HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1998, 7 - SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE PROJECT PREVIEW council °
j ac En as Report '"N.,ba
C I T Y OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Dunn, CAO / _
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Direct r„AJ
Prepared By: Ken Hampian, ACAO
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager
SUBJECT: SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE PROJECT PREVIEW
CAO RECONBMNDATION
1. Receive a presentation by the San Luis Marketplace project applicant outlining their concept
for the development of the Dalidio property.
2. Receive a presentation by staff concerning several issues associated with the project.
3. Provide feedback to the applicant regarding the Council's overall receptivity to the project,
and direction to staff on the specific issues and recommendations set forth in this report,
including matters related to project concept, tenants, timing, phasing, design and financing.
4. Concur with the project timing scenario and sequence of next steps outlined in the summary
of recommendations at the conclusion of the report.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The history relative to the potential development of the Dalidio property is long and complex.
Most recently, the applicant (SC Properties and the Dalidio Family) submitted to the City a
single-phase 515,000 square foot retail project called the "San Luis Marketplace." Processing
the project will involve many issues and will require considerable City and applicant resources.
Before initiating this process, a preview before the Council has been scheduled to allow the
applicant an opportunity to present his project concept to the Council, and provide staff with
updated direction relating to several "big picture"questions as summarized below:
• Does the General Plan concept of allowing some commercial and residential development on
the property in exchange for permanent open space protection continue to have great merit?
If so, this will eventually need to be memorialized in a development agreement— and when
should this occur?
• Is the fact that Costco is no longer a part of the project a significant factor in judging the
merits of the project?
• Should the City accept that a physical mall connection is no longer realistic? If so, should
the applicant make greater efforts to improve the project design, including its integration with
the adjacent shopping area and relationship of proposed internal circulation to designated
open space areas?
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 2
• Is completing the project in one-phase acceptable? If so, can it begin before completion of
the Prado Road interchange, on the condition that financing is in place and a construction
contract has been awarded?
• Does a sales tax reimbursement agreement continue to be a good way of helping to finance
the interchange? Is so, should such an agreement be based on "net" sales tax after certain
project performance standards have been achieved, and what should be included in the"net"?
• While funded by the applicant, should the City be responsible for independently completing
the required fiscal impact study (including downtown marketing recommendations), similar
to our approach in preparing EIRs?
• What is a realistic timeframe for completing this project, given its complexities (annexation,
interchange construction)?
An interdepartmental staff team has worked together to develop specific recommendations for
each of these questions, as set forth later in this report and summarized at its conclusion.
Transcending the specifics, however, we hope that this preview will clarify the "big picture"
opportunities and constraints posed by the project so that informed decisions can be made before
proceeding more deeply into what will be a major undertaking for all involved parties.
DISCUSSION
Introduction
An application to annex and develop the Dalidio property was submitted to the City in late
March 1998 by SC Properties (Bill Bird) and the Dalidio family. The proposed project is called
the"San Luis Marketplace." Reviewing, refining, and processing this application will be a major
undertaking for both the applicant and the City, and will require a very large investment of time
and resources by both parties. The proposed project is large and involves the dedication of open
space and the construction of an interchange, both proposed to be accomplished through the
negotiation of a"disposition and development agreement" (DDA). Because of the complexities
and sensitivities associated with the project, processing the application and negotiating a DDA is
likely to involve a substantial amount of community discussion.
Some time ago, the Council debated whether or not it should "conceptually consider" proposed
general plan amendments prior to application processing. The Council ultimately decided to not
make such a step a routine part of the process, but rather, to allow for a Council "preview" for
more complex projects, as needed. While the San Luis Marketplace application does not require
a general plan amendment, it is complex and many circumstances have changed since Council
direction was last given relative to such a project in January 1995. For these reasons, and with
the full concurrence of the applicant, this preview and request for direction is being brought
before the Council.
In addition to staff and applicant representatives, Allan Kotin, the City's consultant relative to
the DDA and fiscal aspects of the project, will be present at the Council meeting to contribute as
necessary.
7-V
A.
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 3
Background
A thorough background description of the Dalidio property could go on for many pages because
its history is lengthy and earlier proposals have proceeded in "starts and stops." The summary
version is as follows:
In 1991, the Dalidio family presented a land use concept to the City Council for incorporation
into an updated General Plan Land Use Element (LUE). The concept included significant open
space on their property in exchange for some commercial and high-density residential land uses
(40 and 12 acres, respectively). At the time, 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 by the firm of Economic Research Associates, and when
completed in early 1993, showed that the property owners would realize sufficient value from the
land use change from agriculture to urban uses to allow for the dedication of the open space to
the City in fee or easement. After several months of discussion with property owner
representatives, in late 1993 three separate DDA proposals were submitted to the City by Bill
Bird, the Dalidio family and Price/Costco.
More discussion ensued to encourage the submission of a formal development application and a
single consolidated DDA proposal as prerequisites to more formal discussion. A preliminary
development application was submitted in December 1993, and the applicant submitted a revised
version in April 1994 to accommodate various Costco interests. A consolidated DDA was
presented in mid-July 1994 involving a proposed sales tax reimbursement concept, and in August
the Council directed staff to analyze the cost-benefit of that proposal. While some processing of
the development application took place over the next few months, the applicant chose to "go
slow"pending the final adoption of the updated LUE in late 1994.
In January 1995, the Council provided its last significant direction relative to the Dalidio project,
including such aspects as the City's interest in "rescuing" the Central Coast Mall through the
physical connection of another anchor store, attracting a Costco to the community, the
relationship of project phasing to the need for the interchange, open space considerations, and
willingness to negotiate sales tax reimbursement and under what general conditions. Allan Kotin
of KMG Consulting assisted the City with these issues.
In terms of what was to follow the January 1995 discussion, some conceptual agreement on these
core issues was to be established in the form of a memorandum of understanding (MOP and
considered in a public hearing concurrent with the processing of the application. The negotiation
of a more detailed DDA would be undertaken if and when the project neared formal approval
through the usual development review process. However, for a variety of complex reasons,
including a change in Central Coast Mall ownership and various legal issues between the
applicant and the new mall owners, the applicant chose to not process the application further.
MOU negotiations therefore never commenced.
7-3
1
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 4
In the intervening years, many legal and financial complications have been resolved through
formal proceedings. During this time, Mr. Bird has maintained contact with the City and has
informally reviewed various site, timing, and financial concepts with staff. At times, potential
project partners have been introduced and requests have been made to initiate DDA negotiations.
However, lacking another development application and updated Council direction, such
negotiations could not be undertaken.
A new project application was filed in March of this year, along with another request to initiate
DDA negotiations. While the application is likely to be refined further, for all the reasons
described earlier, and because so many things have changed since January 1995, it is timely to
review this matter more formally with the Council and to update direction to staff.
Summary of Current Proposal
Much like the earlier application, the current development proposal involves the annexation of
approximately 130 acres of land and the development of 40 acres of retail commercial uses and
10 acres of medium-high density dwelling units. The proposal involves open space protection
for 70 acres, including a 5 acre extension of Laguna Lake Park and a 10 acre "interim open
space"reservation for possible future commercial development.
Both the earlier and current proposal involve the development of retail commercial uses that
could be best described as providing"destination shopping" of a regional nature. These types of
developments are often referred to as "power centers." The applicant is proposing a mixture of
larger stand alone "big box" retail buildings and smaller retail/restaurant pads. Parking for the
center has always been proposed in surface lots surrounding the building pads.
Although the current Dalidio development proposal is similar to the earlier one, there are some
notable differences. The overall area devoted to retail development has grown from 480,000
square feet to 515,000 square feet. Of the original 480,000 square feet, 73% (or 350,000 square
feet) was to ultimately be connected to the existing Central Coast Mall. Costco was to be the
main stand alone tenant. The current proposal functions completely separate from the existing
mall, yet utilizes common access and circulation between the two. Costco has been replaced by a
Target and large home improvement store. The prior development was planned in three phases
while the current proposal is to be developed in a single phase.
As with the earlier development, the current proposal involves building the Prado Road
interchange. With regard to the Prado Road extension, the earlier proposal routed the road
around the perimeter of the development, while the current plan calls for a more direct route
through the development. The original proposal included the provision of a secondary access
road connecting with Los Osos Valley Road, skirting the open space area to the northwest. The
current proposal calls for a new alignment that would bisect the proposed open space.
The applicants are planning on presenting their new proposal in more detail before the Council.
A component of their presentation will be the identification of constraints, issues, and changes in
the market that have dictated the above described changes in the development proposal.
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 5
Key Issues
Based on our initial review of the revised submittal, staff has identified a number of issues where
Council direction is desired. These issues are detailed in the following pages, with
recommendations for each. The recommendations are also summarized at the conclusion of the
report.
The LUE Compromise—Some Development for Some Open Space Protection
In 1994, the City's General Plan designated 40 acres of area adjacent to the Central Coast Mall
for General Retail land uses. There were four main forces that drove this land use decision:
• Expanding the "pool" of developable property for retail commercial uses to meet local and
regional demand.
• Locating this large commercial expansion adjacent to, and to the degree possible, integrated
with the existing major commercial development along the Madonna Road corridor (rather
than having it farther away or fractured throughout the City).
• Related to the above, attempting to rescue a failing retail mall.
• In exchange for expanded commercial development, obtaining desired open space at this
important gateway to the City.
The land use principles that are the foundation for the City's General Plan have not changed. The
City needs to have a suitable amount of area that can be developed for additional retail land uses.
Despite the fact that there will no longer be a physical connection to the Central Coast Mall, this
area remains ideally suited to accommodate the demand for expanded commercial development—
and in exchange for"signature" open space protection at a major entryway into the City.
Recommendation: 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.
No Costco
During the first half of the 1990's, there was general consensus that attracting a major regional
draw to the Dalidio property would increase City tax revenues and help stop "retail leakage" to
other communities. Although the economy and City's fiscal health have improved since then,
the capture of sales tax revenues in the City is still less than it could be, and competition from
both the north and the south continues (e.g. the Paso Robles Target, the Arroyo Grande
WalMart). Although the current proposal no longer includes a Costco, the applicant intends to
attract a mixture of other medium and big box retail tenants that could similarly be considered
"regional draws." While a Target has been identified, other tenants have not been secured or
announced.
Recommendation: The retail commercial land use designation that was applied as part of the
1994 Land Use Element update should not hinge on any one particular tenant. Therefore, the
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 6
absence of a Costco, in and of itself, should not be a determinant in judging the project.
Designed properly, and with other strong tenants (and Target would be a quality tenant), the
center can be a successful regional draw,bringing substantial new tax revenues into the City.
No Mall Connection and New Project Design
As described earlier, the project has changed significantly since it was originally proposed, and
the applicant will need to regenerate community interest and support. In recent weeks, the
applicant has held focus group meetings to gather community input on project design. Because
the applicant was still obtaining input at the time this report was prepared, the comments on
project design that follow are based on the March 1998 application. However, the applicant may
share some new ideas at the July 21'Council meeting.
No Physical Mall Connection The most significant change is that the project no longer offers a
physical connection to the mall. Earlier, such a physical connection was thought to be essential
in order to "rescue" the existing mall from complete failure by adding another anchor store.
Since that time, Mr. Bird no longer owns the mall, the mall has failed, and to "rescue"it, the new
owners are pursuing a completely different concept that will end the enclosed mall. So rather
than one larger redeveloped mall property, Madonna Road is likely to contain three separate
commercial centers adjacent to each other for the foreseeable future.
Because of the ownership issues and the prohibitive cost to relocate the existing high power
electrical transmission lines, it is simply no longer realistic to expect that the Dalidio project will
physically connect to the Central Coast Mall. However, it is reasonable to expect that the San
Luis Marketplace be designed to promote a strong integration with the adjacent shopping area.
For example, recent concepts offered by Central Coast Mall show a north-south connecting
roadway from El Mercado to Dalidio. Thus, at least circulation and a sense of connectivity could
be achieved if the project is designed to connect.to the new roadway proposed by the Central
Coast Mall. Other design issues are further discussed below.
Project Design. Staff has consistently stressed to the applicant that to build community
acceptance for the project, it will need to be well-planned and designed, and not look or function
like a typical freeway-oriented power center. It will need to contain innovative concepts and
features, fit the character of the site, and integrate with and enhance the existing shopping area to
the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, in numerous meetings over the past few years, City
staff has suggested that the applicant look at alternative designs.
The current plan is quite fragmented and overly automobile oriented. The design of the site will
likely require shoppers to often drive between individual stores as well as to the adjacent Central
Coast Mall. Although pedestrian linkages are present, they traverse long distances between
stores and cross large parking lots and several lanes of traffic on Prado Road. While staff
recognizes that a regional shopping center cannot function like a downtown or pedestrian mall,
more creative "power centers" are being developed in other areas. A more compact
development, oriented more around public areas or plazas rather than large expanses of parking,
is an alternative that we have asked the applicant to explore. The idea of some multi-story
Council Agenda Report—Sau'Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 7
buildings and a parking structure has also been offered to create a more compact and pedestrian
friendly development.
The applicant's current design does have some improvements and advantages over earlier drafts:
• The landscape buffer around the perimeter of the development can work with the project
architecture to soften visual impacts of the development from the freeway. In some areas,the
buffer could be considered substantial (i.e. to the rear of the MONY building); and in other
areas, the 10 feet provided may not be sufficient for a project of this size.
• The concept of grouping multiple tenants into a single building, as is being proposed for
several of the buildings, helps achieve a more compact design. While this concept is good,
care needs to be taken since service and loading areas are being oriented towards Highway
101, which is where the project will have the greatest visual exposure. Again, the project
will likely need more than a 10 foot landscape buffer around the perimeter. Loading areas
and large blank walls will require special attention.
• Another positive design feature is the orientation of buildings in the southwest comer of the
development. These buildings are clustered in close proximity to each other and contain a
mixture of larger retail areas, smaller shops and outdoor use areas. In addition, there are
several pedestrian linkages separated from automobiles that will be desirable to use.
However, this cluster of buildings also requires pedestrians to travel over %z mile to reach
Gottschalks and between 800 and 1200 feet to reach retail tenants in buildings on the other
side of the development. As mentioned earlier, pedestrians would need to negotiate several
lanes of traffic on Prado Road to safely reach their destination. Some added thought should
be given to the orientation of buildings to each other,the existing mall, and to Prado Road.
• The final design comment that staff has provided the applicant relates to the proposed
location of the collector road that will ultimately connect with Los Osos Valley Road. In
previous proposals, the road more closely matched the northwestern edge of the open space
and ran between the planned residential and commercial developments. Most recently, the
road has been realigned further south in the development and will bisect the open space
parcel. In addition to staff's concerns as to the possible loss of open space area for right-of-
way purposes, we are also concerned with the effects of dividing the open space into two
functionally separate areas.
Recommendation: Given the separate owners and the redevelopment concepts currently being
considered by the new owners of the Central Coast Mall, it is no longer realistic to require a
physical connection with the mall. However, the development will need modification to resolve
fragmentation problems and to better integrate with the adjacent shopping area The overall
design can be improved to be more creative and consistent with community standards. The
Council should provide the applicants with any added "big picture" input on site planning and
the level of desired integration with the Central Coast Mall —but without providing detailed site
plan comments at this particular stage. These issues will be fully addressed by staff and other
City commissions as the project moves through the usual development review process.
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page S
One Phase
Based on traffic studies, the City's position has been that "one large store" could be
accommodated on the site without triggering the need for the new Prado Road interchange.
However, anything beyond one store would require the interchange. In January 1995, the project
was to be completed in three phases, with Costco occupying the first phase (the one "large
store'D and the balance of the project built in later phases — along with the interchange. The
applicant is now proposing to complete the entire project at one time and not in phases.
Recommendation: Completing the project in a single phase is acceptable provided that the
financing and construction of the interchange is totally assured. While the project could open
slightly ahead of the actual completion of the interchange, allowing project construction to
proceed too far ahead of the interchange could put the City at risk, both financially and in terms
traffic circulation. This issue is further discussed below.
Financing Issues—Planning/Funding the Interchange and Sales Tax Reimbursement
Interchange Timing. With regard to the interchange, a "project study report" (PSR) has already
been completed by the City and approved by Caltrans. The next step in the Caltrans process
requires the completion of a final "project report" (similar to preliminary design), which would
be followed by final design work. Based on conversations with Caltrans staff, the City's Public
Works Director estimates the cost and timeframe for each of these tasks at$400,000 and one year
respectively. In total, an investment of approximately $800,000 and two years will be needed to
obtain Caltrans approval of a final interchange design. Taking the bid period and contract award
phases into account, it will most likely take another six months to reach contract award.
Therefore, it will take about two and one-half years from the initiation of the project report to
final contract award.
The developer believes that a significant reduction in the estimated two and one-half year time
frame can be achieved. New Caltrans regulations allow the developer to contract directly with
Cal-trans to complete the project report, the design documents, and construction — if the local
agency agrees. The developer has indicated his interest in pursuing the direct path to Caltrans,
believing that both time-lines and overall costs can be reduced. Staff has no objection to such a
proposal as long the City Council's prerogative of approving the interchange design is retained.
Whether led by the developer or the City, strong oversight of the Caltrans process is essential or
the interchange could easily take much longer than estimated.
The developer would also like the project to be able to open prior to completion of the
interchange. The timing of the project in relationship to the interchange is a matter to be
considered very carefully, and would probably best be resolved through more formal negotiation
with the applicant. A scenario should be structured to assist in the goal of reasonably timely
store opening,but without project construction getting too far ahead of interchange construction.
For example, the City could allow some site grading and utilities work when the project is nearly
in an approved design stage (or even more conservatively, when the project is approved for
bidding). However, project construction could only be initiated after interchange financing is in
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 9
place, all Caltrans approvals are received, and the interchange construction contract is awarded.
In such a scenario, the developer takes the risk that the project might not get final approval, or
that the interchange bids are too high and the project is stopped. On the other hand, if the project
receives final approval and the interchange contract is awarded as planned, the developer could
save as much as 6 months, allowing stores to open sooner-- but still guaranteeing a fairly good
time frame relative to the interchange opening.
Interchange Cost. The cost estimates for the interchange have varied. At this point, it is
reasonable to estimate that the cost will range from approximately 8.0 million to $10.0 million,
depending upon who administers the project (the City, Caltrans?), the fees charged by Caltrans,
and the construction market at the time the project is bid. Whatever the final cost, not all of it
will be ultimately borne by the Dalidio developers. When the transportation impact fee was
developed, 87% of the cost of the interchange was to be paid by the developers of benefiting
properties, with the City paying the remainder. While the precise amount to be assigned to the
Dalidio project has not been determined, it is reasonable to assume that this property will bear
the majority responsibility for the 87%private allocation.
Interchange Financing and Sales Tax Reimbursement. Because the interchange cannot be built
incrementally, someone needs to assume the up-front risk of interchange financing, with "fair
share" reimbursements from other property owners made over time as those properties develop.
For this development, it is assumed that the developer will finance the entire interchange and ask
for reimbursement agreements from other responsible contributing properties and the City. The
financing concept most recently presented to staff by Mr. Bird is as follows:
• A Mello-Roos financing district would be formed for the purpose of issuing bonds.
• The district would consist solely of the 40-acre commercial piece on which the shopping
center is to be developed, and would be the sole asset pledged for payment of the bonds.
• Bonds would be marketed concurrent with commencement of construction of the
interchange.
• The bonds would be fully serviced by a special tax or assessment on the shopping center.
• The project developers would expect to be reimbursed for the debt service on the bonds up to
the amount of one-half of the gross sales taxes resulting from the project — and from the
renovation of the adjacent Central Coast Mall.
Sales tax sharing (or "reimbursement") agreements are not unusual relative to major retail
projects that involve the achievement of both public and private goals. Such agreements are
typically formalized by entering into a development agreement. In this case,the proposal is for a
partnership that achieves public goals through the protection of priority open space and the
enhancement of the City's retail sales in the region.
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 10
Previously, the City Council conceptually agreed with the idea of sales tax reimbursement—but
only within certain specific parameters. These parameters included two main provisions:
• The amount of sales tax reimbursed will be 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 service cost imposed by 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.
As mentioned earlier, Mr. Bird is asking that gross sales tax be shared, including tax generated
from the Central Coast Mall. He argues that there will be negligible or zero transfer effects away
from other retailers, and instead there would be a "halo" effect causing other retailers to
experience increases in their own overall sales. He also believes that the City's added service
costs would be negligible. While City staff disagrees, Mr. Bird has been invited to provide
further information in support of his case that could be considered in the independent fiscal
analysis to be completed with the processing of the project.
It should be noted that if the required fiscal impact study proves Mr. Bird correct in his
assumptions, then he would not be at-risk in agreeing to the City's initial conditions—his "gross"
and our"net"would be the same thing.
Recommendation: We recommend that:
• All up-front risk relative to interchange design and approval should be borne by the
developer(the$800,000 estimated to fund the project report and design phases).
• A scenario is developed whereby only limited site preparation work could proceed ahead of
the interchange contract award, the construction start of the project itself would be tied to the
award to the interchange contract.
• The City should continue to support the concept of entering into a formal sales tax
reimbursement agreement concurrent with negotiating a DDA at the appropriate time
• In the absence of compelling evidence from the developer, the City retain its position on net
versus gross sales tax. In addition, sales tax from the Central Coast Mall should not be
included in the net, since this is tax the City is getting now, and will get in the future, with or
without the San Luis Marketplace project (the pending redevelopment of the mall will not
result in much, if any, added floor area and thus does not trigger any interchange
requirement). The argument that San Luis Marketplace will further enhance Central Coast
Mall revenues requires rigorous analysis. But even if true, including another project in a
sales tax reimbursement agreement with San Luis Marketplace would impose on the
transaction an awkward, if not unmanageable, measurement requirement.
f/�
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 11
• The City should continue to agree with the concept of forming a benefit assessment district to
assist in financing construction costs, subject to a detailed review of its financial feasibility
and liabilities by the City's financial advisor and bond counsel.
Downtown and Fiscal Impact Study
Policy 3.1.3 of the City's LUE states:
"No substantial additional land area should be added to the commercial centers at
Madonna Road and Highway 101 until a detailed plan for the retail expansion has been
approved by the City. The plan should describe the limits of commercial expansion,
acceptable uses, phasing, and circulation improvements. Any permitted expansion
should be aesthetically and functionally compatible with existing development in the
area. Before approving an expansion plan, the City should consider an evaluation of
how much it would transfer sales from existing retail areas in the City and whether the
proposed uses could be developed in existing retail areas. "
An applicant funded "downtown and fiscal impact study" has long been identified as a key
component in the review of any proposal to develop the Dalidio property. The study will have
several purposes:
• It will look at the general fiscal impacts (positive and negative) to the City and its existing
businesses.
• It will help determine what percentage of the development's sales tax revenues are new to the
City versus revenues that are being transferred from other businesses within the City.
• It will assess the anticipated City costs to serve the new development (with any annexation
and development, there will be the need to provide added services, such as police and fire).
• Regarding the downtown, the plan will develop a strategic marketing approach that will
outline how the downtown can best react in order to continue to thrive and co-exist with an
expanded Madonna Road shopping area. The Downtown Association will be consulted
during this phase of the study.
Recommendation: Direct staff to develop an appropriate scope of work for the study. In doing
so, the portion related to the downtown should be reviewed with the Downtown Association.
Begin the request for proposal (RFP) process as soon as the applicants commit to its funding.
Although the study will be paid for by applicant, it will be managed independently by City.
The Process and Time Line
The project must proceed through four key development stages.
7-//
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 12
Preparing and processing the draft environmental impact report (EIR). This step can not
begin until the applicant has finalized its development plan. The process is anticipated to take 12
months to complete and will include assessment of project related impacts such as traffic,
circulation, biology, aesthetics, and flooding/drainage.
Receiving discretionary land use approvals. Once the EIR is completed, the actual discretionary
land use approvals can go through the hearing process. Required applications include
annexation, prezoning, and architectural review. The hearing process through final LAFCO
action is estimated to take four to six months following completion of the EUL
Issuing building permits. Following final architectural review, the project will be able to begin
the building permit stage which addresses actual construction of the buildings as well as site
grading and preparation. Provided the applicant is able to submit plans for the entire
development at the same time,the process is estimated to also take approximately four months.
Building the Prado Road interchange. The final stage of the process will be the designing,
permitting, and constructing the Prado interchange. The applicant may not want to pay for the
final project report (the Caltrans requirement) and final design (estimated at $400,000 each) until
they have an approved project. However, the applicants can choose to initiate these studies
concurrent with the processing of his application in order to save time, if they are willing to
assume this added risk. As stated earlier, Caltrans and Public Works estimate that it will take
about 30 months from the start of the final project report to finalize plans, bid and award the
contract, and begin construction. Actual construction is likely to take at least another year.
By staffs best estimate, the above time line results in a two and one-half to three year approval
and construction start schedule, depending upon how many activities run concurrently, how
much risk the developer is willing to assume, and how much community support has been built
for the project. The applicants have indicated that their need is to be open in 24 months.
Although the land use and building permit process could be completed in that time frame, it is
unrealistic that start of the interchange construction would be underway. As indicated earlier,
staff would recommend that the development be allowed to open for business before the
interchange is completed— but only if the interchange work is near completion. Anything short
of this would be very undesirable in terms of traffic impacts.
Recommendation: Affirm that the City is committed to timely application processing, but that
an estimate of three to four years is more realistic in terms of completing the project. The
Council should also direct that any future MOA and DDA include provisions assuring that
significant project construction cannot begin until the interchange contract is awarded. Since
both projects will start at about the same time, and given the need to settle tenants into the newly
constructed buildings, it is unlikely that businesses can open much sooner than the interchange.
Nevertheless, a provision should be included to assure that the project cannot open substantially
ahead of interchange completion.
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 13
Beginning MOU and DDA Negotiations—Where to from Here?
As discussed above, there are a number of issues regarding this application that will need to be
resolved in a DDA. However,this presents some"circular logic"problems:
• The DDA is intended to be an implementation vehicle, not a policy document. However,
how can we implement what we haven't yet agreed upon? Therefore, the City should not
enter into a DDA until after the project has received its discretionary approvals—it makes no
sense to agree upon a DDA 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 investments of time and
money in a project that has great risks under the best of circumstances.
Recommendation: We should not begin formal DDA negotiations until after this project has
received all of its discretionary approvals. However, if the Council is committed to proceeding,
we recommend preparing an MOU that outlines the general principles that will guide the
negotiation of a future public-private partnership memorialized in a DDA. Staff guidelines
would be based on the direction provided by Council at this preview.
In terms of timing, MOU negotiations should not proceed until the development application is
considered final, processing fees are paid, and deposits are made for completion of the EIR and
fiscal study. These negotiations should be concluded as soon as possible, but no later than 90
days following completion of the fiscal impact study. Staff believes that this period of time is
sufficient in order to come to agreement on general "partnership principles". If agreement cannot
be reached on such principles, then it is unlikely that such a partnership can be formed, and it
would not be in the best interest of either the City or the applicant to continue investing in the
project. Hence, a defined time frame establishes a"stop-loss" for both parties.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with this preview. However, if we embark on
processing this project in earnest, significant costs will be incurred by both the applicant and the
City. In the City's case, significant staff resources will be committed over the next two years by
virtually every department in the City in processing this application. While Community
Development will take the brunt of this in processing the development application and EIR,
Administration (including the Natural Resources and Economic Development Managers),
Finance,Public Works and City Attorney will also make major time commitments to this project,
as will as Parks &Recreation and Utilities on focused issues.
Planning fees will only cover 25% of this cost — the General Fund will absorb the rest. While
these are for the most part "soft costs," they represent significant staff resources that will be
devoted to this effort rather than other important development applications and other City
activities. In short, while the direct costs may not be large, the "opportunity costs" — what we
otherwise could have accomplished with these same staff resources—are significant.
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 14
This does not argue against going forward with this application—the natural resource protection
and economic development opportunities it offers are major City goals. But it does argue for
making sure that we:
• Are strongly committed to taking this journey.
• Have a clear direction of where we want to go on this journey—what do we hope to achieve?
• Clearly communicate this direction to the applicant and the community.
• Appreciate the risks, agree upon the benefits and set clear groundrules.
CONCLUSION
The Dalidio property holds great promise for its owners and the City, and the General Plan
concept offers the community an opportunity to achieve both environmental and economic goals
at this strategic location. In order to achieve the environmental goal of permanently protecting
open space, the property owner needs to achieve a certain level of economic return — hence, the
proposed "quid-pro-quo" of some development for some open space. The City also has
economic goals that include retaining our position as the regional retail center of the County.
Aggressive development both north and south of the City threaten this position.
To achieve this "delicate balance" of different goals, a public-private partnership is proposed. In
the absence of such a partnership, the open space will not be protected and the property will
remain unannexed and subject to the decisions of the County. Recent County decisions relative
to the Froom Ranch and south of the Airport Area are not encouraging. In other words, the
property could eventually develop anyway — all of it — with neither open space nor economic
benefits accruing to the City(in fact, the only economic impacts would be negative).
On the other hand, this is not an easy or inexpensive undertaking for either party. Processing the
project will involve a considerable investment of resources, in both time and money, and it will
not be a risk-free undertaking. Circumstances have also changed in recent years, and the project
cannot be exactly what it was hoped to be'a few years ago. Therefore, both parties should
proceed only if the key needs of each can be accommodated, and if the potential rewards in terms
of an outcome appear sufficient. We hope that this preview and clarification of positions will
allow the issues to crystallize for both parties so that informed decisions can be made by all
before proceeding further down the road.
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
The recommendations set forth in this report are summarized below:
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.
Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview
Page 15
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 founding a benefit assessment district to
8. Conceptually agree to a sales tax sharing concept, but conditioned on "net" sales tax —
exclusive of the Central Coast Mall — after certain performance standards have been met.
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.
ATTACHMENT
1. Vicinity Map
2. March 1998 Design Plan(a revised plan may be presented at the Council meeting)
3. General Plan/Proposed Zoning Maps
4. "Faster/Higher Risk" Schedule(example only)
5. "Slower/Lower Risk" Schedule(example only)
I:San Luis Market Place Council Preview
,-1-r
Dalidio Annexation Develo, ent Plan i'N'I'RODUCTION
ZCp
..��. I •; `;- a� and t ;)
R C , a tit DAUDIO '-
♦ PLANNING ell. ti - '_:•'.
AMA
.� •�1 � r----s
Parifia lkath ..:J 'moi 1 ell
c f' �. 101 Pak I gyp umD,n
11;.l ����r:~ !/--i • O , wa State`20
al
"_
. /�✓/ •l,� � .�• � ® :� ..-tel: �. � � •• !!
111
' \x'1,1``c-J S�'` s`' �� , •' �•� J��a 10
�p• vdea Mantenm+
1 <P
Vicinity Map
323/98-DRAFT EXHIBIT 1.1
g �r/�
00C V f,
8 800 •p�88S8 _ < O, �O < < O w f_r
V^
0 00Y1.O. d 40m O Yr ti �y4 G sJ�o00•INN
_ _ \ Q �iON1
U � O• /. V Nn^N _O �Zw W�d m U P '1 VYm11 A V _N mN V Fn
1C/2
n nv a n ev v v v v ¢vY,v Ivv n nuvvve a1 r, no
� < � to Q y '� N r0 JJJ O Oppn ane ¢ V� nYv.w1YN a�P 4rwa Q v w a ¢ N G V
NN000000
dmQIM 0
LLI
LU
tn
15
Now
RL
W < Q a
\\`\\
1I
II I l'1 r
\ � II III — � •
g I I
RUMOMM
.......
r......
eII II 1� •�1.,,..
MMOMM
0 ME
i®6®
o
11 11
DO
0v0a rNNoarn
lI 1/
Dalidio Annexation Development Plan INTRODUCTION
IN.
\
1� \
•/ r rrr C—R
S / r
PF
•\ r / / / r
C—R—PD,
H-1
••\ /rr r/rr /r
C/OS-10
C—N rr rrr//
r rr rr✓ r -- ---
r/ -
r
F
/•R-1 r/ —
••• �• / / r rrr —
•••••
\\\\ S PF
�o —
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
sOs - ,• -
�j INTERIM OPEN SPACE j/ PARK
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY ;..% .. MEDIUM DENSITY
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII GENERAL RETAIL I�I I I�I�I I TOURIST N_T.S
\\\ OPEN SPACE SERVICES & MANUFACTURING
- PROJECT BOUNDARY Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning
3/24/98-DRAFT EXHIBIT 1.2
Dalidio Annexati )evelopment Plan INTRODUCTION
El MERCAD O `\
I: y
C-R 1
40
o ,
1
R-3-PD C-R
N
I 1
1 �
I =
C;QS ,
C/OS
,
ill C/OS 1
ir 1
1
11
1 1
scut r-SW
a
3
Q
0
C-R COMMERCIAL RETAIL L O s O s O s c
R-3-PD &=WM-KIGM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PNED DEvELoPMENT ovERuV A ` ` r
E
AR 0A p
GQ$ CONSERVATION / OPEN SPACE
Proposed Zoning Designations
3/23/98-DRAFT EXHIBIT 1.4
N N N
O
O
N N h
r r'
� Q
� Cl) Q
O
N O z a
= m
N CNU
m
0
•� M
t m
m
T
� L
cn f 7
C N 'm m
c
Z = c m
N N
a
c
m
� ♦ r d
O Q L
L 0LL
m
LL W ♦ n
cu
c W
CD
co
W �
m c
.°
L t c
la)
L^+ m r
W W
�"� O O
•:3
JLL CU
a0 co W W W W co W W N W O N N W
L m m W W m W W W W W O W O O O O O W O 3
C m W C O O D
(c O IO r O to Lf) � P r LO LC') LO c
CIO ❑ M i M a i M N N co M " U
/n LL W W � v 1O I.- M , M M co m m N M R fp R
VJ O
W tb m c0 co co W W m W W CD co W O W W d
,= m co m m W co m m W m m W co dp m W m W W C) m m 0 W W O co co O C
W O) W s M W W W W W W O . . 0 0 W W
m I 1 CD CD O Il] O O t �_ �_ M aD 0 0 0 W n O
❑ N O O t ` N M m M N M Cl) N M ^ O O d
m m W m co N N L j CD W W N A W 0 P m m Co m LD N W O
r r r a
c m
X = m m
W m n m o = m
W m U
_ co
c o co E m .:
Z m CIL
0 m W m R' a W O m m Or c
E n m s = w = m m m m m
m CD
0 0 o m m m ° c = ? a
m s > U a w p L m a W E m 2 3 a o W m W .0 m c
v c a c c m m m o r m
T Z m C=0 O m a y or A � p y C m C m 7 p CL
m• m U3 m C C a
= G' m m -O N p Y n m m 7 = O a N m m t C C cc a a U N m O C CLm
Q p a G c 'c m o 0 m E m m :° = cm E = m r 3 p o = E Q co m m
u 3 `a c co L A U E E a` w `m = 0 — m Q o c U U E E a E ., o 'o
W o p a c m . s m W
m o m = m m E U o c a c o) m c = c
m = E m Q c U c p c m p m m U = U U m 0 = • a U a O m m m
p = m n �° c :9 W :° a U m W a '� v m m a W L rn +- E z Z `m
m W p L c m 3 r 3 £ c a 2 c o 0 E Q W ❑ t a c U c w CL m
C d Q m o �, c m E mc
E m v c U U m �o o m@ c 5 v c a = a s
io m m ` m c 0 0 0 = m 0 0 LL m Co Z LL c o Q c p m v m c > O ❑ y
p = o � aUUUUaaU ma' fA moi— 5 0 co _= gmam o 0 :90
V li W Y. d d I I I Ica I I 1 10101
7—L0
N a
r r
N c! cn
O
N C N >
N
- O
to n
r r IO0
U
72
� � O
d
m
r m cn 9
11 O N
O
��11� O
•W N
E W N d
r r U
y
L Q'
W
CD
9
cAn+ C O
W 0 N C N O
V " N ayi
O Q _
L O a ♦ r m
0I
r C
_ L. N
W
N �
C
c m
Q L^' rn •o v
W W r N N
L O a r m
cc J r C
L_ U
;
CD
� co lc
rnrn � rn CD � o NM o r) oo> o U
w m m OOi 0 0 cm 0 0 1 W 0 0 0 0 0 O O m
/� C r n i � r) Lo 0 r V) n n n n = r r r
�V LL O O O N c0 n c7 N M r Lo
cn 01 im m co N c7
r r r O
m co CD 07 coco co m O 01 OD co M 0 01 O) O 61 O O r N 03 W O N co CD O �a1
_W m C,jm rn rn rn rn ( rn m cm rn rn w rn rn o 0 0 0 o rn rn E
m 0c r m ^ O O r r iz I r � a
co co T m m N N t c�D m N n n W 0 M c7 V
r r r CD
cuO)
X C
C
a
m _ C CD
H
W m O N C m O C
U rT m m >
a C CD U0 to m
a o y w m a o O a m m y
m E 0 � tai m m 2W c m m � � Z o
Zco •>' E O Q' U O cc > U C •O
> �jaw pa � aw c LL m W2 3 a o a is o e c
m m 3 m c
o dm > _E
— oi Ec m uo cuCCa tm >
m oO mrn
> — O QCa :C> - m a 3 cc CL m
� Q cH o o
m m •O U n- E Ey
nmd _ p `
co m E m rn EM UU Ea EE Om o
m m o mUUmCd
o m o a m Y m
D Q mc c c c Co. o m mE Z m
CD a Za c 2 c oc c � oO EQr.) Im npc w E m c Um 6Omcvm
U m m y E c v o 0 Q y
C > m o c E c n c m a m > LL r c o c c m v a m O p y
m m 2 0 0 o 0 o O o LL v o S75
c c = o EQ cL) > c� c� n. aU acorn oat� gcoLL � aLLc� � gmam c moo
Cha w LL a a m V D IS
'- z /
JUL-21-98 02 :24 PM LAND CONSERVANCY SLO CO 8055445122 P. 01
,.,.:EYING AGENDA
DATE 7' ITEM #
To: Mayor Settle&City Council Fax: 781-7109
From: Teresa Gates Date: July 21, 1998
Re: Dalidio property Pages: 2
UACIL DD DIR
0 ❑FIN DIR
FFCLEJA0 O`_'"E CHIEF
ORNEYPW DIR
July 21, 1998 KIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
—®-MG T;TEO— O REC DIR
Mayor Allen Settle and —C)` 0 UTIL DIR
Y 0 PERS DIR
SLO City Council
990 Palm Street
SLO,CA 93401
RE: "The Marketplace"proposal
In response to the TT article of July IP,I'd like to express my disapproval of the proposed building of yet
another shopping center is the city of San Luis Obispo. It's obvious to me that when a city has two
shopping centers in the same locale that have many vacant stores,that building another one right next to
them will not help or solve the problem.If the population base does not support the malls it already has,
why would it support more of the same?
I strongly oppose any building on the Dalidio property,especially in light of the failure of the two existing
malls,one of which has gone into bankruptcy. How would building a new shopping/retail center
especially one with box stores of the Target,home improvement type help"retain SLO's retail presence"?
It already has a thriving and lovely downtown area and a variety of new stores along south Broad,
including the thriving new Marigold center.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
s
Teresa Gates
743 Pacific
SLO, CA 93401
RECEIVED
�Il�'_ 2 11998
SLO CITY COUNCIL
07/17/98 FRI 15:11 FAX 818 963 5930 SC PROPERTIES CITT-SLO-PLANNIN Q003
MEETING AGENDA //II
DATE - - ITEM #_..L,.
Sr- Properties. LLC _
April 15, 1998 Via re-.s HIC11
OtOUNCIL D DIR
Mayor and City Council &KA0 0 FIN DIR
13,
City of San Luis Obispo BMAO 0 FIRE CHIEF
990 Palm Street UXfMRNEY 0 FW DIR
BOLO UORKI 0 POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249 y_yq,� aamcom
Members of the City Council:
Having received and read the Council Agenda Report prepared by city staff,I feel it is
important to provide you the following response. Although we will attend the July 21
council meeting and comment at that time, it is important for you to have time to
consider and .reflect upon our position. My comments follow the subject order
presented in Council Agenda Report:
L=nWr of C urrem Prepnsal
A reference is made of the project growing to 515,000 s.f. As a result of the community
design charettes held over the past three weeks, the current site plan (enclosed)reduces
the building area to 500,000 s.f. to accommodate the new layout The prior
development (1994) was presented as up to three phases but also to be done as one
phase, as we are now proposing. As noted, changes have been made in the site plan,
which does relocate the potential Los.Osos connector road to the westerly side of the
project so that it does not bisect the proposed open.space as noted.
No Costco
While we maintain contact with Costco,their current plans do not include the need for a
store in San Luis Obispo due to the fact they are already drawing from San Luis Obispo
and they have no competition to threaten that position. In addition to Target, Home
Depot has approved this site for their operation. Other quality national tenants are very
interested and are waiting to confirm the city's commitment to the project before they
devote their time to negotiate a commitment Home Depot is the reason we have
requested the staff to expedite the approval process because their presence could very
likely deter Eagles frorn building in the county.
No Mail Connection and New Protect Design
We disagree new community support must be generated. What the community has
always wanted is expanded retail shopping opportunities. This is needed to keep
5[O SOUrH SFiAN0 AVUAM 5UR£3DO SLENCORA CALIFORNIA 91741 TELEPHONE IGZ61 863-{SCS FA%Mem 969-5930
07/17/98 FRI 15:11 FAX 818 963 5930 SC PROPERTIES CITF-SLO-PLANNIN 0004
Mayor and City Council
July 16, 1998
Page 2 of 4
shoppers in San Luis Obispo as well as attract county shoppers to San Luis Obispo.
The number one complaint about the city in the Cal Poly study several years ago was
the need for more retail selection. The Economic Task Force of several years ago also
recognized the need for additional retail and included that as a priority item in their final
report to the city council.
There is reference to there being three separate commercial centers adjacent to each
other. That is true in terms of ownership, however, as directed by staff, our project is
designed to compliment the existing mall property. Upon completion of the mall
redevelopment and our proposed project, the two properties will appear to have been
developed as one center. In addition, the new roadway proposed to link all three
properties will further tie the three properties together.
As is noted, we have devoted the past year attempting to meet the staffs directions to
present an acceptable site plan. I believe the plan now developed and enclosed meets
those directions as best possible. The current site plan developed with the assistance
and direction of a community group consisting of a wide spectrum of citizen
representatives can be summarized as follows. The site plans elements are designed to:
• Orient the new retail towards the existing commercial district to promote and
revitalize
o Focus pedestrian shopping inward away from the freeway
• Be sensitive to community architecture and view corridor as seen from the freeway
♦ Provide a pedestrian friendly environment with strong links between existing and
proposed stores
♦ Incorporate destination retailers who are looking to locate in the county into the city
limits
Exclude entertainment uses such as movie theatres to promote downtown
environment
♦ Reserve productive farmland between the highway and development in permanent
open space
♦ Create s wind block to shelter shoppers from southwesterly winds
• Group building structures together to form tighter urban land forms promoting
larger open spaces
• Provide a future linkage road to Los Osos valley Road which does not bisect the
open space reserve
The current development proposal is to complete the project in one phase and includes
the funding and construction of the Prado Road interchange. It would be impossible to
finance the interchange without the entire project producing sales tax. It is desirable to
have the opportunity to open the Target and Home Depot without the interchange
requirement which would allow their construction to commence earlier. It is very
important that once the interchange financing is secured which is evidence the
07/17/98 FRI 15:12 FAX 818 983 5930 SC PROPERTIES 44-+ CITY-SLO-PLANNIN F0005
MAyor and City Council
July 16, 1998
Page 3 of 4
interchange will be built, that building permits be issued to commence construction.
This will result in a schedule wherein the stores would open approximately 6 months
prior to the completion of the interchange. Keep in mind, the independent traffic study
for this project finds that this project alone does not create the demand for the
interchange.
Financing Issu Plannine/Funding`the interchangg and Cabe Tax Reimbursements
We are prepared to commence the required'Project Report' immediately followed up
by the design work for the Prado Road interchange. As you can imagine, funding and
constructing an 8—10 million dollar interchange is a major undertaking_ To enable this
to be accomplished we need a commitment from the city to allocate 50% of the sales tax
from our project plus 50% of the increased sales tax increment from the mall property.
The adjacent property will derive great benefit from the interchange and will be a major
factor in their sales growth. We also are requesting your support to provide for a refund
district so that other properties who will benefit from the interchange when they have
the opportunity to develop will make a contribution to the interchange. This source of
reducing the bond obligation will result in reducing the need for sharing the sales tax.
Please consider that the Prado Road interchange will benefit the entire city,not just our
project and its importance to the city's transportation plan. We are prepared to take the
risk of the sales to be generated and cost overruns, however, we will require a
commitment of 50%of the gross sales tax to satisfy the bondholders and tenants. Under
the circumstances, it is reasonable to look to the other 50% of newly generated taxes to
cover any costs the city may incur as a result of this project.
Downtown a Fac
For your information, we have had two meetings with the Downtown Merchants
Advisory Board to discuss this project The result is that the Downtown Merchants as a
group are not objecting to our project. It is probably not politically correct to come out
in support so their official position will be neutral, even though they expressed their
opinion that our project will have positive results for all retail in San Luis Obispo. We
have been requesting since April to commence the economic impact study.
The Proces and Time Line
This is the most critical subject we need your support on. It is extremely important for
the council to give specific directions to staff to expedite the approval process,
including the E1R, Economic Study, and the M.O.U. If this process takes the three to
four years indicated by staff, it will never happen. The tenants will locate elsewhere
and the Dalidios will no doubt reconsider their offer to give the city 60 acres of land at
no cost.
For example, a focused EIR does not need to take a year to complete. We recently
completed a similar retail project in the city of San Dimas, a city similar in size to San
07/17/98 FRI 15:12 FAX 818 983 5930 SC PROPERTIES y.++ CITT-SLO-PLANNIN Q006
Mayor and City Council
July 16, 1998
Page 4 of 4
Luis Obispo in terms of land area, population, and smaller city staff. A very complex
EIR was completed and approved in six months. We are not asking for short cuts but
that every effort be made to shorten the processing time. For example, it may be
possible to combine studies, like utilizing the Cal Trans project report to address the
traffic update rather than a separate study. We know for a fact the county is expediting
the Eagles approval process. We must do the same if there is any opportunity to break
ground before Eagles Hardware.
It is our opinion construction should be able to commence in 12 to 18 months. We
realize you do not control the Cal Trans time frame,but you can have an impact on the
city time frame. If we cannot offer tenants a reasonable time frame to open a store,they
are very likely to locate elsewhere if they can open sooner,Target included. Please give
the timing issue your sincere best effort. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/WiV11iamB
Managing Member
WLBltr
Enclosures
07/17/98 FRI 15:13 FAX 818 963 5930 SC PROPERTIES yyy CITY-SLO-PLANNIN 0 007
! 1, r.+'I ` ,=�'i•_� y �•-~ 'r
ID
cc
,,�i�� t '• V�� may' ~- I�'-
R •g 1 s
1 i
21
Lpi
Lr
Lt
t -r
I 1 1 5557 -
i r .Tsr.
y
4Y0S1
U 1. 1y0 CA1 li/.1J C:L1 OlJ LGJ JJJU J� 1'LU1CLAia L.l --• Baa 1'-J L.I"+ a..+.+•a.• c'.i vVa
Screencheck EIR Submitted: November 2, 1994
Draft EIR Submitted:
Final EIR Submitted:
Final EIR Certified:
TARGET SHOPPING CENTER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
DReFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF SAN DIMAS
Community Development Department
245 East Bonita Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91773
PREPARED BY:
Duane A. Morita
Environmental and Planning Consultant
14312 Shadybrook Drive
Tustin, CA 92680
NOVEMBER 1994
07/17/98 FRI 15:14 FAX 818 963 5930 SC PROPERTIES 444 CITY-SLO-PLANNIN 10009
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TARGET SHOPPING CENTER COMMERCIAL'DEVELOPHENT
CITY OF SAN DIMAS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
I, INTRODUCTION 17
V II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 21
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 30
A. LAND USE 31
B. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 50
C. BIOLOGY 71
D. AIR 76
E. NOISE 89
F. EARTH 98
G. HYDROLOGY 103
H. AESTHETICS 107
I. LIGHT AND CLARE 110
J. SOCIOECONOMICS 113
K. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 115
TV. ALTERNATIVES 120
A. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 120
B. REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE 122
C. INCREASED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE 126
V. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE, CUMULATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND IMPACTS
FOUND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT 130
VI. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS 135
VII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM
USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND
THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 137
VIII, SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION
BE IMPLEMENTED 139
IX. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 140
X. REFERENCES 141
07/17/98 FRI 15:11 FAX 818 963 5930 SC PROPERTIES CITY-SLO-PLANNIN Q010
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS
FOR THE PREPARATION
Of AN.
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
approximate 250 000
Ana ro square foot
PP
commercial shopping center on
approximately 23.2 acres.
City of San Dimas September 1994
07/17/98 FRI 15:11 FAX 818 963 5930 SC PROPERTIES CITY-SLO-PLANNIN 011
INTRODUCTION
The City of San Dimas, as the lead agency, is requesting
proposals from qualified firms or individuals to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report on a Conditional Use Permit for a
proposed 250,000 square foot commercial development. The
project site is located along the west side of the 210
Freeway between Arrow Highway and Cienega Avenue.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is approximately 23.2. acres and is located
immediately west. Of the 210 Freeway with frontage on both
Arrow Highway and•Cienega Avenue (see Exhibit 1) . The
project site consists primarily of vacant land but is
presently occupied by a vacant service station, several
single family residences and several small industrial
buildings.
One portion of the project site is located within the
Creative Growth Redevelopment Project Area (Second Amendment,
1983) while the remainder is located within the Rancho San
Dimas Redevelopment Project Area (1990) . The San Dimas
Redevelopment Agency owns property within the project area
which will be included in the development and will
participate in improvements necessary for the project.
An EIR was certified in 1990 for the creation of the Rancho
San Dimas Project Area; potential development impacts were
reviewed therein. The San Dimas Redevelopment Agency has
recently contracted to amend tax increment provisions for the
Rancho San Dimas Project Area and is preparing an EIR in
conjunction with the change.
DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL
The current project proponent proposes a commercial center
consisting of approximately 250,000 square feet, including a
116 ,000 square foot anchom tenant (Target) . Exhibit 2
illustrates the current site plan.
07/17/98 FRI 15:14 FAX 818 963 5930 SC PROPERTIES CITF-SLO-PLANNIN Q012
Request foL Prol sal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
scoPE of WORK
The selected environmental consultant shall prepare an
Environmental Impact Report in conformance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) . The scope of work shall include the following:
1. Provide an independent analysis and discussion of the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project. Possible significant environmental impacts
identified at this time are listed below. Appropriate
technical studies will be necessary.
Evaluate the impact of the proposed traffic on the
existing and proposed circulation. system,
including transit impact analysis pursuant to
CMP requirements;
* Determine the potential impact of proposed removal
of existing mature trees; and,
• Assess the air quality impacts the project may
generate.
2 . Prepare a screencheck draft EIR-,, draft EIR and Final
EIR, and any related environmental documentation for use
by the City.
3 . Prepare project alternatives under the guidance and the
direction of the City staff.
4 . Respond to public comments on the draft EIR as necessary.
5. Prepare mitigation monitoring plan.
6. Produce 45 copies of the draft EIR and 25 copies of the
Final EIR for use by the City. There shall be at least
one reproducible copy of both documents included.
QUALIFICATIONS
The successful candidate shall be expected to demonstrate the
following qualifications:
+ Capability-to fully manage the described project
pursuant to the attached preliminary schedule
(Exhibit 3) ;
+ Demonstrable experience to successfully complete
the project;
* Ability to form a project team, if necessary, of
professionals to complete the described project;
* Adequate resources to complete the project in a
timely manner; and,
07/17/98 FRI 15:15 FAX 818 983 5930 SC PROPERTIES +++ CITY-SLO-PL,LI'NIF 10013
RequesC for Pi .,?osal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1
• A high level of commitment to the described •'
project, and the ability to work in a responsive
manner with the City.
sUBMITTAL PACKAGE
In a short proposal format of approximately 10 pages, all
submittals shall contain the following minimum information
and materials:
1. A description and statement of the firm's
qualifications, experience and capabilities, including
all sub-consultants if appropriate;
2 . Names and functions of all project team members. Those
individuals named must be those who will participate on
the project if selected;
3, List of references reflecting previous experience in
preparing environmental impact reports;
4. Proposed time schedule for commencement and completion
of the environmental document; and,
5. Fee schedule for:
* Scope of work as outline in this RFP;
* Meetings with City staff and applicant;
• Presentations at two (2) Planning Commission and
two (2) City Council public hearings;
* A community informational meeting; and,
* Time and materials for additional work beyond the
outlined scope of work, including additional
public meetings. (If it becomes necessary. )
SELECTION AND AWARD OF CONTRACT
The city and the applicant shall evaluate the proposals based
on the factors outlined herein. The city reserves the right
to reject any and all proposals, or to waive any
irregularities or informalities in any proposal or in the
proposal procedure. The City may interview firms or
individuals submitting the most qualified proposals. The
final selection shall be made by the City.
The selected consultant will be required to participate in
the City's 3-party contract (City/Applicant/Independent
Consultant) for the preparation of the Environmental Impact
Report (see Exhibit 4)•.
07/17/98 FRI 15:15 FAX 818 963 5930 SC PROPERTIES +.y CITY-SLO-PUNNIN 014
Request fog Pro, sal . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 4
in addition, there will be a project pre-proposal meeting
held at the City of San Dimas City Hall on Monday, September
12, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. The project Initial Study, as well
as other related information, will be available at the
pre-proposal meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to
present the proposed project in greater detail and provide an
opportunity for questions regarding the project and/or
selection process. ATTENDANCE IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED SINCE
THE TIME AVAILABLE FOR CITY STAFF TO EXPLAIN THE PROJECT WILL
BE LIMITED TO PRIMARILY TO THIS MEETING.
SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSALS
All interested parties are requested to submit 3 copies of
proposals to:
Brian K. Lee, Senior Planner
City of San Dimas
245 E. Bonita Avenue
San Dimas, CA 91773
909/394-6254
ALL SUBMITTALS MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THRN 5:00 p.m. ON
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 20, 1994.
Please note, that if you desire to review any of the existing
information or other documents regarding this project, please
call to arrange an appointment. Due to limited number of
copies of these materials, all information must remain at the
City of San Dimas. Please do not request to "check out" any
of the material.
Attachments (4) :
1. Project site vicinity map
2 . Preliminary site plan
3. Preliminary schedule
4 . Sample 3-party Agreement
07/17/98 FRI 15:16 FAX 818 963 5930 SC PROPERTIES CITY-SLO-PLANNIN Q015
Exhibit A
C7—
SpIB 11 CGIS
CG
CGC
MF(15)1;,
CGM-i SF-6000 �
7500 I I
1IsPz
� � I
• f _ �..:.SF•400G•••
i _
g�7 F-80 •• •'
JI SS�` • AW
• .• • . • 1 IIIM B/SaGSS GI�f
_ r
AP AP
�Rt CYI iV� oSG•pQ I � �� �,f.
� 1
��JE•GT S�7E
NORTH
Vicinity 1Vlap No Sala
07/17/98 FRI 15:16 FAX 818 963 5930 SC PROPERTIES CIT1-SLO-PLANNIN Q016
1
;TY aF
Exhibit C
MEMORANDUM
ago
ir amai,
DATE: August 30, 1994
T0: Don Pruyn, City Manager
FROM: Larry Stevens, Director of Community Development
RE: Preliminary Schedule for Target Project
DATE ACTION
September 2, 1994 Distribute RFP for EIR
September 9, 1994 Staff completes Initial Study
September 12, 1994 Preproposal meeting with EIR
consultants
September 12-16, 1994 Staff prepare/distribute NOP (30 days)
Applicant submit CUP application
September 20, 1994 EIA proposals due
September 26, 1994 EIR contract executed; consultant
begins preliminary DEIR
September 30, 1994 Applicant completes application
submittal
October 12-17 , 1994 NOP responses due
October 201 1994 Screencheck DEIR to Staff
October 26, 1994 NOC for DEIR (45 days)
November 10, 1994 Preliminary DPRB review
November 16, 1994 Planning Commission public hearing
(must be continued)
December 12, 1994 Close of comments on DEIR;
consultant prepares responses
December 19, 1994 Response to comments sent to
commenting agencies (10 days)
January 4, 1995 Planning Commission hearing/decision
07/17/98 FRI 15:18 FAX 818 983 5930 SC PROPERTIES 4-+4 CITY-SLO-PLANNIN 9 017
OTY OF SAN DIMAS
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Wednesday, December 21, 1994 at 7:30 p.m.
245 East Bonita Avenue
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of minutes for December 7, 1994.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2 . MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 94-7
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
APPLICANT: City of San Dimas
A request to amend Chapter 18. 500, Specific Plan
No. 2 . The proposed revisions to the specific
plan are to: a) allow vehicular or equipment
rental facilities as a conditional use within
the zone; b) streamline approval process; c)
clarify buffer yard standards; (d) perform other
minor modifications as deemed necessary.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-6
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Applicant: SC Properties
A request to develop an approximate 260,000
square foot commercial shopping center,
including a 112,000 square foot Target store, on
an approximate 23 acre site in Specific Plan No
20. This project is located west of the I-210
Freeway, south of Arrow Highway, north of
Cienega Avenue and East of Maimone Avenue.
(NOTE: This public hearing is tc receive public
testimony on the Draft EIR in conformance with
the mandatory 45 day public review period
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. )
MEETING AGENDA
DATE��ITEM # 7 L�.SAM S 0615 6A 13`{0,5
�l ► g Mr
9 r
❑.60UNC!L DIR
C i Couv<c l b G( aero ❑FIR D!R
mays (7 f CACAO ❑FIRE CHIEF
❑ATTORNEY ❑PW DIR
- . ❑&tRKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
Scwi WNS 1)bl5a0l ('A �Mf�M`' 70 ❑RECDIR
VV C3'�G1.��� ❑UTIL DIR
rr ❑• ❑PERS DIR
t'V��iVI�S
i ►-e adr i v- 7 Ud a s It,Cc a w>` rib umt- aboL&44,tL lDa Nd o
cru,,�N's ala•4 s � I�Vlac(ANA0. (�Oad
CL as S ) ci is is c�u o�c 00ir�I�-a,;l recce are. qo�r � l�a,v� ► `rte
r F S an4 S VWJ r I S a.c�.d `(-8 our GkaNvwi n ani ra�(
VQ.rrl G , ,� ,,J
VtVu V S S a �Gw I a k. � Impwua wtlnnt 5 e_ "d
Sry duvr s+L7ye5�and r15+a �raAA+S " wla;�(ti �wbu6
(`"( A5 I W addf�
�rav►Sla-�ts in-b s��ac� a,�a,1 la6(.�, 4v (a a v- o i rti+ o u+
vw�� u s b H-
cwLd Wa-+-�� � vinl2La�
w� I�auo✓ rc,�u.� L sl-)aua ava.+lab�e.,
o a-l^ {'(�,i l l" I'C(fZa , f kaclMw� lciz�t
all ovw Sam Lits Ob►� aMa
d e:uni��ov✓vl-
',VL `i1. t_ ".to fVqc `,old �`I w ,
Cee ra,l CoaS+ (Mail , 'Birc(S o`�Gt.P-✓ I WJccf, n'5K+ aCVDSS `f e-.
CO
70is
oF of �lil 3Iu4,.,itd mra�LLkvas ' beaMn^v�5�Cvr.Ty tv�sv-
cn
m^ �a A ,co Df �. Mo`(�cr A� �a sf b , - 1�(r
J Q V r v r- y�
9 ` �, cv, ,, ctjs S�L¢. VI.oIdS . Inc �avLd In uesfi�'►�
'� tt rwt
.� iVL Sam.(,c i;�S 06i�b aff�s b� h vw�- a v-cu
46,vL
au c ,,r�}0, v,l clti vmye. beaa,,,�if,tL ( (,UIQ is �ldnis la,,nd �
d � ' ►?u k s o� zLsn;'v1� ►►�ud s 4 b e- recsns i c(-�'cd
Y[,�A;+ I r,�►►I^W CA aL ,
yes-hO'YL ma. cwicc. AmAi- a owvLa.,,%s ri5h-(3.
�s we. W1 u KZAA-) vra11eV,iuvw) =►- � ( �ucshbw
wi l I b e Ye-�rcwv��- as ` -
(1P�`
DI.vY►�s
• I Ir i s �. S�"P,r,Ua.✓G�..
ieee o �aMd avid has respansi6IIi&s
04 �, C.CMMLt& as we(I as 4-ocouv►+lass
rc: t•I� m wo wo, Inas `-f'(�c- n5h- - -� des k or
J
c(�,va(�u- Smrn.�`Hnnn�j rec+ous 4— itis oLuw �,�,,s�a� 5a,;►ti
i� ws oww ilex al I4e-5pal" .
J
IM`� �'amt4 � of ns M e- ih ur,�it� �' f o
5 el�u li �rJdu d'tu a vi ccc (tea( " IGLv►d.
`{�+ (7
i vviv"tasurcvbL a(u., yam. u� if- Is , both- AsY' p rrodc,c�-�v.�
-J'ood. 0•d � cvf-a�i - off"`' �' bea3
,�a,`. ma,(e.e,s our d.es i Yab(.e- • a - •fw o 0
t.aM,
imAvflws o� � 1
e,ld. s ,+�
5 L c rvvu�dam- a;,�f�d Vti-�o pa✓ v`�
51 V.1 czlr&ly i
U
MEETING AGENDA
DATE�ITEM # 7 SAM I,c.Lts OblS
Su( 1 g , 199
Scwi I,(,Urr SV�Ddtbll S�IIoo�VCAbX�SD-
-C6MBAGOUM N'T�L AM ❑FIN D!RD
C ❑4CAO ❑FIRE CH
i
EF
❑AORNEY ❑PDImov- ❑2CERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
❑RECIR
❑UTIL IR
P❑. D
RIR
S DIR
t'V1 wJ.S
read, iw +Dda s ic.Cc a,+vt- vibuvL.P- abou# `Ne, l�af ido
dw `s �towl s majA-yl load
I as S i �'�c I is oin -k re.hot,
�Ird- IS LL&04tcL YeI rem rz� a�r� `�}oin 9e, �O I�a�� vna�re-
W r ! S aMsW�+' is add' �ro�our okoAr arra Of
4
Wit�. rr
uv1A V�
S S a �Gw , a kyvtlL ivinPVI)U"V VI, "d
srna►(ter shn'e d reslzuera4A-(3 wln;C (ti �VD ticlev
° . C`1GUs , w add
�ra/oSlaft,S ih� s��ace, aluanla6(L, o►►�+ oLtif Safi
vmy, h eru.irc.s bu,+Id-, 1- wooldel It.� �d � .� r vinl2(oc�
w� I owe. r�,(� l sl,,a.e�. aver.,lab i �' I'r za , (�ae(,c�► l�.za.
al( over- Sana l,il,+s Obispo , of �ooi��l
cl
eLc�Coas+ Ma 11 �IrdS J I
m o1 In ave °� c,av>•�vasi- 4u, beaMA=�lrti5 (rte s"�lu l,�d-�.
�wT
C>)_
U 6�, �a A�(� of � rwo i v% A f ka44;5 lam-
O _'(.mow c,(Ml� Ske, G�Id s . -i I1z la.n d I ues+►�sw
4
I,ve- ivy Sam."s ObiTb a,� s b� I vi v>�-ea v►cu
CtNLL�. I 1 n��.Y[,vl�' Vvlt.t,
Ck vwy2 arcs ions `�'(nan L �fl ano,
and
C.e 0a;vll '�^µcln., vws'e- bcOT-J t itiC . ( WIT is his 1444d �A
rt,l/ccs^w,wCA
-al ? ►?uka fs WA.,cZLTYLAw� n¢eds 4 be- runsi�wej
j q �s�iovt, IV,ccli owl�a,,is n5h(3.
I --
As we, -I er 4u. v�.w m �l e iuwvI �- -��( 9
w i l l
be- r e fya,w�,eC(- a5 �--I'(t,c_
r t s m s i b
0� rpVt DIY� � s , Il BIir cL
t'es , ►�a`f�o.>r `l'�I ate- `�-
iece of (avid "d k(AS r9S?CASi1T1'�S aci
(�
04 ttv, cs 'XmLt p as we(I as d-a couv%+Less
CClrvt.e. �� 1h h o w Incas � riohf' -lb
c(eval s `4-(nnh rec,;ous far Ws oww vsa�a( 5a-i►.�,
WS DWV%l psi ac
's �e � (, JY�Jduccv� ay ccL
lav►cE wl�c(ti is o�
ivvtmtaslurc4 ` - ,i
Aod• a,,
`f'(n o'� ma4S our Cc 11Gt,�S IYG - • 'G - `h u o o�{'�l Qa"
j c}we S i'VI r r0 : u e l us In wu&, Yb WS 0 fie.
� fi2.jd✓ s ��CiV1� .t.e. G�i S�7,w'�" In t �S cr a'
su.rwu C(Y-& C��4ia�- �a;�fed ��-(,o ��✓ �"(�
5 I W 1ni e(n,,
MEETING jT
ENDA
5E Properties. LLC DATE /9LEM
April 15, 1998 Via Express Mail
J
U
CO Z
a Cn Mayor and City Council IntONCIL DD DIR
01 City of San Luis Obispo AO O FIN DIR
CHIEF
990 Palm Street 13 P,CMS ❑ PWFIRIR
U 01 San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249 Blocif_ XIORM o POLICE CHF
L p' ❑ 13,,tT T M O REC.DIR
UTIL-+ cDIR
a PERS DM
Members of the City Council:
Having received and read the Council Agenda Report prepared by city staff, I feel it is
important to provide you the following response.. Although we will attend the July 21St
council meeting and comment at that time, it is important for you to have time to
consider and .reflect upon our position. My comments follow the subject order
presented in Council Agenda Report:
Summary of Current Proposal
A reference is made of the project growing to 515,000 s.f. As a result of the community
design charettes held over the past three weeks, the current site plan (enclosed) reduces
the building area to 500,000 s.f. to accommodate the new layout. The prior
development (1994) was presented as up to three phases but also to be done as one
phase, as we are now proposing. As noted, changes have been made in the site plan,
which does relocate the potential Los Osos connector road to the westerly side of the
project so that it does not bisect the proposed open space as noted.
No Costco
While we maintain contact with Costco, their current plans do not include the need for a
store in San Luis Obispo due to the fact they are already drawing from San Luis Obispo
and they have no competition to threaten that position. In addition to Target, Home
Depot has approved this site for their operation. Other quality national tenants are very
interested and are waiting to confine the city's commitment to the project before they
devote their time to negotiate a commitment. Home Depot is the reason we have
requested the staff to expedite the approval process because their presence could very
likely deter Eagles from building in the county.
No Mall Connection and New Project Design
We disagree new community support must be generated. What the community has
always wanted is expanded retail shopping opportunities. This is needed to keep
510 SOUTH 6RANO AVENUE SUITE 300 6LENOORA CALIFORNIA 91741 TELEPHONE [5261953-1505 FAX (6261 963-5930
- Mayor and City Council
July 16, 1998
Page 2 of 4
shoppers in San Luis Obispo as well as attract county shoppers to San Luis Obispo.
The number one complaint about the city in the Cal Poly study several years ago was
the need for more retail selection. The Economic Task Force of several years ago also
recognized the need for additional retail and included that as a priority item in their final
report to the city council.
There is reference to there being three separate commercial centers adjacent to each
other. That is true in terms of ownership, however, as directed by staff, our project is
designed to compliment the existing mall property. Upon completion of the mall
redevelopment and our proposed project, the two properties will appear to have been
developed as one center. In addition, the new roadway proposed to link all three
properties will further tie the three properties together.
As is noted, we have devoted the past year attempting to meet the staff's directions to
present an acceptable site plan. I believe the plan now developed and enclosed meets
those directions as best possible. The current site plan developed with the assistance
and direction of a community group consisting of a wide spectrum of citizen
representatives can be summarized as follows. The site plans elements are designed to:
♦ Orient the new retail towards the existing commercial district to promote and
revitalize
♦ Focus pedestrian shopping inward away from the freeway
♦ Be sensitive to community architecture and view corridor as seen from the freeway
♦ Provide a pedestrian friendly environment with strong links between existing and
proposed stores
♦ Incorporate destination retailers who are looking to locate in the county into the city
limits
♦ Exclude entertainment uses such as movie theatres to promote downtown
environment
♦ Reserve productive farmland between the highway and development in permanent
open space
♦ Create s wind block to shelter shoppers from southwesterly winds
♦ Group building structures together to form tighter urban land forms promoting
larger open spaces
♦ Provide a future linkage road to Los Osos Valley Road which does not bisect the
open space reserve
One Phase
The current development proposal is to complete the project in one phase and includes
the funding and construction of the Prado Road interchange. It would be impossible to
finance the interchange without the entire project producing sales tax. It is desirable to
have the opportunity to open the Target and Home Depot without the interchange
requirement which would allow their construction to commence earlier. It is very
important that once the interchange financing is secured which is evidence the
R �
Mayor and City Council
July 16, 1998
Page 3 of 4
interchange will be built, that building permits be issued to commence construction.
This will result in a schedule wherein the stores would open approximately 6 months
prior to the completion of the interchange. Keep in mind, the independent traffic study
for this project finds that this project alone does not create the demand for the
interchange.
Financing Issues Planning/Funding the Interchange and Sales Tax Reimbursements
We are prepared to commence the required"Project Report" immediately followed up
by the design work for the Prado Road interchange. As you can imagine, funding and
constructing an 8— 10 million dollar interchange is a major undertaking. To enable this
to be accomplished we need a commitment from the city to allocate 50%of the sales tax
from our project plus 50% of the increased sales tax increment from the mall property.
The adjacent property will derive great benefit from the interchange and will be a major
factor in their sales growth. We also are requesting your support to provide for a refund
district so that other properties who will benefit from the interchange when they have
the opportunity to develop will make a contribution to the interchange. This source of
reducing the bond obligation will result in reducing the need for sharing the sales tax.
Please consider that the Prado Road interchange will benefit the entire city, not just our
project and its importance to the city's transportation plan. We are prepared to take the
risk of the sales to be generated and cost overruns, however, we will require a
commitment of 50%of the gross sales tax to satisfy the bondholders and tenants. Under
the circumstances, it is reasonable to look to the other 50% of newly generated taxes to
cover any costs the city may incur as a result of this project.
Downtown and Fiscal Impact Studv
For your information, we have had two meetings with the Downtown Merchants
Advisory Board to discuss this project. The result is that the Downtown Merchants as a
group are not objecting to our project. It is probably not politically correct to come out
in support so their official position will be neutral, even though they expressed their
opinion that our project will have positive results for all retail in San Luis Obispo. We
have been requesting since April to commence the economic impact study.
The Process and Time Line
This is the most critical subject we need your support on. It is extremely important for
the council to give specific directions to staff to expedite the approval process,
including the EIR, Economic Study, and the M.O.U. If this process takes the three to
four years indicated by staff, it will never happen. The tenants will locate elsewhere
and the Dalidios will no doubt reconsider their offer to give the city 60 acres of land at
no cost.
For example, a focused EIR does not need to take a year to complete. We recently
completed a similar retail project in the city of San Dimas, a city similar in size to San
Mayor and City Council
July 16, 1998
Page 4 of 4
Luis Obispo in terms of land area, population, and smaller city staff. A very complex
EIR was completed and approved in six months. We are not asking for short cuts but
that every effort be made to shorten the processing time. For example, it may be
possible to combine studies, like utilizing the Cal Trans project report to address the
traffic update rather than a separate study. We know for a fact the county is expediting
the Eagles approval process. We must do the same if there is any opportunity to break
ground before Eagles Hardware.
It is our opinion construction should be able to commence in 12 tol8 months. We
realize you do not control the Cal Trans time frame, but you can have an impact on the
city time frame. If we cannot offer tenants a reasonable time frame to open a store, they
are very likely to locate elsewhere if they can open sooner, Target included. Please give
the timing issue your sincere best effort. Thank you.
Sincerely,
A"-^
William Bird
Managing Member
WLB/tr
Enclosures
ISO,-
C?cp .
to
i w
LLI
I' O
i
ji
W.
I te4
! + .
i 7 °
I I
yi � � I � � � Si�• .ice
N a.
W
r
r--
I. W
UJ
cc
I I t +- --- --- -_ � _ _._ ._-_ -�;- --' -. �"�'•---jam'
LLI
I
r ��