trips(ADT) Estimated Using the Interchange Interchange Total ADT Percent ADT Benefit Dalidio Area Commercial 21,800 80% 17,400 50% Residential 1,900 80% 1,500 4% Prado Area 6,700 75% 4,900 14% Margarita Area 16,900 40% 6,700 19% Other Areas(Community-Wide Benefit) - 4,500 13% Total 35,000 100% This sample chart shows a 54% traffic share for the Dalidio property. Of this amount, 50% is for the commercial component. It is important to stress that the actual apportionment will depend upon the definition of benefiting areas, the basis of allocation (although trips seems a likely choice) and the resulting amount of benefit allocated to each area. As noted above, this will require a 5-19 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page - 8 - qualified engineer to do this analysis. Also, better traffic information may be generated for the San Luis Marketplace project as the EIR proceeds. The purpose of this chart is solely to serve as an example of how the Annexation Area's "fair share' of interchange costs will be developed, and the general principles that will be used. 2.2.3 Other Project Fees and Costs In addition to its responsibility for paying for interchange costs, the Developer, in coordination with the other development, is responsible for paying for all other fees and contributions attributable to its share of the Project, including (but not limited to) development review charges such as planning, engineering, building permit and fire plan check fees; development impact fees such as water, sewer and transportation impact fees; and parkland dedication and improvements pursuant to the City's policies for annexation areas. Because the Prado Road interchange is one of the transportation impact fee projects, a credit against project transportation impact fees (estimated at this time to be about 2%) will be due to the Developer. As the Project proceeds, there may be similar credits available to the Developer for work, other than the Prado Road interchange, directly funded by the Developer that are also in the transportation impact fee program. To the extent that development or dedication of property on any part of the Annexation Area included in a project generates credits or offsets in excess of those needed for that individual project component, such credits or off-sets shall be considered collectively and any excess shall be credited or offset in fees and exactions on other components of the Annexation Area. As mentioned earlier, the components of the Annexation Area property include the residential, the commercial, the park dedication, the open space and the interchange. 2.2.4 Special Taxes Allocated to Other Benefiting Properties In accordance with*the traffic analysis summarized in Section 2.2.2 above, subject to change and refinement on the basis of better information available prior to actual issuance of the bonds, the benefits attached to the Prado and Margarita properties are currently estimated at 14% and 19%, respectively, for a total of 33%. Accordingly, 33% of the special tax is allocated to these properties for example purposes. City agrees to use the first monies available from sales tax to fund this sum, currently estimated at $253,000 per year predicated on a $768,000 annual debt service as shown in Exhibit 3, or such other sum as may constitute the allocated share of benefits to the Prado and Margarita properties from the construction of the interchange. 5-20 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page - 9 - 2.2.5 Liability for the Bonds The Community Facility District (Mello-Roos) Bonds shall, at the discretion of the City, be secured solely by the properties in the Annexation Area. The mechanism for initial or subsequent inclusion in the Community Facilities District of other properties benefiting from the interchange shall be at the discretion of the City and shall not, except to the extent that the City determines so, relieve the Annexation Area of any liability. All reimbursements provided by property owners who, by virtue of either subsequent joining with the District or development fees contributed in reimbursement for pro rata share of interchange costs, shall be the property of the City. 23 Adjustments for City Service Costs and Other Revenues As presented in the Economic and Fiscal Impact Study submitted in February of 1999 by PCR Kotin, other City revenues from the Project in addition to sales taxes (such as utility users taxes, business taxes and franchise fees) are estimated at about$195,000 annually. This exceeds ongoing City costs to service the Project (estimated at about$135,000) by about $60,000 annually. While these costs and additional revenues could be formally included in calculating the DESTR, the parties have agreed that there are significant practical difficulties and policy problems associated with the detailed allocation of City service costs and the tracking of these other revenues over the life of the MOU. The parties have further agreed that due to the relatively small (but favorable) difference between these ongoing City costs and other revenues, the extra efforts required to account for them over the life of the MOU are not warranted. Accordingly, there shall be no reduction in the total sales tax or TOT used in calculating DESTR due to ongoing City costs to service the Project. At the same time, however, there shall be no augmentation of the DESTR for the other City revenues likely to be generated by the Project. 3. DEnNmON of DESTR 3.1 Computation of Total Amount The DESTR shall be computed as follows: 1. Subject to the availability of information, quarterly, based on the sales tax reports filed with the State Board of Equalization (SBE), a gross sales tax earned by the City shall be computed as being equal to 1% of the Gross Taxable Retail Sales reported to the SBE by all of the merchants and retail outlets within the Project. 5-21 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page- 10 - 2. The Gross Sales Taxes so defined shall be reduced by 34% for the Adjustment for Transferred Sales; 3. If hotels are built as part of the Project, total Transient Occupancy Tax shall be added; 4. If hotels are built as part of the Project, the total TOT shall be reduced for transfer effects in a manner to be negotiated. The Adjustment for Transferred Sales shall be stipulated as 34%. 3.2 Allocation of DESTR To the extent permitted by the availability of information from the State Board of Equalization, the City shall quarterly determine how much DESTR has been collected from the Project, as set forth above. Thereafter, the allocation and distribution of monies corresponding to that volume of sales tax shall be as follows: 1. The first $253,000 (or such other sum as may constitute the allocated share of benefits to the Prado and Margarita properties from the construction of the interchange) shall be used to pay that amount of the special tax due to the Community Facilities District; 2. An equal amount to the amount specified in the prior step shall then be allocated to the Developer to make a portion of its payment of special taxes to the Community Facilities District; 3. Any remaining sales tax shall be divided into two equal shares, one of which will accrue to the City without claim and the other of which will be provided to the Developer until such time as it has been reimbursed for all payments of special taxes made to the Community Facilities District on a cumulative basis; 4. Once the Developer has been reimbursed cumulatively for all payments made on special taxes to the Community Facilities District, all remaining sales tax shall accrue to the City with no claims or encumbrances. By way of illustration,and assuming no hotels, an example calculation is shown in Exhibit 3. 5-22 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page- 11 - 3.3 Timing of Reimbursement Payments Subject to the availability of information specifying the sales tax revenues generated by the Project, the City will make quarterly payments to the Developer. 3.4 Allocation of Funds Received from Prado or Margarita Property Owners Upon Development It is anticipated that upon development of all or part of the Prado or Margarita properties that the property owners will be liable for either an impact fee under a predetermined formula which represents their allocated share of the initial cost of the interchange, adjusted for inflation, or some mechanism for reimbursement of prior payments made on their behalf to the Community Facilities District. In either case, the allocation of such funds shall be in the following order: 1. Funds shall be first used to reimburse the City for payments made on the property's behalf, together with interest thereon from the date of such payments at an interest rate equal to the average coupon interest rate of the CFD bonds; 2. Any further payments shall be used to either reduce the principal amount of the bonds, in the event that single, lump-sum payments are made or, in the event that the property owners become part of the CFD and undertake to pay special taxes, there will be no reduction in principal, but there will be an assumption of annual special tax liability by the property owners relieving the City therefrom. Under the terms of this reimbursement arrangement, the City shall have sole discretion as to whether it wishes to reimburse itself or reduce the principal balance. In consideration therefore, the City will agree that at no point will there be any increase in the special tax obligation originally assumed by the Developer after adjustment for the city's application of the first $253,000 (or such other sum as may constitute the allocated share of benefits to the Prado and Margarita properties from the construction of the interchange) 3.5 Duration of Reimbursement Payments The duration of the reimbursement based on DESTR shall be concurrent with the duration of the bonds. In general, the cumulative total amount of special taxes paid by the Developer shall be tallied at each period and compared to 50% of the cumulative DESTR. Subject to the availability of information, quarterly a payment shall be made by the City to the Developer equal to the lesser of: (1) that amount which would give the Developer 50% 5-23 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page- 12 - of the cumulative DESTR; or (2) that amount which would suffice to fully reimburse the Developer for all special taxes paid. 4. CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERCHANGE The other major element in the overall project:is the Prado Road interchange. While a final design of this interchange is still not decided, the following general description has been provided by the Public Works.Department of the City of San Luis Obispo: The approved Project Study Report (PSR)for the Prado Road Interchange, dated 12/6/96,provides three alternative interchange configurations which will form the basis for eventual selection of a preferred interchange design. The next step in the approval process is initiation of a Project Report (PR) in which a more detailed analysis of environmental and design issues and which leads to a narrowing of choices to a selected design. Upon approval of the PR, the preparation of construction documents may begin which, in turn, will lead to actual construction of the interchange improvements. While a preferred alternative alignment is not and can not be identified by the PSR. (by Cal Trans rules) enough information is available from the three alternatives to make a reasoned and fairly accurate assessment of which alternative will turn out to be the eventual selected interchange . design. Alternative A is a combination design incorporating half the interchange as a "tight diamond" on the eastern side of hwy. 101 and .the other half (western side of Hwy. 101) as a "standard diamond" but with added auxiliary lanes all the way back to Madonna Road Interchange. Alternative B is a combination design incorporating half the interchange as a "par-clo design" (partial cloverleaf) on the eastern side of Hwy. 101 and, again half as a "standard diamond" on the western side.of Hwy. 101 (but without the auxiliary'lanes). Alternative C is as close as feasible to a "Standard diamond" interchange. All alternatives include auxiliary lanes north bound from Prado Road interchange to the Madonna Road interchange. It is-apparent from discussion with designers and representatives from Cal Trans that Alternative C will most likely become the preferred.alternative. A more definitive description of Alternative C would include the following facts: 1. Prado Road will cross over Hwy. 101 at about 900 plus or minus up to 100 in order to accommodate developer needs or the ability to connect to the extension of Dalidio drive. Original planning of the transportation network assumed that the two roads would connect, however just how and where that connection takes place will determine the exact alignment of the bridge structure. 2. An auxiliary lane, with one lane of traffic, will be built northbound from the Prado Road interchange to the Madonna Road Interchange. 5-24 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page- 13 - 3. The western half of the interchange will have the same layout as a standard Cal Trans "diamond interchange", i.e. both the off-ramp and the on-ramp will have the same geonwhics and they will have a perpendicular intersection with Prado Road. 4. The eastern half of the interchange will have a slightly modified "diamond interchange" configuration. The northbound on-ramp will have standard geometrics and a perpendicular intersection with Prado Road. The northbound off-ramp will basically remain in its current alignment in order to avoid taking additional right-of- way from the City's corporation yard. Its intersection with Prado road will be approximately 75 degrees but will still allow full turning movements including the ability to cross Prado Road and continue northbound on Hwy. 101 if necessary or desired. 5. The bridge structure will be wide enough to accommodate six lanes of travel at 3.6 meters each, two bike lanes at 1.8 meters each and two sidewalks at 1.5 meters each. 6. The interchange will include two signals - one located at each on-ramp/off-ramp location as well as provide nighttime lighting of the new roadway and lighting of Hwy. 101 under the new bridge. 7. The southbound off-ramp will curve around one existing PG&E transmission tower. This is not a special design but is worth mentioning. The Project does not propose to relocate any transmission towers. 8. Both on-ramps will be pre-wired for traffic admittance signals which are anticipated to be needed in the far future. The City Council has already conceptually agreed that the Project can begin construction in one phase and open before completion of the interchange, but only in a way that assures that near term completion of the interchange (including that major project work cannot begin until the interchange contract is awarded.) Concurrent with approval of any MOU by the City, an inducement resolution should be passed by the City of San Luis Obispo when certain conditions precedent have been met so that all eligible prior planning costs can be reimbursed. The conditions for the inducement resolution are considerably fewer and will occur sooner than the conditions for the actual final agreement and execution of the transaction. This will protect both the City and the developer in their ability to recover their costs from the bonds. 5-25 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page- 14 - 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES It shall be the responsibility of the Developer and City to diligently pursue all aspects of the application for development, including all environmental processing, all zoning processing, any supporting technical studies, etc. In addition, it shall be the responsibility of the Developer to diligently pursue the planning, initial study, and such other efforts as are necessary to specify in final form the cost and character of the proposed Prado Interchange. With regard to zoning, the City's responsibility shall be limited to providing that level of interaction, timely response, and review as provided for in regulations and ordinances of the City of San Luis Obispo. With respect to the planning of the interchange, the access to and the advisory support and knowledge of the Department of Public Works of the City of San Luis Obispo will be made available to the Developer in his efforts to initiate the required planning with CalTrans. All costs associated with both the processing of entitlements and City approvals and the initiation of studies and planning for the Prado interchange shall be paid for by the Developer, including reimbursement to the City for its expenses in negotiating this MOU. Nothing in this section nor in any other part of the agreement shall constitute any commitment by the City to reimburse or absorb any of these costs at any point in the future except to the extent that these costs are typical predeveiopment costs for design that are appropriately capitalized into the cost of the interchange. 6. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Exhibit 4 is a preliminary schedule of performance which has been prepared by the Developer and reviewed by the City. 7. OTHER MUNICIPAL PROCESSING The Parties understand and agree that those approvals required of City acting in its governmental or regulatory capacity are separate and distinct from those approvals required by the City under this agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, nothing herein shall be interpreted to mean that the City is an any way waiving, limiting, or weakening any regulatory or police power the City may have in any of its governmental capacities. It is intended that the Project Developer shall be obligated to fulfill such requirements as may be imposed by the City or any other governmental agency or authority having or exercising any jurisdiction over the Property or over any construction to be undertaken by Project Developer in, on or about said Property. 5-26 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page- 15 - Refusal or failure by City in its governmental or regulatory capacity to take a legislative action, issue any permit, license or any other action or approval sought by Project Developer for construction of improvements on, or development of, the Property shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement. 8. DOCUMENTATION Ata minimum the documentation to be created as a result of this MOU will include the following: 8.1 A reimbursement agreement setting forth in detail the terms and conditions of the reimbursement arrangements between the City and the Developer as described in the MOU. 8.2 The outline of a statutory development agreement and such other zoning changes, ordinance changes and certifications as may be necessary to confirm the Developer's entitlement to construct the proposed project and incorporating by reference the reimbursement agreement. The actual document is to be the outcome of a parallel entitlement process; 8.3 An inducement resolution to permit the City and the Developer to recover planning and study costs from a bond issue used to finance the transaction; 8.4 An official statement prepared by the City's financial advisor; 8.5 An agreement between Cal Trans, the City of San Luis Obispo and, optionally, the Developer, for the construction and financing of a new interchange; There may be additional documentation or further elaboration of this documentation. 9. NON-BINDING NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT Without obligating either of the parties, this memorandum summarizes what the Developer and the City perceive to be the major deal points with respect to the proposed Project. No binding obligation is created by this MOU or can be created other than by execution of a binding Development Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that if a Development Agreement is entered into between the parties, it shall substantially include the terms of this MOU. 5-27 San Luis Marketplace MOU Page- 16 - 10. ACCEPTANCE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO By: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G.Jorgensen,City Attorney SAN LUIS OBISPO MARKETPLACE ASSOCIATES,LLC By: SC Properties LLC, its Managing Member By: Kevin Bird, Managing Member CONSENT: DALIDIO FAMILY LAGUNA RANCH By: Ernest F. Dalidio,Jr. By: ExHmrrs 1. Site Plan and Map 2. Land-based Financing Policies 3. Sample Calculation of Special Tax Reimbursement 4. Performance Schedule 5-28 Exhibit 1 Dalido Property Annexation EIR Section 2.0 Project Description I ° L + � I � I San Luis O,bis.po. 101 I_ Project Site J � TNCCFNW ROM ,` 227 / C_J City of San Luis Obispo �a� ® Subject Property NORTH Site-Specific Location Flglffe3- 2-3 city of San Luis Obispo Exhibit 1 n o is Cm LU N v�ai m a � O w h U 1 F = a it � .:�' "... � _ 3•` � ° � 1 i I � O LL J r ¢ i s LLO ti a o y m w a - Cd o o D m m y O vii c V C m O Y � m d O.O d N `v 5-30 = v m m ❑ W �IIIIIIIIIII�����IIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIII city of i san lUis OBISPO Exhibit Land-Based Financings The following is an excerpt from the City's For districts where one property owner accounts 1999-01 Financial Plan Budget and Fiscal for more than 25% of the annual debt service Policies: obligation, a letter of credit further securing the financing may be required. Public Purpose Reserve Fund There will be a clearly articulated public purpose in forming an assessment or special tax A reserve fund should be established in the district in financing public infrastructure lesser amount of: the maximum annual debt improvements. This should include a finding by service; 125% of the annual average debt the Council as to why this form of financing is service; or 10%of the bond proceeds. preferred over other funding options such as impact fees, reimbursement agreements or Value-to-Debt Ratios direct developer responsibility for the improvements. The minimum value-to-date ratio should generally be 4:1. This means the value of the Active Role property in the district, with the public improvements, should be at least four times the Even though land-based financings may be a amount of the assessment or special tax debt. In limited obligation of the City, we will play an special circumstances, after conferring and active role in managing the district. This means receiving the concurrence of the City's financial that the City will select and retain the financing advisor and bond counsel that a lower value-to- team, including the financial advisor, bond debt ratio is financially prudent under the counsel, trustee, appraiser, disclosure counsel, circumstances, the City may consider allowing a assessment engineer and underwriter. Any costs value-to-debt ratio of 3:1. Special findings incurred by the City in retaining these services should be made by the Council in this case. will generally be the responsibility of the property owners or developer, and will be Capitalized Interest During Construction advanced via a deposit when an application is filed; or will be paid on a contingency fee basis Decisions to capitalize interest will be made on from the proceeds from the bonds. case-by-case basis, with the intent that if allowed, it should improve the credit quality of Credit Quality the bonds and reduce bon-owing costs, benefiting both current and future property When a district is requested by a developer, the owners. City will carefully evaluate the applicant's financial plan and ability to carry the project, Maximum Burden including the payment of assessments and special taxes during build-out. This may Annual assessments (or special taxes in the case include detailed background, credit and lender of Mello-Roos or similar districts) should checks, and the preparation of independent generally not exceed 1% of the sales price of the appraisal reports and market absorption studies. property; and total property taxes, special 5-31 Land-Based Financings Page 2 assessments and special taxes payments Foreclosure Covenants collected on the tax roll should generally not exceed 2%. In managing administrative costs, the City will establish minimum delinquency amounts per Benefit Apportionment owner, and for the district as a whole, on a case- by-case basis before initiating foreclosure Assessments and special taxes will be proceedings. apportioned according to a formula that is clear, understaridable,equitable and reasonably related Disclosure to Bondholders to the benefit received by—or burden attributed to--each parcel with respect to its financed In general, each property owner who accounts improvement. Any annual escalation factor for more than 10% of the annual debt service or should generally not exceed 2%. bonded indebtedness must provide ongoing disclosure information annually as described Special Tax District Administration under SEC Rule 15(c)-12. In the case of Mello-Roos or similar special tax Disclosure to Prospective Purchasers districts, the total maximum annual tax should not exceed 110% of annual debt service. The Full disclosure about outstanding balances and rate and method of apportionment should annual payments should be made by the seller to include a back-up tax in the event of significant prospective buyers at the time that the buyer changes from the initial development plan, and bids on the property. It should not be deferred should include procedures for prepayments. to after the buyer has made the decision to purchase. When appropriate, applicants or property owners may be required to provide the City with a disclosure plan. 5-32 auk rlr le le �a n xCC.iiOO O l� O YET] 0000 Pte` R eP� O N Gl Ol�1 Cryo V O n t O.1' Vn1 Oi`, .�T{ I .p :p .P•�"L'j P ri Illullll gyp` �p ((�^v alp•v Rl CC _ G �^ tyre .Op pp ^ry app. I(f u� �i O 1!I o � ��•-• FZI o y lry n n fV Vi n.y .:06 4 fff"`fff p: C6 Or F n Or N 0 may+ E u ri CM .b D Si a CI W HMmm P K am pry. �y O v x BVI O � igg 99E Ram P 1! at^�1 tVy O Zvry p 23 If1 Nf .r n v] luul 6 8 99 ® °l' r 5 � ` o .20 ouV 1 17 < u 5 '55V ? 5-33 N aN O �O .�+ b `-'of �O �O � `P--• gV{ N onca a _ P 1 -o� M M y� y� fV 06 CIT .. c."... b K �O � VJ y rI � .:.: .. �^ vi d is l•,'-'•�' � LGQi] C d N N O O O OOO v >� go rAQ Gi :d S 0 "N�2 06cr o�� Ro i eo e0000 n a 00 > a wr pp pp pp pp;; K � va u� .-n o O • n n N m a ut 16 d'"v m Lu 0 P - U� Ir[.• DUST nZ t- �u a z � ms � Z7 � v � z55V ? 5-34 ——.m._.m.m._. __.__.__.__.__.__.__.__._.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__._. . _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._`_._. i . _._._._■_._._._■_._._■_._._■_._._■_■_._._._._■_■_..eo_■_._._._u■_e ■- -.-.-.-.-•-.-.-.-.-•-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.mumu-• am .-._._._._. --•-•-•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•-•-•-•-•—•—•—•—•—• `—•—•—•—•- i _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. ,mumu mommmomommmm ums All on' _©______...____.i■.___■r.___■..___...___..■2__...___...2__�s..�__2�.■."g___..11e___...g___7..._r_.■.__2...___...__2...2__C...___i...___s.■�___■..___..__.._2.C_nmommma -4 WE : ._=..���.■:_r,■�a.c_Mosson", memo ie=C=E�®_iROME 3�u.. MEN, a 2=ms= __ _ u■__.°■:■ mommmint C�a _2ffm.msm _� m:�:�: a11 � •��� - y■2■BMW _._._._._■_._._._._._■_■_._._.2._._._.2._._._.2.2.2r ■ .r.'/r mumu_. . _._._._._._._._._■_■_._._._.m._.m.m.m.m._._.m.m.m.mc ,mr _■mumu_ ...aaa _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._■_■2■_■2■_._.2a_■_■ ,yh■_.�.Is _._.2._a .� m.r._.r._. ._■_._r_._._._._._■_._._■_._._■_._._._._■/ �._.///. Zoo2.m.m __ _ _■_■_._■_■_._._s_._._._■_■_._■_._■_■_._._._■_._._■_■� _r/ mums_' a_•_•_•_•_•_•C: : : :�:C:�:� :C:�:C:C:C:�:�:�:So . a _._._._._._. _._■_■_■_._■_._._■_t_._.m■_._r_.2.m._.m.m■m.m.m._.m.. a f_a r2._._a_s a _._■_._._t_■_._■_._■_._._._._._._._._■_■_._■_■_■_._. amums_._. __._■_s_._.2.m■2.m.mam._._.m.m.m._u_._._._112._._■2._r a ■_.. . 2■_■m■ms AM _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. . NS■r.2.2■_. m III "4i5:-i.=.Ei°i:i9'� 2.2 2.2•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-- -• -•-•-•-•-•-•-•-a _._■_._._■_._■2.2■2■2._■_._._._._._._._._- f_._._._._@mom■_._._s ■ ■_.2■2._■_.m■m._._._._■_._._.2r ■_._._.__.�f— _._._._._._._._.mumu O . _._._._._._._._._._...2._._._._a a_._.2._■' ■_amt_._._._._■_._._■.���,,,yyy,,,���. B_._._._._._._._._._._._. ,_._. ._.r._.2.2f ■m.m._■2a_._._■_._■2. ,imam, _._.m._._._.2._._■2._._s mumu f2.m._.2._.r.m.m.ms2.m._■2 _■mums a ■ ■_. - �_■_■2._■_■2■_._._._._._s m■ ...m._._._._.2.m._._.m._sm.2.m. s2 Mom 2.2._._.2t_._.2._.2s_.2s ma� • • • ■ ■ ■ • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ •_■ . M:M: An MINIM an mommmomomm a=:=: mmmmmc:mwmmmmmm AR An emamma i __.ARA_._.m.m.m.—.m. '■m.m.m.m._._.m.m....._■m._._.m.m■_._. . • . f. ■_.m.-.—.mumu_■ i f_._._._._._._■m._■_._._a_.m.m.m._._• ■/■ . _.—. f ._._._._a_._._._. ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. � .�� —m■_■m.r._.m.m■m._._._._a fru_._._._.2.m.m.ms_._._._._.mu_._■2.m ■ . - :mi:i�`-IWARA iM:�c : ■m-■2MEM:rs-CiMCMi.iCiCi.i= , __._._._■_u 2s .mamma ■m. mumu_. _._._._._. _. _._.Cur./'_._._.-.2■_:_■_._._. ._._._._._._■_. .2■_ NIN a_■_ I�s �_._■_a2.o _. m. •mam.m. .m,�.—•—•—•-- —.mum.......m.�_.m.m. NAKASONE= x. 2. ._._._._. am.m.m.m.m. ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. _.nme_._.2.2. _r Am._.2._s 2s_.2._._■.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. moms �- •-.-• -•-•-•-•-•2` 2.2.2•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-._. 2r ■mumu_. _■_■_._.2■m. ■2. 2._._■_._■m■2._._._■_■_._■m._._._._■C •fi mx 2.211_. m.m.m._._.m 2. ■_._■_■_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._ � . Mom moms __. a a/m mumu _.. f_.r._.—._._■—.—.memommmommmo—. _._t2 9momposirm am Mama 2._11_ ,p_■_._.vt _r _._._._._._._�._._._.m._._._._.m._.2 _R s_._._aMAN! EIIM.1"_.2._. ._. ._._._._.m.m._.2._._._.m.m._._.m._._._._ mom: .�:=:=i .moms= i s��' : : : :iii� i2i�iiZ:M:M:i:M:M:�ma__��:� 'OEW CA mililmomm :C' �` �i�i�i�iCm'pmqEW6- flC '� :�r�'C :C:�f.� i2 An RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES RELATING TO THE PRADO ROAD FREEWAY INTERCHANGE FROM THE PROCEEDS OF TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo (City) is undertaking proceedings to facilitate a retail shopping center development known as the San Luis Marketplace, in connection with which it is necessary to finance the construction of a freeway interchange at U.S. 101 and Prado Road (Interchange Project); and WHEREAS, in order to provide funds to finance the Interchange Project, the Council intends to issue and sell its tax-exempt Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of approximately $10 million for the Interchange Project (Bonds); and WHEREAS, in order to use the proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse advances made for the Interchange Project before the date of issuance of the Bonds, but not more than sixty (60) days before the date of adoption of this Resolution, Section 1.150-2 of the United States Income Tax Regulations requires that the Council declare its intention to reimburse such advances from the proceeds of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the City declare its official intent to reimburse the expenditures referenced herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Declaration of Intent. The Council hereby declares that it reasonably expects to issue the Bonds and to use a portion of the proceeds thereof to reimburse advances made for the Interchange Project before the date of issuance of the Bonds, and not more than sixty (60) days before the date of adoption of this Resolution. The Bonds shall be issued in an aggregate principal amount which is sufficient to raise funds for the Interchange Project in the approximate amount of$10 million SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. Attachment D 5-36 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 2 Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call voter AYES.- NOES: ABSENT: the:foregoing resolution was adopted this day of _,1999. Mayor Allen:Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: of G. org en,Oy Attorney 5-37 - MEETING AGENDA DATE cq q ITEM # San Luis Obispo City Council • 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor and Council Members: have wasted countless hours in my car driving to Santa Maria to shop at the "big box" stores. While I appreciate not having those boxes in my town, I am tired of driving that far to shop. The San Luis Marketplace offers big box convenience with San Luis style— I have checked out their website and I am very impressed with what I see. Approve the Marketplace for citizens like me. COUNCIL :CO3PERS �F O ACAO IEF 9�AT�ORNEY S• /Vj � ,l7CLERKIORIG CHF ❑MGMT TEAM �r�yy ❑ R ❑ IR S LH,r3 Irv{ C1+ RECEIVED SEP 2 1 1999 SLO CITY CLERK �v. MEETIN 31-9ti AGENDA TE - ITEM # ysupport the San Luis Marketplace project and would like this card forwarded to the SLO City Council. Name: I/ tr.c 6 pp r IR Address: T.S () jn4 u� PA Z F,O�ATTORINEY City �L o zip: 3�ol ❑F'„_ Phone: Email: ❑FYI D.❑POLICE CNF Comments:EarFILL ilP 7-7./6 117All, ❑REC DIR ❑UTIL DIR ❑PERS DI www.sanluismarketplace.com• 546-4009 n DO NOT ppo e an Luis Marketplace project and would like this card forwarded to the SLO City Council. Name: A.R.Burghardt Address:1024 Stephani nr_ ....City Zip; {� T ° Ffi� ail:,ta�'n� �Scp?vEr' • dRG— Co ents: _ 1SisM7 - ": -kgVlplace.com•546-4009 ... .... . .. .... . i„..r. A o VL 0-r- I"support the San Luis Marketplace project and would like this card forwarded to the SLO City Council. Name: i.c .c:5 7. C1:. .v., nnln CLw Address: 3 0 7 5, l;a ,e.r 5* • LRECEIVED City `-)&w 1.�,L,', y6 ; Zip: 01 -340k 999 Phone: Email:Comments: IL.cr� '>' 1�LERK ;r 00l 4L,.: cv..,. f,i sc,C' f A n�„!,•.., n PlQ wwwsanlulsmarketplace.com •546-4009 4BUILDERS O C u N ! I San Luis Obispo Ofticc Atoscadw Office 3563-6 Sueldo Strect 07 El Cmnino Real San Luis Obispo, CA 993401 Ataascod 93422 805/543-7330 805/466-0870 • 805/543-7016 Fax 805/466-5029 Fax WED PAGE: www.slocbe.com E-MAIL: slocbe@thegrid.net MEET ATE 'y'- TEM #a 5 a�-g� September 15, 1999 Honorable Allen K. Settle Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 RE: Dalidio Development - San Luis Obispo Marketplace Dear Mayor Settle and Councilmembers: We have been following the issue of development on the Dalidio property for some time now. This plan, like many others, presents an opportunity for our members to obtain work close to home, and we are always interested in that. It is our understanding that Mr. Dalidio wants to build both a commercial center and a residential area, and the project will include the extension of Prado Road and other improvements as conditions for this development. It is further our understanding that the project conforms to zoning laws and the overall general plan for the area. It is not our place to judge the economic or aesthetic merits of any given proposal. We could debate from now til eternity the pros and cons of every project ever imagined and still not reach a consensus. We do believe it is incumbent upon government to treat every applicant equally and fairly. We trust that you will not allow any preconceived notions to color your decision, but rather will simply examine the facts objectively and make a rational decision based on the law and not emotions. Very truly yours, [7Ord-AO DIR N DIR r RRE CHIEFO PW DIR ❑POLICE CHF0 REC DIR 0 UTIL DIR ALAN VOLBRECHT 0 PERS DIR President San Luis Obispo County Builders Exchange =RECEIVE-D MEETII J�� Q AGENDA DATE ITEM # To whom it may concern, September 21, 1999 My name is Jeff Lafranchi, and I am the General Manager of Woodstock's Pizza. We are located at 1000 Higuera Street on the corner of Osos and Higuera Streets in San Luis Obispo. My purpose for writing is to publically state our company's opposition to the sidewalk expansion proposal on the City Council agenda for 9-21-99. We oppose this proposal for many reasons, a few of which 1 would like to detail. 1)We feel that the lack of adequate parking has become, and remains, a major issue for businesses in downtown San Luis Obispo to consider. The removal of any parking spaces at this time seems to be a step in the wrong direction. While we understand that there may be a potential gain in widening the sidewalks, we feel that the gain in no way equals the loss of parking in our immediate vicinity. Although we have not had adequate time to consider all aspects, we currently have little(or no) interest in gaining space outside our building to add seating, nor do we expect these feelings to change. 2)As of the current proposal and graph sent to our business on Friday, September 17, we are slated to have one space of parking removed from the area directly outside our business. We have no use for such a small space. It is not adequate to make changes to our operations nor the remodeling of our facilities feasible or justifiable. Given the opportunity to gain more space immediately outside our building (at the loss of additional parking)would not change our opinion. It would be more appealing from a standpoint of additional dining space, but still does not justify or balance the loss of parking. 3)It appears from the drawing that Firestone Grill is the business that stands to gain the most from this proposal... at the cost of all other local businesses. They have the opportunity to gain a great amount of space(five parking spaces worth), while the rest of us will gain very little, or none. From my efforts to communicate with some of our neighboring businesses, I have learned that the owner of Firestone Grill is responsible for this idea and proposal to begin with. While we harbor no ill will toward Mr. Billingsly, we cannot support a project that promotes his success at the cost of the rest of us. I have spoken with a few of the other business owners in the area, and can find no one who supports this idea. Most, like us, are vehemently opposed. As a side note, I'm wondering why the rest of the street is designed to give one space here or there, but Firestone will gain five spaces worth of room. It's not like our customers only park directly in front of the business they are patronizing. My opinion is that, on our block alone, we (as a group) are losing six spaces, yet Firestone will get five of those six, leaving Woodstock's with just one, and all other businesses(Kennedy Nautilus, Hudson's Grill, etc)with nothing. 4)We assume that the space outside our building will come at a cost... which no one has been able to pinpoint. We would be remiss to agree to any"purchase"without seeing the price tag first! Our assumption from this point is that, since the outdoor space does not appeal to us to begin with, it can onl become less agEealing when we attach any substantial cost. E!rCOUNCIL ff, IR O'CAO O'FIN DIRGVkCAO RECEIVED EATTO ❑FIRE CHIEF I�ITTORNEY ❑PW DIR U, 15LERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF S r ❑MGMT TEAM ❑REC DIR ❑ ❑UTIL DIR ❑• ❑PERS DIR LO CITY ;:_ OUNGIL In regards to the changes to the Court Street parking lot.... While we again oppose any removal of parking, we do believe that this could be a positive change. Twelve spaces is a lot to lose, but this could be an investment that gives a positive return to all. In the current configuration,the driveways on all three sides (Osos, Monterey, and Higuera)all suffer traffic congestion problems caused by cars not only entering or exiting the lot, but also by cars that are trying to simply change directions in order to further their search for parking. By keeping the entire pathway internal, the surrounding streets will be freed of great amounts of unnecessary traffic problems. For this idea to be further valuable, I would like to suggest that the city take the surrounding areas and use them for additional parking wherever possible- specifically, the stretch of Mguera Street directly adjacent to the parking lot. Instead of being tied up in the loop in and out of the parking lot,the driveways could be paved over and parking can be added all.along that side. We've noticed, from the drawing, that the area in particular is also proposed to have widened sidewalks,but why?No business is adjacent to that area. Who will use it? If four or five spaces can be added along that stretch, the net loss of parking in the area is only seven or eight spaces, which makes that change far more appealing to our business... and I suspect our neighboring businesses would agree. In summary, while we oppose the removal of any valuable parking spaces anywhere in the downtown area, we would support the changes to the Court Street parking lot if and only if the proposal was modified to provide new spaces where they currently do not exist. As far as the other sidewalk widening ideas, we are strongly opposed. There is no other way • to state this, but the reality of the idea is that all businesses in the area sacrifice valuable parking spaces for the gain of a single business. We do not feel this is fair, nor do we believe it is beneficial to any other downtown businesses or the city as a whole. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jeff4franchi General Manager Woodstock's Pizza MEETI�IGa+_n� AGENDA- RICHARD SCHMIDT A /DATE -ITEM # -2- 112 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 • O CAONCIL iv�CDD DIR IFFIN DIR September 21, 1999 Via FAX 781-71 99�6PAO ❑FIRE CH- ,TTOCLE ANEY ❑PW DIR Re: Dalidio/S.L. Marketplace MOU and Mello-Roos resolution. O'MGMT oMRIn ❑POLICE CHF p ❑h1GMT TEAEI ❑REC DIR ❑ ❑UnL DIR To the Council: ❑ a PERS DI I If you understand what you are being asked to agree to, hats off to you: you must be geniuses! What a lot of incomprehensible, trickily-worded mumbo-jumbo. The proposed MOU is a bad deal for the city and its citizens (as similar arrangements have been bad deals for podunk towns in places like Tennessee and Mississippi, which out of desperation turned to tax subsidy of development only to get burned in return), and should be rejected for the following reasons: 1. Under present city policy, if a residential street is impacted by traffic generated by commercial growth in the city at large, that traffic may only be "calmed" if the street's residents agree to pay for mitigating problems they are in no way responsible for creating. The proposed MOU would reimburse a developer of a commercial growth traffic generator 100% for the costs of only partially mitigating the traffic his project creates. This is unfair, hypocritical, wrong, and simply underscores the tremendous bias this city has at present in favor of promoting • commercial growth and against the health, safety, welfare, peace and quiet, and comfort of its residents. This disparate policy towards who pays for traffic measures depending upon the circumstances is a reflection of the immorality of how our city is currently being run. 2. This $8.7 million (or whatever $$) subsidy to one developer is unprecedented in the history of our city. Is this to provide a precedent for subsidizing other developments? If so, who has decided this, when, and how? If not, how is this one-of-a-kind giveaway fair to other developers past, present and future? 3. The general plan (LUE 1.14) states that development shall pay its own way. This giant giveaway of tax funds clearly conflicts with this general plan policy. (The "out" provided in the policy, "unless the community chooses to help pay the costs. . . to obtain community-wide benefits," does not apply because there has been no consensus-reaching by the.community. The staff and developer representatives who negotiated the MOU do not constitute "the community." Futher, it is a big stretch to say this interchange offers any significant "community- wide benefits." It's just one more freeway interchange in a city that already has too many.) 4. The project is being sold as a way to boost city finances through increased sales tax revenue. But if half that revenue goes back to the developer, little is left for other public uses, like improving downtown, or like mitigating the traffic impacts of this project in neighborhoods like my own, where Broad Street (which already carries twice the traffic load the general plan says RECE ;;ED Schmidt, Dalidio MOU, Page 1 c�? Z 1 1 59 SLO, CITY COUNCIL should be its maximum, the city arrogantly refuses to help s16 the problem it has created) can expect to have 1,000 or more additional cars per day drawn along it towards the freeway solely because of the Bird development. Again, this disposition of funds reflects the stridently pro-business, anti-resident, anti-neighborhood bias of the current city management team, and approval of the MOU will signal the council's acquiescence to this hateful policy direction. 5. It is stupid to lock in the adjustment for transferred sales at 34% when you have no idea what the actual percentage will be. It will probably be much higher. A home improvement center will take nearly all its sales from similar businesses already in the city. Target and Mervyn's, both branches of Dayton Hudson which carry essentially the same merchandise, will not continue to operate side by side; my prediction is Mervyn's will close. Sears will be hurt. In all likelihood, 60- 70% of the sales tax at this center will be cannibalized from existing city businesses, not 34%. 6. Regarding process, you cannot have staff simultaneously telling you that you approve nothing if you give the OK to the MOU and also, to quote the document, "the parties agree that if a Development Agreement is entered into between the parties, it shall substantially include the terms of this MOU." (Last paragraph of the agreement, page 5-27) If you sign onto such a binding "non-binding" agreement, you are violating CERA (see my separate letter on that subject). You'd best delete that phrase if you don't want to end up in court. Although I don't support the Prado Road interchange without altering/closing some other interchanges as part of the deal, if it's to proceed, a better and fairer way to finance it would be to establish a Mello-Roos district which would Include ALL those properties that would directly benefit from the Interchange and leave the city's financial Involvement to be no more than taking care of the 13% "community benefit" portion. We are not desperate for economic growth in San Luis Obispo. We do not need to behave like • town councils in third-world-like parts of the nation. We do not need to subsidize this development. Please reject the MOU. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Schmidt, Dalidio MOU, Page 2 • • MEETI� Go'!1.99 AGENDA RICHARD SCHMIDT DATE ITEM #_`. 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail:rschmidt cal of .ed F $CDD DIR September 21, 1999 �41N DIR 0 FIRE CHIEFRe: San Luis Marketplace MOU and sales tax giveaway and CEQA 0 PW DIR IG 0 POLICE CHFTo the Council: M 0 UTIL DR 0 PERS DIR On the advice of my excellent land use attorney, I am writing once again to re u can approve NO PART of the Marketplace project proposed for the Dalidio property because the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act prior to any approval has not been done. To remind you of the purpose of CEQA: It is to collect and analyze information about environmental impacts of a proposal so that the public and decision makers can have informed knowledge about those impacts and factor that knowledge into their thinking BEFORE approving a project. In the case of the Marketplace, an EIR is being prepared, but is far from Complete.' Therefore,you cannot approve any part of the project. I am aware that staff is attempting to cloud this issue by telling you that you aren't approving anything when in fact its recommendation is precisely that you approve something.And with this advice, staff launches you down a steep slippery slope towards violation of both the intent and letter of CEQA. It is symbolic of the tragedy which has overtaken the city's once great planning program under the current manipulative administration that this cynical minimalism is all the CEQA compliance we now get, especially on a project that dwarfs all other projects we've ever contemplated, and, indeed, dwarfs the city itself. In the past, under the leadership of Mayor Ken Schwartz and others,our planning program was a model for cities of our size, and our CEQA compliance attempted to protect the environment rather than minimally conform to the lowest level of effort the courts will tolerate.This devolution of our planning program is one of the chief chapters in the on-going transformation of San Luis Obispo from a special place to a place just like everyplace else. I disagree with the staff's advice to you on this matter. I believe that approval of the MOU is in fact"approval"for CEQA purposes, and that it should not be considered until the EIR is complete and adopted. Therefore, I urge you not to proceed with this"approval,"whatever your feelings about the proposed agreement may be. In any event,you must remember that whatever you authorize tonight,you have in fact "approved"nothing, that the outcome cannot be 'binding'on any party now or in the future, and that at any time in the future, it's as if your action tonight never took place and can be ignored by this or any future council. To hold otherwise would be a violation of the law's requirement that CEQA work be complete pr,'or to approval. We shall be monitoring this situation, and are prepared to take legal action should the council,tonight or in the future,forget that its action tonight has approved nothing. re ly, Richard Schmidt FRE—CEIVED 2 j 1999 I s ' I hope you have all reviewed the DEIR, a dreadful document which, it the city took its CEQA responsibilities seriously,would never have been released for public review in its present form. MEL AGENDA DATE "ate ITEM # 5 mcmmanbum �9011NgL9 D DIR September 20, 1999 �AO N DIR CT❑FlRE CHIEF E3 PIN DIR TO: Mayor and Council Members pp p G ❑POLICE CHF ❑MGMT TEAM ❑REC DIR FROM: Sherry Stendahl ❑ E3 unL DIR ❑ ❑PERS DIR SUBJECT: San Luis Marketplace Citizen Letters A third group of letters and postcards regarding the San Luis Marketplace have been received. Six do not favor the Marketplace, 20 are in favor of it. The names of the correspondents are listed below: Chris Knecht Frank DuFault Blaine Enninga Kenneth W. Jones Jack Spaulding Herbert/Darlene Haley Betty Mundy Linda Wilhelmi Bob Stadtherr Karen Layland Donna/David Nord Alice Williams Tom Atkison Karen S. Layland Jennifer Miller Russ Kimmell Bob Stadthern Jolene Wittenberg Bill/Betty Henson Landis Everson John/Sue Van Etten Diane Behn Felicia M. Cashin James A. Cashin These letters have been placed in the Council Office for your review. RECEIVED SEP 2 1 1999 SLO CITY CLERK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEET AuENDA Geoffrey Land Chair � Jennifer Renzo,Vice-Chair k5lr DATE °'t -q9 ITEM # 5 Leslie Jones, Secretary Bob Wolf,Treasurer IRONMENTAL CENTER David Braun Don Dollar OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Bob Lavelle 21 September 1999 Kimberly Rosa p Arlene Winn Holly Ziegler Mayor Allen Settle F?CAO ,Err1IIADD r!s San Luis Obispo City Council DI❑FIREC:990 Palm Street ❑PW Di7San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑POLICE C„F❑REC DIR ❑UTIL DIR Re: Dalidio Marketplace ❑PERS DI ti Dear Mayor Settle and Councilmembers, Last night the "whole town" turned out to support a new commercial development in San Luis Obispo. Pretty much unprecedented I would say. Tonight will be very different. Why? Because last night you heard a proposal to build an innovative, compact, pedestrian-oriented,human-scaled, in-fill commercial project in the downtown commercial core..Tonight you will hear a proposal for an auto-centric, pedestrian- inaccessible,non-human scaled shopping mall built on the outskirts of town on prime ag land...next to a freeway and another dying mall. You can't have it both ways. You can't support the downtown and simultaneously destroy it; at least you can't and not be called hypocrites. The Dalidio "Marketplace" is bad planning. It was a mistake to include it in the General Plan Update in 1994 and it is a mistake today. The mayor's justification for supporting this project is that since he made that mistake in'94 he is bound by it today. Nonsense! We have learned much in the last 5 years and last night should be a shining example of that. This is yet another example of a bad project that divides this community and tears the heart out of our downtown. As city leaders, you should be approving projects that bring us together. You should be reducing automobile usage (read your Circulation Element),preserving farmland, and you should be bright enough to not repeat the same mistakes made by others. Last night was a turning point in city planning. People came together, united by a common vision. Will tonight just be business as usual? A roomful of people divided and a lousy project approved on a 3 to 2 vote? We can do better than that. You can do better than that. Sincece el� RECEIVED S E P 2 0 1999 at Veesart xecutive Director 3L0 CITY COUIy� 864 Osos Street,Suite C Tel.805/544-1777 P.O.Box 1014 Fax 805/544-1871 San Luis Obispo,California 93406 Printed on 100%treefree, chlorinefreepaper e-mail ecoslo@,slonet.org MEETI' AGENDA DATEd_ITEM # mcmoRanoum C7 COUNCIL O'CDO DIR G3'CA EE°J�F14 0'R September 21, 1999 &KCAO ❑FIs.:r: TTORNEY 6l'1 LERKIORIG ❑POL!: C TO: Council Colleagues ❑LIG61T TEAM ❑REC DIR ❑ ❑UTIL DIP. ❑,_ ❑PERS DI l3 FROM: John Ewan SUBJECT: Orcutt Road/Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation The Johnson Avenue area of town needs to see relief for circulation that goes through Old Town which could be rerouted on Orcutt Road if we had a grade separation. We should be looking at what Rep. Capps may be able to procure at the Federal level as well as what Sen. O'Connell and Assemblyman Maldonado may be able to obtain from the state. I believe this connection is essential to good circulation on the west side of our city, and would like to take on the challenge of procuring funds for this project. I request that Council ask staff to report back, as a part of its Prado Road extension study (from Broad to Johnson) preliminary design and cost estimates for a grade separation. I would also appreciate a list of pending Federal and state legislation from which we may realize funding. Thank you. d RECEIVED SEP 2 1 1999 SLO CTY CLERK ` IY1JTI%1 AGENDA,,, ITEM # '� September 1, 1999 FfirACAO CIL D DIR --PFI DIR San Luis Obispo City Council ❑FIRE CHIEF 990 Palm Street RNEY ❑PO DIR KfORifi ❑POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, California 93401 T TEAM ❑REC DIR ❑UTIL DIR ❑PERS DIR I Dear Council Members: We, as property owners and business people in the Prado Road/San Luis Obispo Airport area, know that it is necessary to build an overpass at Prado Road and Highway 101. The circuitous route drivers must now travel to go from one side of town to the other needs to be remedied. The Prado Road overpass—and, ultimately,the extension of Prado Road to Broad Street—is a key component of the city's future transportation plans. While helping to alleviate traffic congestion on some of the main arteries of the city, i.e. Madonna and Los Osos Valley Roads, Higuera Street, it also will allow easier access to our businesses for San Luis Obispo residents as well as those in surrounding communities. Additionally, the overpass and extension of Prado Road will allow emergency personnel, police, fire and ambulance drivers, an efficient route to traverse the city. With approval of the San Luis Marketplace, the city will be relieved of a heavy financial burden to build the overpass—a burden that it might not be able to shoulder in the foreseeable future. The San Luis Marketplace proposal is a good project for San Luis Obispo and with the construction of the overpass will be important to the continued success of the businesses in the Airport Area We urge your support of this development. RECEIVED Sincerely, SEP 2 J 1999 1A nSLO C1TY COUNCIL "Ay IO L, POA0 �6 ?/lADo R6, S."o. �e�., 1. t7olvAc.p s Sve -Ct-�,k, 60 PrA Ra - �: LO 37,7,4S. fid fvr. - � " -7 - S 1�21�U (2l2n '' >�cL Mo/ /J Cl on/c� 7 n �'I'A DD IZv / c /1'70 7-0 0,0r��r�9d ) �c/ Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address xo%q-C-700*C- 2 .rq t-,0 f-ov J) ran)I t. r4 /7</ Sc d 16 f R,vc �76 Y z a C)9-6—IS-1 LiengfZZA CAP .6 (0 3 1:3 Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address XX •s U���i7t�'1� ��5� �%�il.C1 �it� SGC) - :�,��- �% Vii. /D�T��c�rJ M. .p�'.•YGG_ 8�:��l�!.'e ,��/, .S,LG �rev e.•�l� � .;�; �:�,;C. er '!10 I VO LGl e5�e2 Gi�faj-14'6 _1G► s 2 .Cry-, �Ia�iEc� I. ► J� S.o Gc�W-�s tPa VLA '� alt? 1 y, 3•-S ��.%�url- R, . � Cts I�/U i ewcf LUiS 0i �d �� ���(� Prado Road Business/ Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address yn JXf ff �-/.¢1N�'' .tel ���Gi.��J.•U.Y �"d'T�u �'ry '/t/� 7�� Al. 0,41,VScdT ��� �,/f.�,c.�c .S',�,,0 STO(f�{°y� �� '�I' �aylj (l K Pi�/✓ �1� A l C�V z l �. /\L a� J LC �- 14 f- o �r�c. GAS T aKC\y l\� C�CrU2. OLN/f-(G. ' ' � L-���.l-t�� r►� ���' 105 - 7Q-rUk�AfM o . ikC �7 i�fc 1 fsc7en- �G PAK 6J SYCTL! K .�;i<rF� �7 �r► rra F r�� < �o �li+� J i.,,.� .SQA..-�i.r /�o-,p_r��lo C�� S��.•-� �r,�„ �� S� &L D2 SL, Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address j7txr6/j Df�-�d f* if �/J� R lcl�ar.0 • C�4�cr�j-e c?9;TAn'k FAWAI) R-d -54C(/ r �t4,� ;�.�� �a k�-ar,� Iv�j fS .ZZ.. • �- �/�''fLf./1Aty �x�/2(��u LG.S hk�n iwe p W-Kee, 17i�0 t�roUd hk hL� fvwn Jar DO BKD"c sy, � TI - erob:a3 �yV r �� W Gw•.._. � - _< eI, x � 3230 d Prado Road/Airport Area Property/Busmess People September 1, 1999 Signature Print Name Print Address 1-117 4? eeT I' A"e Al IVI �1114-1 — c 0 If Ole, 7e-we.7' Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name 8•.Business Address E�� G Rent � rte II�� ��o i S . �5 •—S/.� Vii' 6 G— s ►� �C- c / r � �;'�.-. �-'�_,9� l ��l•J i��:. w;,i r_. /J 4-3 .J+.a l Wit.f.lj•;.v,� �/ SC." J �/"7LC�-�-�--£�G• �%1�CGC S/t�//V/- L'.PGC./7L /J ' ,C.�ti, � �� ` • '2 • ' U 'yl JO�ev�t2c L�.i�.Ulti�i�-��✓1- � r �,U ���t kn- W � h1o:-• ��ll: �Gi Lc�. ��+, S,t_ � g 3P LU-Z �aD /A/&G 7n0% Sc7/Z--&VV PBJ�JN� -?amu 7-Ae -%pzL �ly✓ li� ��zn G�ba�l nom_ Prado Road Business/Property owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address CQ. 'SCO-FT So--t (T/l Zt, The GradLkAfe 1nOu4r r{f{ -i�) Av, l Nr6RAy\ IIIrJ���lM��a �1 -2--77 �1 e412 Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address 'FO lM Tr"4-1I ff 3 T S S Gjvi�re sot i e P�avtaltSaH r �� . Sc_O R34 01-�3 �Ila 2— _ SC 4071 —T �r2<)rlc�i��.l �a+ r!/"f ��/l • f /..rrrs ��I/'C�ll E�`� 11 o.�t o T/o,V 1'04Us /rz-� �.�U, sT �Aoi✓r' S� rrG41fs46i-c R-aot IL-4 � O 6U � 731 121GHAna AT ac--.) A. C'a ae�c.� qR�+ o . �0 X `7 4 a AAD .t'f�9 T� y�Y�J�.2�-- ?v Jfc., x 3 7-j7 jt,pe�. .a.t'1+ D rpm.✓ S �sa oJ. oo G•1 I,cc P,weil Whs7/u Ai ON /HC + HCl Sab4c.f L+ta gx. "#!}-2 VipeCAcrlw 4Fc is SA s Zu:s�br or CA-q-3 ANaV J0Q.0Ay-%,J ! 3t7 ��A7/1r Zcly l.nr C'r r p/J aANE / fk� e.)IIVTfr1• ,r � , C�eycE� tljJni�ctIS �rl�sr'o (R y�scc l W,---Z—O/"AS✓,//LS G— :7 Prado Road/Airport Area Pro ertyBusmess People September 1, 1999 CIO 0 / i ►4n%�Z- 77 lei �:SP�PSso 77� c� . l ? rJ/n✓i� �l <'lCIU g/oal MtJlXAA S 5-3 24) 1 a L'Li` 1 lik!t7 z ft f1 y V U 71 eel, � 5. ty 11 Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address Los�aqq'aA�r C'o - / 1 7 /) �� � �dta2t,�ft57 lN1�t,S?12t1� A�G� 2 LGntet SL.O �,., �_ �o,rv.�-�-, Vty-.�Na Fie«►-,+ _ ZSO �nc�', C4 t DP (\ �'1i.■„1 GM-�2.Srl.l 3SC.,3 S"cLDu Si S=6 <! IFV, rur� ns 11.�4r.:211 3s6C C 47 L2 6w_w4y V)oj4crk) Iq G s v CKYY0 Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address 4- 307 Gl•�,(Ar«tee. 62z,-& ,�y c • � X(. rncPx�des P1tin�biro C;64 i ?G7 Clb! r CD tV 1 , l S. NA-- rrr ER CNA �/ 3zC /L ncl'.v O SSS ' ,,,r ,!� �Q.ge�/..tA L.oPF.✓J7.J ,35G� V. /.Jla 0E�t,,4 fiE,r.ti Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address T(neafo<<? Kj 6.Qm .' lrals CorA. �1l1�•, P. CY�CLJ ,fid 4 . � CLII���I'NiaCCrNt�lz3rl+0 ,(,J�$ GfaaC�Q- �7�1Li1T �,•+.ry�ow•bx Iii tL Com: �c�c� �ior,C .S3A �hi�i ��d oE�r C E� PKv jcxry Svcs. 356 3 6. r Mf W-0 USG SWC Jar .� Y aUr� � 'Lt • �/f,l/f � 1 �E'Jr 11t�nU �na/�hLti rluJ�t ff11l�n/+ci lCi��•� _ f ,�. �gni3�',�,✓e �i',✓,�s�cw,,,.F � S 3 y B Ern rrl�-z.� r.� // '� �/i?.Uf/�✓:J Y� Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address --c S7 e-.Z.e (j(�1S CCU- CidI/ h1� � 1 \I�i�) \ ( ' "'i j� _;MG {"ji i1,'il O-Z KlMv.)A KA CL�U }—ivw, i, GO elz)�0 C-0 X- FAV) 17-'11 z- 7i < Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address Chroph �� 22s PMdod y�e(� . AA A L,,wvfKxr 5w„rn �f 3!3;913 2- Ncc Tr�F � I t�ou11e �laY« !/ l Q,P `5 f3Fc SFS Bi _/A56 Cl Prado Road/Airport Area Property/Business People September 1, 1999 Z77 RD , 1 — J -TtI c 13 iL7-SS wc1Z4. Sq l'Afiyc Kort Lo pes �S►�,�� tag GtJ0 �i vE l%v ph ssvu rfF� -6 1 Z/ W� Q-f, 352 S lrlSVe�a Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address 'VA j AlvEj. g vto 5 V AfA ��fiebfijV CAAS?A� ���IiQ'�YnK nuc. S� I -�t�.r�r�`✓_ f.:/�, ��_�. L-�/�. -`�%moi -�r ��'u�r �D nA V/A L-z-8)9 1 1JkC ��1+ J�yDyrrz WIMP j✓�: Z;/-- C'/J C cc• Cc��r'� SLO C4 `517po1 ij LQF. Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address vr+►T TR VSA QST A� STFvEc3.e p// S 014-1 ipT 0 } j� CAP)-FOL I D Lk -71Y6 P/�YNT'S'tr ���� �icr.. PPFti4j� Cao p)7b Li-5 roRJ- N\APJ gss OW1'�uo W Ay Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address bx� V"Zai v 'f7 Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address lwej 7' UJ CJ a sv 0 ft Z4 Z7 Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address `6 VA JenI) Alf: got jblA)7),-Q A L 7 A e4- /IALA't L)bL- L0 Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address Janice Langley 51 Zaca Lane Dioptics SLO CA 93401 -�ANIce LApr.LEt 1 �.[vP71Cs SI (la�E Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address v rp�i� Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address (LiRiv►� 7 ��,G! RoIA -J" .r RA i s i 5�6�6an 11{£LA-m K0 CoMeAVir ado? (39DAD Sr Seo Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&Business Address f,�C9$c�T G �Adil�tvJ DWX1F7 � e i Prado Road Business/Property Owners September 1, 1999 Signature Please Print Name&.Business Address Zo5 SUg V 2 gA rl V21 JN e, 7. I __ . . . ._. . ______ --- MEETINr- AGENDA DATE J q y ITEM # 5 S L O C O U N TY sen Luis Obispo Officc Atascadcro Office BUILDERS 3363-4 S�eldo S"v:ct 5407 a Cmnino Rud • P ��++ 5071 Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Atascodero, CA 93422 EXCHANGE G E 805/543-7330 805/466-0870 805/543-7016 Far 845/666-5029 Fax WEB PAGE: www.slacbe.com : slocbe&hegrid.net ,qPOUNCILD DIR O ,PJ FIN DIR U1ACAO ❑FIRE CHIEF -03TTORNEY ❑PW DIR CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF ❑MGMT TEAM ❑REC DIR ❑ ❑UTIL DIR ❑1 ❑PIERS DIR t� September 15, 1999 Honorable Allen K. Settle Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo; CA 93403 RE, Daliidio Development - San Luis Obispo Marketplace Dear Mayor Settle and Councilmembers: We have been following the issue of development on the Dafidio property for some time now. This plan, like many others, presents an opportunity for our members to obtain work close to home, and we are always interested in that. It is our understanding that Mr. Dalidio wants to build both a commercial center and a residential area, and the project will include the extension of Prado Road and other improvements as conditions for this development. It is further our understanding that the project conforms to zoning laws and the overall general plan for the area. It is not our place to judge the economic or aesthetic merits of any given proposal. We could debate from now til eternity the pros and cons of every project ever imagined and still not reach a consensus. We do believe it is incumbent upon government to treat every applicant equally and fairly. We trust that you will not allow any preconceived notions to color your decision, but rather will simply examine the facts objectively and make a rational decision based on the law and not emotions. Very truly yours, dal AI,AN VOLBRECHT President San Luis Obispo County Builders ExchangeR.r ;-_i e� —I c--FAP Z 0 1999 IZ!0 CITY �_Ol1r�i�;l� °MEETING AGENDA _,ATE 2-11 -22 ITEM #. To: San Luis Obispo City Council Sept. 2O 1 MNCIL- EnDD DIP • From: David Hafemeister of SLO k EWIN DIP °➢ WCAO ❑FIRE CHIc'F Re: Kotin San Luis Marketplace Economic Study ATTORNEY ❑PW DIP �CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF ❑MGMT TEAM ❑REC DIP. The Kotin report estimate for the San Luis Marketplace (p ��8�-- ❑urn D I ❑PERS DIP $42 M/y capture from other retailers in SLO city $79 M/y capture from Central Coast outside of SLO city $121 M/y total sales "...$121 M, estimated on the basis of data provided by the developer" 1 . What data from the developer? This is crucial, bad data gives bad estimates. 2. "Attract new, national retailers to SLO such as Target" (MOU pg. 3). But isn't Target very, very similar to Mervyn's and does Target overlap with Sears and other Madonna-area stores. 3. "The [Kotin] study also argued that the overall benefit to the downtown will be greater than the project than without it, by attracting more regional customers to the city and by encouraging more local shopping..." (MOU memo, page 3) The national trend has been for edge-of-town malls to deplete the downtown and not to give an "overall benefit." 4. "...the study estimated annual additional revenues of about $1M." (MOU memo, page 3). Isn't this too large? The $79 M capture beyond the SLO stores losses is the relevant number for the city to use, and not the $121 M since $42 M is lost by other SLO stores. The $79 gain number should be reduced by 34% (MOU Memo page 5). It is the net revenue gain that should be of interest to the city if it is to take a financial risk on the $10 M Prado overpass. 5. Prior predictions for the Central Coast Plaza have not been accurate. The 1978 Economic Impact Study for the San Luis Mall Shopping Center (now CCP) predicted 1980 sales of $19 M/year. Inflation approximately raises this prediction by a factor of two (Presidential Report to the Congress) to $40 M/y in present dollars. I was unable to obtain the present sales of the CCP from the owners or the cit RECEIVED S F P 2 11 1999 SLO CITY COUNCIL but the present state of the CCP strongly indicates that the past economic report was much too optimistic. 6. SLO tax revenue for Madonna Road Area (SLO Tax Newsletter, 1 n quarter of 1999). Can one extract CCP data from the regional total? The Madonna area had a four quarter average of $237,039/quarter (pg. 7), or a total revenue of $0.948 M/year, which is the predicted revenue for the San Luis Marketplace. Do we expect the SLM to have a revenue of $1 M/year, equal to that of the entire Madonna area as it now stands? 7. Mall Capacity Factor (Kotin, page 7). The economic concept of "capacity" is flawed. Page 7 shows that the capacity of other central coast areas is not changed if the SL Marketplace is built. A store's capacity to sell is not a fixed quantity, it will depend on its competitors, the economy and other things. Certainly a store can sell at twice its capacity, so it is not a fixed limit. More box stores and malls will clearly detract from the "capacity" to sell. 8. Other Malls in SLO County (Kotin, pg. 15). This table lists 18 malls, • but it lacks (1 ) the Atascadero Commercial Center (240,000 ft2), (2) Eagle? (220,000 fz), (3) Marigold Center, (4) Foothill-Santa Rosa (40% of Madonna area stores), (5) others. Conclusion: The above 8 factors, taken together, will reduce the SLO tax revenue of the SLM considerably below $1 M/year. MEtrrNG AGENDA DATE L -Q ITEM #. S mcmmanoum - September 16, 1999 � NCII FlN DIR DI CAO ❑FIRE CHIEF TO: Mayor and Council Members RNEY" ❑PW DIR LERK"I G ❑POLICE CHF ❑ MT TEAM ❑REC DIR FROM: Sherry Stendahl K W 5e(la -` ❑UTIL DIR I e I , 1 %cc 1 ❑PERS DIR SUBJECT: San Luis Marketplace - Citizen LettersTiburY'� A second group of letters addressed to the Council have been placed in the Council Office for your review. A list of correspondents is attached. This group of letters total 168. For your information, 167 support the San Luis Marketplace project, one does not. c: John Dunn Jeff Jorgensen Bill Statler Ken Hampian Arnold Jonas Ron Whisenand Pam Ricci Lee Price RECEIVED SEP 1 6 1999 SLO CITY CLERK r SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE AGENDA ITEM FOR 9-21-99 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING: (Some signatures are not legible.) Mildred H. Olaysen Ross Joan Larive David Maksouian Janine Lindeman Ethel Larive L Sheely Alfred Martinelli Theresa Rapley Ruth M. Schwartz Peter Nash Marshall Lcarh Dorthy Hildenbrand John Myers Robert Sanders Laura H. Crooks Thomas Reay Tommy Miner Suzanne Edwards Martha Bemis Fannie Miner Robert. D. B Gene Garritano Angela Maez Michele McBride Brian Wiese Rosi Hollins Dan McBride Pob Garcia R. Youngman Neil Thom Rubin Jones Billy Page Vilet Nimmo Beverly Simons Daryl Quaintance Jo ann Jennings Ray Ball R.V. Cutburth Elvira Callaway Cathy L Edward & Evelyn Sweeney W.F. Callaway Ryk Kluver Roxanna M. Clark Marion Budar Deborah Tompkins Diane Martinelli Marilyn Kinyon Gerald Knect Terry Romero Gina Edwards Lori McCormick Michael Reps Sarah Sanders Kathy Reese Thomas A. Ford Jennifer T Albert Souza Virginia Jackman Jerry Kinyou Sanford B. White Rev. John L. Lewis Chuck Reynolds Silvia Mesendiz Ervin Lewis John_runln Daniel Quaresma Alfonso Daniels, Jr. Patrick Smith Felton Ferrini Thomas Miner Paul Aurignac Dlark D. Nicholas Wendy Scalise Fran Younger Ron Rusconi Mike Spangler M.W. Lininger Margaret Lewis Ken Thoming Theresa M. Ruda Catherine Haynes Michael Brown Jeanine Victor Marcia Perez Bruce Hayden Michael S. Bergantz Donald Frazier Laura Foppiano Burtors C. Van Dale Smith Walt Gonyer Helga E. Anies Eric McLain Eleanor Gonyer Luise Lam Tom Sewell Florence Nelson Myra Nickelsberg Randy Jordan Adeline M. Miller Jean L. Wood Jill Hale Lisa Newton Debbie Little Joseph Baptista Elizabeth Schmitt Vera M. Van Kathi Thomson Kimberly Ratliff Tom Murrell Belva Souza Lisa A. Berger Jane McClory Betty R. Grace Joan Young Michael Bebour Barbara Battalino Jennifer Young Sandra Bebout Tim Oliver Robert Neal Hal Dixon Robert Oliver Mark Baird John Thompson, Jr. Steve J. Buc Delphine C. Silva Kennith Reed May Wall Melba K. Wilson Charlotte Ligonhud _ Alma C. Ligon S.L. Ligon Nate Burden Madeline Jordano Sweer Helen Maher Buck Violet P. Enos Thomas S. Eaten Mary C. Guerra Shawn Gallagher John E. Key Bette J. Dunt T S Christine L. Niland E. A.Niland Wayne E. Stanfield Howard Coccia Marianne Caccia Rod A. Gison Ashley Victor Daren Barnes Brad Goodwin Loal Lorenzo Marie Jenson McGrath Jenny&Kim Stickler Jack Knecht Rosanna Medeiros Barbara Bjorklund Myers Tom Myers Eleanor Mases Perrine El Richard Kranzdorf Adelaide Crosby\ Kathleen Haley Grace Tietje Nicholas A. Tietje Carol Richards\ James R. Berry Richard Tietje Adelaide Berry Tietje Diane M. Behn Jack Burby GAa Val Sc Wt t p I • q VVLCLVLU_PeXA T 61 . � L I a r �a -OL V e a la.vt7t 5C u(Aav� ff,, Y rr uu r4 C N o 4 -Kt —PsJ,5.e 1 vt-Q►Hla��or,� a.J�rr __7u t's �q 14 -tom ! September 13, 1999 ■j �'`6�t r/c e� a� Dear Property Owner: By now you've probably heard about San Luis Marketplace—an innovative.proposal to develop a 515,000-square-foot, pedestrian-friendly shopping center on land owned by the Dalidio family adjacent to the Central Coast Mall. So far, much of the discussion about the San Luis Marketplace has rcvolved around the shopping center only—with little said about the project's related community benefits. Besides-offering retail shopping choices that are not currently available in San Luis Obispo, such as Target, approval of the Marketplace proposal promises the building of a Highway 101 overpass at Prado,Road, generous sales tax revenues, a 60-acre gift of open space and a plentiful source of water for the city. An overpass at Prado'Road is an ihteg;al part of the city's long-range traffic circulation plans. To say this is the last, best chance for construction of the overpass is not overstating the .circumstances. We,will essentially pay to build the overpass as part of San Luis Marketplace; the city will only have to provide 13'percent of the costs. No other funding source exists to foot the bill for the overpass. The San Luis Marketplace proposal is at a critical phase. A crucial City Council hearing is scheduled Tuesday, Sept. 21, at 7,p.m. The mayor and city council members need to hear from constituents that the Marketplace enjoys the community's support. You can help by signing the enclosed card and returning it immediately. If you would like to offer additional help,please call our information line at 546-4009 and leave a message. Or, log onto.our website at.www.s'anlui smarketp]ace.com. Your support is truly appreciated. Sincerely, Ernie Dalidio P.O. Box 16104, SAN 1.U15 nitism, CA 93,106 P110NI:.: (805.) .5,16-,1009 R,-A1.All.: 14�LIDIn(ri tiANLli15AL1RAFa'PLA :F..CUM1I 1C'lC W.LANWISMAliKF I'I'LACE.COA1 3-aa m n y N o•n 3 r c n n S 3�D0 < o.-GioG' cZ oy :° Do, o•aoNGyO^ an.^n H.c 3co � 0 m � y � m CD m m m aoD m m m o N p ^ o m m °:'°_ m m > >.� 1 mmy �vm 003= mU�m� m'om �a�.Qvmmm ,'xv ID N O N m'p Ca'1 y'O -1 7 m ma �.1 -1 3 < JC N =.m S p m 0 N. 'y ry to S n m n m -t 7 9 v= m p N m m O m I N = 'O fD G 0 n O O N O z m �_° S p .1 0a .m. ^ .1 m.r m=� • C N m•O O p m 7 d p p m C m ~ °•° d m P O ?y ' m m E N �,Ip .3•. m Oa i N .q 0 0 t~D ~x y fD N O am p E a CDD w 0 < 7 C� p^ = f7 m O p� w � S • m m o.__--1 m m Sm fD o m o O o.�•G1 c 2 7 N m N m f)p •� m < C o•7 E p d O O m I O m C•� ryO �E S� yC �.m an �•.N. • ^N r`ny S^ti dppa �.d3 ^d m7 17m-� y0- OC) 3 \ - '7 _ n m 7 y _•n O_ m 0 N:O'n -t•O �.m m'O S n Lf _S o 0 m < C y (D _^ m m 0'm d ^ N N m 00 m y p y.m S"{ m m m'C ^ O X.�. E m ° p ° N N r -, O' a 0 O.^ S. S O.O •7 -t m O y N 3 m y'° y:3, l v • o^ r_.c m 3 m aoiD y o o' cm D O m N m 7 < • d,;,,O C. .m-.9 7•..,£ I C S N ^ you 3 c m aoo H d 9 e 'o -m+ ° a"M ?N m 3 m ' aapD'3 r90 m G N'E m C d ;z N`i N. Doo N m p.°. '^W A _� w •C 0a �'mp m N O fND ^.N o5 �.0 cm_o m S 0 7b yQ 0 O H p,f�DCD m•G W '•j S G y a C o N '~ C.m p f<D o N SD z.�•.p w m 0 �� m �c C7^.-M-,.. w c<< ;' 1=0> 3 °: � ° `" c PQC o o-•yo m M ^ +D o CD-0 7 C.- m Sm7 -1 m _.NOO m IL riJ �•mp l N -'CCN + ABm S2" _ m £ Pm gocoo E £ 007 a°+.a SRI 2" �o sy .00'H , -, yc oSN 'm+ m m ^S m n H m N m m m O O. . 1, N m C N .°.1 m _a o ,~•. a C m m a f•'D £ ; !M!.A m ^..°....°y ° N Cn ' • �.�-q mP£ " `D $ �" 3a' 3E " o33 NcmDa 0, y eC•. OU 9 11O C v,m ^ m 7 £ < ^m m m N in E O a 0 �_.M=; :0I c:mNr�= N £ O ^� momdAo.amo —o �.c -�-- ^/ mAoz -d C .°, � p^? 5O A £ pG'+ •' "1 < C �g-•,C .� V� e� Sy � Ca^ 9�G w` .m. .q C -�I .6^ m71E mmm ,,^^ 13 'm mm O�ovm = . on ° moML T� 'o Eoy3o 4,1 ID m �► 1� ID a-•, 7 7 C m mr y m m cD m o S-^`C 7 �_^ S w N i; i O \ �•O 05 S�^.nOa N "' W. 79 m'Op m3Npo m0 ^ --N /� /�.�� ♦ � pro 5-, - m - oe me _9 3 \ y 1 /[ ) m3c �� am � vmaD moex_ NmS_ . m klq S �..-•^ p N o 1 m 3 O m m m ' b om ENn o . m 3d 101° moa m mNm opo omommoo = D _ aim a 3 .Nm 00 n g o a m o d + o o^o S a y y= y° C �� G7 m m 1'D m am a m'<y.N m m »-O i NN ° m c Y• `A1 >:w0 ' O .pmo � :� Om Nf3D ° a ® p : m '00 CDo 0) n 1;£ p =0a m `t £ y W -'a S o p v L p f~D 0 x0a y m m H m .X a w , E N wi ELM N 0 m t< m ^mt d 67TH 0 y CD `-.7 m n m m S. o -1x CD W S=1m .mNso -mlaom� P mmS ,< o-soy"^ w Nx.� a ` te m•O o £'< 0o ^ w � "F•S: Js i'xa O 7 £ -'t 1 Y a< L, .j m 00 n 4 , >, k > :.�'4 Sd7n ?omo � n 'p Wmo OR ^3 m -'a `< m O m 7 to m - O O ;I'D:. O S d no- 0=,- 21 i G e.m Saa n m h:3 ;::;::,.;: �,� � iYi� z�l�:y .e'• .:.�a.`.:. .� < S'm-•'°o C a'G�C N a y _ Nam .o «^ f. ID em+ O £ m C m mrr CD t a Y(�ad; . c<i :> m =° ID = _ °'d O ; Q° , 3. "4' a,�,•' 1<. E.<fR >A; 1. 3 m. m o <D G..°.G 7 [D ' ' y � A A.N G� �o '°t .°., fSD fSD7 Ar°OHd ` aat n- , z m^ m='m 3 A o 3 m m G o —m C ,my o ` :.;e ; .. a 7 w y O m m m IG 7C'O m O O 'i':: .11::i (!N 'k;}\:':hi4].EY:. ( /;. <P�m �^]?m o m d,e.f', o n m N.^ '' O .� Kms.: y u N• _/ � p 3.< ^-1 S° .°o. m'o E a -n N'p o c m ,nM d m'vs3 � m3 �DCmo wo3 n ° ^N GOco .00 y '°t 7C w S � N O p.m. ^ i;;. ` ,� �{ 55 F rr'�, b �+t. :k ►1... � CD 3 �•o' m m ^ 3 FIB,, J m c Do 9 cn A �N S-°".o x d 7m0 fD :.:� 2 a++: mono Io`m .Nc + xlo .�3 am c P mm 0 m or a O N m S^ N d C O S m O X mmm y 3 ,- P•� o,°m9 mm3 ^ O•o De OD o <'(a O (Doo a x _ md� 33 � �; E ? _�- mmm n 3r o a Damon -1 �7 77p O oy ttl< ••m ° 'Om _mm 9m £ < C ° m "�O m0aOmm00E. .-.-N -•O•m m m m ,�00 ._'.. O N n N^C y co V � -n N 7 Sm N 3m S- O N :Dr m O•am a fD O•S / b Gm77 �<003 G.N .y1 CL m OSm CSp � N'< fpDy�coayoa C ^ C;Sm@OCmc nISIOD D A V ED! ° ID n 7 C m R.°q N y C ° o m m+G'S.°►n O vi .^.O C < "'� 7 O- m 7 °• Q N (rr 0p ynAo.�7my.° CN SW7•N (CDDy �.N aOm fOmDC ��,po„ � 30 . 1 .°w m '1 w •t m O m •� m 300 N m y m m y 0 0-N N N m =v .O N ^'•C ^'p P m ]b 0 CD 0 N O S2yw -,o0 wwy � .:SS3 gra PCO y d't ^-"tN aS° z.H 'S'mN a-tm m �.y ^m(D m 3 y N m m y'<� n ppp m -1 0-00 r, m V S d � S�G 0 -'a: m m �� p0-mpploao' Ha rn'4 � ° n=;=o'o3o�moo,Cf=IVyDrno', mv� � ° m ao�m .m, 3 a p.°, ^ tG N m-<00 S•m G y m `y n O-1 1 7 d�Cp m p C�--11 `< ^O m 7 N m N E S.O DO _ n w N m m fD FA at< J'3 m o'v a O n ° 't p N Cr °^^6 m O m 3 d m =m m 0a O O p ,+.d m '1 m 0. O O' r00 w o n P< C 1 d w la-crm moPw ' o`D ° < •`< °D < N -IE � m3m m, 0CLa o °^' 3. �yao `�.� ow �3 A o•^ moa� �� Pme£ 3emmm '�c1$r^army P3mm5 m goon , =0 -M �.00� 3mmc ° M £ o Ooy3emm �w � w��CD m ° -mi2•-mi �D :v °� < y ^ ymD13.Fm ocm :B -°� £ m3y3rsm ° ` maPmooym = '° aa° ns=0 R0 Z. �y3orn'oo ° Oma3 ,°oe?o� my � "DSmma, ; w °:yo;wm �.y0•� N' 30) =oe � om a3 ' O �? P ® =cm4yay ° p.0 �mmaQe�D �P ? a mV? --°iw�=�m � a�o 5? ,v JI