Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/1999, 4 - SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE ECONOMIC STUDY AND FOLLOW-UP council 0 j agenba RepoRt W CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Admipistrative Officere/y_, Bill Statler,Director of Finance SUBJECT: SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE ECONOMIC STUDY AND FOLLOW-UP CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive the report and a presentation by Allan Kotin of PCR Kotin on the "Economic and Fiscal Impact of the San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity." 2. Reaffirm the General Plan concept of allowing some commercial and residential development on the property in exchange for permanent open space protection. 3. Direct staff to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 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. 4. Authorize staff to use the services of Allan Kotin to represent the City in the MOU negotiations, with the cost of this service to be paid by the developer, with the option of reimbursement from future bond proceeds. 5. If MOU negotiations cannot be successfully concluded within 90 days, direct staff to return to Council for further direction. REPORT-IN-BRIEF This report summarizes a large amount of past and more current information, including the recently completed study, "Economic and Fiscal Impact of the Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity." This study shows that the proposed project will have substantial economic and fiscal benefits to the City, and will affect the Downtown in only a limited number of areas. The study also argues 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 keeping more residents from traveling elsewhere to shop. The over-arching question is: Does the City Council wish to continue pursuing the General Plan goal for the Dalidio property? On July 21, 1998, the Council endorsed doing so, and gave staff direction to proceed in an expeditious way. We recommend maintaining this course, believing that the General Plan concept—established over a period of years, based on extensive and diverse input — offers greater long term community benefit. Staff therefore recommends continuing to the next step in the process — negotiating an MOU. The MOU will set forth the basic principles for the preparation of a more formal Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). However, if the current Council is not supportive of the concept, then it is in the best interest of both the City and the developer to clearly indicate that now, and not proceed further. 4-1 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview Page 2 DISCUSSION Background July 21; 1998 Council Action. On July 21, 1998, the Council received a presentation by the San Luis Marketplace development team. Council also considered a comprehensive staff report prepared to update the Council's direction in a number of key areas. These areas, along with a summary of the lengthy history of this project, are outlined in the July 21, 1998 agenda report. This report has been provided separately to Council Members and is available for review in the City Clerk's Office. In summary,the Council took the following actions affirming that: • The General Plan concept of allowing some commercial and residential development on the property in exchange for permanent open space protection continues to have great merit. • The "open space for some development quid pro quo" will eventually need to be memorialized in a development agreement, starting with the negotiation of an MOU. • It is acceptable that Costco is no longer a part of the project. • A physical mall connection is no longer realistic. • The project can be completed in one-phase—but not without building the interchange. • A sales tax reimbursement agreement continues to be a good way of helping to finance the interchange — but based on a percentage of"net" sales tax (about 50%), and then only after certain project performance standards have been achieved. • The City will assist in forming a benefit assessment district to help finance the interchange, if a detailed review of its financial feasibility by the City's financial advisor and bond counsel shows it is advisable. • 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 step that is now before the City Council). • The overall project should be processed in as timely a way possible, starting with the economic study, followed by the negotiation of an MOU. Attachment 1 is a complete summary of the direction established by Council on July 215L Consultant contract for study and MOU assistance. To initiate the next steps — the economic, fiscal and marketing study, and negotiation of an MOU — 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 4-2 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview Page 3 Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). The project team leader, Mr. Allan Kotin, has extensive experience in other cities and considerable history representing the City relative to this project. For Phase 1, he proposed partnering with Ron Cano of Downtown/Main Street Visions for the downtown retail strategy component. The agreement set forth a fixed cost for this-phase of$38,500,to be paid for by the developer. Prior to Council approval of the consultant agreement, staff and the proposed consultant team met with, and received the endorsement of, the Economic Activities Committee of the Downtown Association. The Downtown Association board unanimously endorsed the consultant team on September 8,with the following request: ... that the Downtown Association be considered a partner in the development of and providing substantive input to the scope of work for the downtown strategy component of the analysis. This was a reasonable request, since how the Downtown can best position itself for increased competition was among the key reasons for conducting the study. Therefore, the Association has had the opportunity to review and comment on the work scope. Also, in addition to many individual "interviews", the Association has had two opportunities to meet with the consultants to review and comment on preliminary work. These briefings,were held on December 16, 1998 and February 11, 1999, and were attended by several Association board members. Purposes of April 20 Agenda Item: What the Council Is,and Is Not,Being Asked to Do Phase 1 of the contract is now completed. Therefore, consistent with the approved scope of work, the study is now being presented to the Council. Following the presentation and discussion of its findings, the Council is being asked to provide guidance relative to proceeding to Phase 2, the negotiation of an MOU. The MOU is intended to outline the broad principles around which a subsequent DDA may be negotiated. For example, do the parties agree to a concept of "performance based" sales tax sharing to pay for the interchange, and if so, under what general conditions? The purpose for the MOU is discussed more thoroughly later. While staff recommends proceeding to 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 ultimately be annexed into the City before anything can be built. Therefore, there are a number of discretionary review and approval steps that must be completed before final project approval is before the Council. At this time, the developer has funded the EIR and that process is underway. The Architectural Review Commission has also provided preliminary comments to the applicant on site layout and project design. The Council is also not being asked to initiate the negotiation of the DDA. As the Council agreed to on July 21, 1998, the City should not enter into a DDA until after the project has received its discretionary approvals. An excerpt from the July 21 agenda report states: "... it makes no sense [for either party] 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 4-3 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview Page 4 reasonably proceed in making a significant investment of time and money in a project that has great risks under the best of circumstances." As discussed in a later section, the MOU is to provide the `blear understanding" and to set the ground rules for the future DDA. PCR Kotin Study Findings Attachment 2 provides the Introduction and Executive Summary sections of the PCR Kotin Study. On March 30`x, the complete 68 page study and appendices were separately provided to Council Members, the Downtown Association Board of Directors, the Chamber of Commerce, and ECOSLO. It is also available for review in the City Clerk's Office and at the City-County Library. At the most summary level,the following main conclusions are set forth: • 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). 4-4 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview Page 5 • 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. • In order to build consensus for retail recruitment goals and new marketing strategies, the Downtown should develop a long-term strategic plan, in partnership with the City. The rationale for these conclusions is summarized in Attachment 2, and more comprehensively supported in the full report. The consultants will present their findings at the April 20' meeting. Before Going Further, the Central Question Is: Should the Council Continue Pursuing the Present General Plan Objective for the Dalidio Property? Before deciding whether or not to proceed to the MOU phase, staff believes that the current Council must address this question. It is a question that has been posed to previous Councils several times before, and each time the Council strongly affirmed continuing. This happened most recently on July 21, 1998, with the agenda report closing by asking the Council to be sure, prior to proceeding further, 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 ground rules. We now have a different Council in place, with three new members, so it is appropriate to reaffirm our direction. Obviously, there are strong community sensitivities about projects like the San Luis Marketplace. This sensitivity has helped to maintain our community's special character, and underpins our General Plan limits on such development (limited to the Froom and Dalidio properties) and the "compromise" established for the Dalidio property. The compromise, established over a period of years, and after a very large amount of diverse community input, was essentially intended to establish a middle course between the total development of the property (favored by some, including the property owner) and no development of the property at all (favored by others). It was also designed to balance certain economic considerations, such as the need for added City revenue and our inability to afford the total acquisition of the property (offered at one time to the City for over$6 million). As such, departing from this General Plan compromise should be weighed against the same considerations that forged it in the first place, including the practical constraints, trade-offs, and potential long-term consequences of not going forward. Whether we like it or not, there are realities that complicate this matter beyond how we might feel about large shopping centers or 4-5 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview Page 6 "big boxes" or what we might like for the Dalidio property under ideal circumstances. These realities must be taken into account in order to avoid getting less for our community over the long term than the compromise offers. The questions below may be somewhat rhetorical, but we think they fairly confront several short and long-term considerations associated with the San Luis Marketplace, the Dalidio property, and our current General Plan goals for the area: • If we don't follow our General Plan, what are the implications relative to other City-County land use issues? • If we don't annex the area, do we believe that the property will remain in open space under County jurisdiction forever? (The County Land Use Element presently applies an agricultural designation for the property.) • What are the goals of the current property owners, and do they wish to.continue owning and farming the land? • If the only way to protect all of the open space is to buy it, can we afford a transaction estimated to be in the millions? • If we were to assemble funds of such magnitude, would they be better invested protecting resources and open space elsewhere? (buying the portion of the Dalidio property now designated for retail will "net"the City an added 40 acres of open space, in addition to the 60 - 70 acres to be protected under the General Plan compromise) • Given the fiscal constraints facing cities (such as "E-commerce" and Proposition 218), and the high ambitions of our City,how important to our community goals is the estimated added sales tax? • What are the implications for our sales tax, and for our status as a regional retail center, if the tenants envisioned for the project go elsewhere in the market? • How important is the Prado Road interchange to our long-term circulation goals, and if its important to the community, how will it be built in the absence of the project? With regard to the cost of total acquisition of the property for agriculture/or open space, one suggestion that has been made is that the City acquire the property for water supply purposes, presumably using enterprise funds that are currently dedicated to other water supply projects now being pursued. While the Utilities Department intends to investigate this idea further (and related issues, such as water recharge of the basin), they do point out that only about one acre would be needed for a pumping station and small treatment plant. Thus, the same goal can be largely achieved through the General Plan concept at no added cost. i 4-6 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview Page 7 All things considered, staff believes that the General Plan goal for the Dalidio property continues to hold substantial merit for the City and offers more over the long-term than other practical alternatives, both economically and with respect to open space protection. Therefore, staff recommends proceeding to the next step: the negotiation of an MOU. Proceeding to the Memorandum of Understanding As set forth in the July 21, 1998 agenda report, assuming the Council accepts the results of the Phase 1 study, the next step in the process is to negotiate an MOU. The MOU is intended to outline the general principles that will guide the negotiation of a future public-private partnership memorialized in a DDA. Staff guidelines would be based generally on the direction provided by Council at its July 21, 1998 meeting, which is set forth in bullet points on page 1 of this report (assuming, of course, that this direction is affirmed by the current Council). A core issue within these negotiations will be: How much of the estimated added revenue to the City should be available for interchange reimbursement? On July 21", the Council agreed to the following two main principles: • 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 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. Attachment 3 outlines the thinking of our consultant, Allan Kotin, and shows that the questions to be considered in the MOU include: • How will the interchange be funded, and how do we involve other property owners? • 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-a-vis the timing of the interchange construction? In terms of timing, on July 21" the Council agreed that MOU negotiations should be concluded as soon as possible, but no later than 90 days following completion of the fiscal impact study. We continue to support this time frame. If agreement cannot be reached on general principles within this period of time, then it is unlikely that such an agreement can ever be reached. As such, it would not be in the 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. 4-7 Council Agenda Report—'San Luis Marketplace Project Preview Page 8 FISCAL IMPACT In the agreement with PCR Kotin, a fixed cost of $38,500 was established for Phase 1 (the economic, fiscal, and marketing study) and was paid for entirely by the developer. The cost of Phase 2 will be on a time and materials basis, and thus will depend largely on how long the negotiations take. At present, we estimate this cost to be between $15,000 and $30,000, and will again be paid for by the developer. However, the developer would be eligible for reimbursement for these costs from bond proceeds, if and when a bond is issued for the construction of the interchange. The cost of negotiating an eventual DDA are not estimated at this time, but will be addressed at such time that we reach that point. CONCLUSION Even though there will be controversy and some uncertainty associated with the San Luis Marketplace project, we believe that the General Plan concept for the Dalidio property, established by the City Council in 1994 after many public hearings, continues to provide the best balance between our long term economic vitality and open space protection goals. With regard to the open space, the option of"just saying no" does not offer long-term - and perhaps not even short-term — protection. Although the County's Area Plan assigns an agricultural designation to the property, the County has changed agricultural designations to urban uses many times in the past. For example, in December 1996 several hundred acres of agricultural land at the City's southern edge were re-designated industrial by the Board of Supervisors (e.g. the Avila Ranch). The Area Plan also contained explicit policies that should have lead the County to deny processing the Froom Ranch project, but did not. In practical terms, therefore, only public ownership provides long term protection. However, buying all of the property is unlikely to be affordable, and even if adequate funds were assembled, one should ask if such a `wear chest" could be better used protecting even more open space at the community's edges, in the defined Greenbelt. Regarding our economic goals, without the project an opportunity to substantially increase our sales tax will be waived, which in tum will make the achievement of other Council goals more difficult. We also risk the further erosion of our status as the regional trade center, and even more "sales tax leakage" if some of the proposed anchors relocate elsewhere in the market area. 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. A binding agreement with the developer (the "DDA") will not be pursued until such time as these approvals are obtained. Finally, any public-private partnership agreement for sales tax reimbursement must be approached very carefully and professionally, and staff believes that the negotiation of an acceptable MOU is an appropriate first step in this regard. However, before proceeding to this next step, it is essential that the Council affirm its commitment to the General Plan goal for this property; taking this next step makes no sense otherwise. 4-8 Council Agenda Report—San Luis Marketplace Project Preview Page 9 ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Actions and Direction,July 21, 1998 2. Introduction and Executive Summary of PCR Kotin Study 3. Memorandum from Allan Kotin regarding MOU NOTE: The complete July 21, 1998 agenda report, and the full PCR Kotin Study, have been provided separately to Council Members and are available for review in the City Clerk's office. 4-9 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY FROM JULY 219 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. 4-10 ATTACHMENT 2 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Dowr.tov eta i I Activity (. .Plepored�or •` ��, S '�-'r -. ,is ,\�., " 'J•;Vin-l`'�rl "��i'�'J.^,l, .� q' :. ,f i di .c i 4 II,•i l ).M;I�' ♦ s , or 0b afSan Wit ObISpD ;` r' r; 3 H 4��` .� ♦ % y a t ,, �"„ -tet ,.'r . . i Prepared bY., i PCR Kotin r �I_, �I_•. �� . f i f r'1Z1 [isITPr BOU1 "*ffl Opel r 16s Angeles, CI'i#ornia"9�2�r? ! (310) 820-0900,y r i ;: and :; :" / r f (for Downtown Strote9O z •e a ' _i''� ':I '• °,-� t° Downtown/Maln street Visions' 'rh l 2t4 Mairv- M. :=`"•r E1o) sao-Dole x 1 h • � t" 1 :• .. :T� '�ti �� `•'.71.. may% . .. : r' ti l - 1 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 1. INTRODUCTION PCR Kotin was commissioned by the City of San Luis Obispo to undertake a multi-part consulting study including:assessing the impact of the proposed San Luis Marketplace retail project on the city; the feasibility of a possible retail tax sharing and a public assistance program for the project; a particular focus on the impact of the project on downtown retailing; and a parallel analysis of downtown retailing strategies. A critical element in all aspects of this analysis is to develop a profile of retail activity in the City of San Luis Obispo. This profile covers the region of which the city itself is a part,generally, and more specifically the proposed San Luis Marketplace project and downtown San Luis Obispo. The retail analysis is utilized in the fiscal analysis, which estimates net revenues to accrue to the City of San Luis Obispo from the San Luis Marketplace. 1.1 BACKGROUND In 1994, a developer by the name of William Bird, representing SC Properties, secured an option for development of property known as the Dalidio Property near the Madonna Road intersection with Route 101. An initial proposal was formulated involving the construction of a power retail center anchored by a Costco. Protracted negotiations ensued with no concrete result,due in part to the withdrawal of Costco,the loss of control of the adjoining Central Coast Plaza shopping center by Mr. Bird, and the obstacles posed by the necessity for constructing a costly interchange at the intersection of Prado Road and Route 101. In the spring of 1998,the proposal was revived by Mr. Bird,this time with a different group of partners,and in contemplation of a physically different development on the same basic site. On May 13,1998,an extended all-day meeting was held with the proposers,City staff and representatives of PCR Kotin. During this meeting, a different project was defined; anchored by Target and a home improvement store; the developer accepted the responsibility in principle for funding the $8 to $10 million required for the freeway interchange; and concurrently proposed a sales tax sharing arrangement. Subsequent to that meeting, presentations were made to the City Council by the developer. He then offered to fund, and the City authorized PCR Kotin to undertake, a detailed study of the fiscal impacts,the impact on other retailing,and the apparent viability of the proposed tax sharing arrangement. Because of the sensitive nature of the downtown retailing to the City of San Luis Obispo,the PCR Kotin assignment also involved a portion of the effort devoted to developing a downtown retail strategy. l 4-12 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 The central issues underlying this analysis are: the extent to which the proposed San Luis Marketplace retail complex will in fact generate significant additional fiscal revenues for the City,the extent to which these will be offset by other costs; and,finally,the extent to which a reasonable share of the remaining revenues should be used to reimburse the developer for funding the freeway infrastructure. Concurrent with this effort,which is focused on the San Luis Marketplace, the Downtown Merchants Association and the City collectively agreed that PCR Kotin's effort should be devoted to developing a detailed profile of retailing in downtown, both as a basis for analyzing the potential impact of the San Luis Marketplace and also as a basis for the independent development of a downtown retailing strategy. 1.2 APPROACH In developing the retailing profile,PCR Kotin has relied on a mixture of traditional sales data analysis and somewhat innovative treatment of individual store locations. The traditional analysis consists of obtaining sales tax data for a variety of different areas which collectively comprise a defined regional Central Coast trading area (Central Coast Analysis Area) consisting of the northern portion of Santa Barbara County and all of San Luis Obispo County. General retail sales patterns for this area have been broken down by city,county, and by different component areas within the City of San Luis Obispo. In addition to analyzing these retail sales and how the profiles of sales differ between the different sales areas (most particularly between San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria) PCR Kotin has also analyzed individual merchant patterns. Since national and regional chains tend to be the primary anchors which draw people to centers, a detailed analysis has been made of major chain stores throughout the region. Their distribution within the different communities has been used as the basis for estimating probable diversion of sales by San Luis Marketplace. This analysis also provides a basis for determining the extent to which the development of San Luis Marketplace is likely to create a positive material shift in shopping between San Luis Obispo and other competing areas in the region. Finally,this profile provides a basis for establishing what retail categories offer potential growth for downtown retail. The profile goes on to deal in considerable depth with the number of stores and sales volumes of different classes of retail stores in downtown. A detailed discussion of individual blocks and corridors within downtown is also provided. 2 4-13 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 1.3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT This report was prepared under the direct overall supervision of Allan D.Kotin. The Project Manager is Ross S.Selvidge and the principal investigator is Dennis B.Wambem. PCR Kotin would also like to acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by Allen Hopkins of the City's GeoData Services Division, who provided valuable City data and Linda Butterfield of HdL Companies,who provided the key sales data underlying this analysis. Ron Cano of DowntowrVMain Street Visions has participated in key discussions and has formulated the Downtown strategy. 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This Introduction is followed by a brief Executive Summary which is explicitly partial and interim in nature. Sections 3 and 4 provide discussions of regional retail patterns and patterns within San Luis Obispo,respectively. Section 5 presents the fiscal impact analysis. The Downtown strategy, prepared by Downtown/Main Street Visions, is presented in Section 6. Appendix A presents information on future retail projects in the Central Coast area. Appendix B presents additional information on potential seasonal events in Downtown San Luis Obispo and in a Downtown business attraction and retention work program. 3 4-14 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The San Luis Marketplace is a community shopping center of approximately 500,000 square feet proposed to be developed and annexed to the City of San Luis Obispo. The proposed project is located west of Interstate 101 and south of Dalidio Road,adjacent to the southern city limit of San Luis Obispo. Central Coast Analysis Area A retail analysis has been conducted to evaluate the impacts of the San Luis Marketplace on existing retailing throughout the Central Coast Analysis Area. The Central Coast Analysis Area is defined to include the Environs of Santa Maria on the south, and extending north to include the Five Cities area(Arroyo Grande,Pismo Beach and surrounding communities), the City of San Luis Obispo and Environs,Atascadero and Paso Robles,and the remainder of San Luis Obispo County. San Luis Marketplace The San Luis Marketplace will be anchored by a department store and a home improvement store, each in the range of 120,000 to 140,000 square feet. Other sub-anchor tenants may include category stores,such as toys,office supplies,appliances and electronics. There are also line shops and pads which may include restaurants,music/video,apparel,greeting card and gift stores and specialty stores. Total taxable retail sales for the center are estimated at $121 million per year. This was derived on the basis of sales estimates of$280 per square foot for the general merchandise store,$220 per square foot for the home improvement store and $225 per square foot for the remaining stores. The tenant mix and sales generation estimates were provided by the developer. The taxable sales estimate of$121 million for San Luis Marketplace is approximately 23% of existing taxable retail sales for the City of San Luis Obispo, and about 5.2% of total taxable sales in the Central Coast Analysis Area. Existing Regional Retail Conditions In 1997, the City of San Luis Obispo experienced total taxable retail sales of$531 million. It is estimated that$52 million of these sales were to visitors,with$479 million sold to residents of the Central Coast Analysis Area. The local household demand within the City itself was estimated at$287 million. Therefore,it is estimated that the San Luis Obispo retail capture of demand from Central Coast households outside the City amounts to $192 million. The 4 4-15 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 overall ratio of sales to demand is estimated at 1.67,indicating that for every$1.00 of sales to San Luis Obispo residents, the City's retailers generate an additional$0.67 from Central Coast households outside the City. Retail Sales, Visitor and Household Demand and Sales Capture and Leakage: 1997 Central Coast Analysis Area an Millions of Dollars) Arroyo Grande, Santa City of Atascadero Other San Maria San Luis and Paso Luis Obispo and Obispo Robles County Environs Total Taxable retail sales $531 $552 $460 $760 $2,303 Visitor demand $52 $18 $138 $29 $238 Taxable retail sales net of visitor $479 $534 $322 $731 $2,065 demand Local household demand $287 $408 $834 $614 $2,142 Sales capture or(leakage) $192 $126 ($511) $117 ($77) Ratio of sales(net of visitor demand) 1.67 1.31 0.39 1.19 .096 to household demand Source: PCR Kotin Sales are also estimated to exceed demand in Santa Maria,Paso Robles,and Arroyo Grande. However,the San Luis Obispo capture estimated at$192 million is by far the greatest of any part of the Central Coast Analysis Area, followed by Santa Maria and Environs, with an estimated capture of$117 million from outside sources and Paso Robles,with an estimated capture of$107 million. Other parts of San Luis Obispo County,including smaller cities and unincorporated communities, show the greatest sales leakage, with an estimated $511 million in demand going to retail centers in other areas. Impact of Individual Store Locations The analysis of individual retail chain store locations shows some interesting findings,which generally suggest both opportunities for expansion of Downtown retailing and, more 5 4-16 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 important, the generally complementary character of the proposed San Luis Marketplace. Currently the City of San Luis Obispo lacks large building material and hardware stores, which will be addressed in San Luis Marketplace. This is in sharp contrast to Santa Maria and Environs, which have six such stores compared to three in San Luis Obispo, most of which are smaller than the ones in Santa Maria. A similar pattern exists with respect to department stores,where San Luis Obispo currently has three relatively small chain stores in contrast to nine,including seven majors in Santa Maria. Number of Chain Stores by Selected Retail Categories San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties City of Other San Santa Maria Other Santa San Luis Luis Obispo and Barbara Obispo County Environs County Total Apparel 11 10 6 18 45 General merchandise 3 5 9 8 25 Home furnishings and appliances 3 2 3 3 11 Building materials and hardware 4 9 6 3 22 Other retail 19 9 16 27 71 Total 40 35 40 59 174 Source: PCR Kotin Once again,San Luis Obispo with the creation of the San Luis Marketplace will address this gap in the San Luis Obispo retail base. In these two critical areas of department stores and home improvement stores, there are no chain stores in Downtown and there should therefore be no overall adverse effects resulting from San Luis Marketplace. This supports the hypothesis that San Luis Marketplace will provide at least the opportunities,if not the assurances, of increased business for Downtown retailers. The reasons for these opportunities are twofold. First,fewer residents of the City of San Luis Obispo will find it necessary to leave the City on shopping trips, resulting in an increased likelihood of fulfilling some shopping needs Downtown. Second, many shopping trips will be made to the Marketplace by residents of other areas in the Central Coast Analysis area. These increased shopping trips will also increase the likelihood that some demands will be met Downtown. 6 4-17 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 Projected Retail Conditions in 2002 The approach to the regional retail analysis is to project retail sales capacity(e.g.,supply)and household demand to the year 2002 under two alternative assumptions: with development of San Luis Marketplace and without development of San Luis Marketplace. Both scenarios project the same amounts of household growth in the region—from about 120,000 households in 1997 to 130,000 households in 2002. This projected household growth results in an increase in household demand of about$161 million for the entire Central Coast Analysis Area. Both scenarios also incorporate the impact of development of new retail centers that are under construction or approved. These centers will add approximately 1.8 million square feet of retail space, with an additional$433 million in retail sales capacity. Growth in Household Retail Demand and in Retail Sales Capacity Central Coast Analysis Area 1991-2002 (in Millions of Dollars) Growth in Retail Growth in Retail Sales Capacity Sales Capacity 1998-2002 1998-2002 Without San Luis With San Luis Demand Marketplace Marketplace Growth City of San Luis Obispo $12 $104 $225 Other Central Coast Areas 149 329 329 Total Central Coast Analysis Area $161 $433 $554 Source: PCR Kotin Under the assumption that the San Luis Marketplace is not developed, the year 2002 retail sales in San Luis Obispo are estimated at$499 million. Under the assumption that the San Luis Marketplace is developed, the retail sales in San Luis Obispo are estimated at $578 million. Therefore, the net increase in retail sales in San Luis Obispo attributable to the San Luis Marketplace is estimated at $79 million. This net increase is in contrast to the gross 7 4-18 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 sales of the project of$121 million,estimated on the basis of data provided by the developer. Based on this analysis, it is estimated that the San Luis Marketplace will capture about$42 million in sales from other retailers in the City of San Luis Obispo. City of San Luis Obispo Retail Sales, Capture and Leakage 1997 and 2002 With and Without San Luis Marketplace (in Millions of Dollars) 2002 without 2002 with Impact of San Luis San Luis San Luis 1997 Marketplace Marketplace Marketplace City of San Luis Obispo household retail $287 $299 $299 n/a demand City of San Luis Obispo retail sales net of 479 515 594 79 visitor demand Sales capture from Central Coast households $192 $216 $295 $79 outside San Luis Obispo Source: PCR Kotin It is critical to note that if there is demand for the retailers proposed for San Luis Marketplace—and it appears that such demand exists—then it is likely that such a center will be built either inside or outside the City to meet that demand. If it is built outside the City then even the lower numbers shown for San Luis Obispo City sales will be too high. The issue before the City is not so much whether such redevelopment will occur,but instead whether the City will benefit when it does occur. Profile of Retailing in Downtown San Luis Obispo Retailing in Downtown San Luis Obispo is very unusual in the context of California communities of the same or even larger size. Downtown remains a highly viable and attractive place with a wealth of opportunities for pedestrian-oriented shopping. Perhaps one of the most critical findings of the report is that this type of shopping is, for the most part,noncompetitive with shopping centers anchored by large,high volume retailers. The mix of Downtown retailing and its relationship to the City as a whole is shown in the text table below. 8 4-19 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 Number of Retail Establishments by Category Downtown San Luis Obispo and Total City Downtown Downtown Total City of Percent of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Total City Apparel 33 52 639o' General merchandise 3 25 129o' Food stores 14 51 27% Eating and drinking places 53 157 34% Home furnishings and appliances 24 92 26% Building materials and farm implements 0 29 0% Other retail 91 266 34% Total 221 715 31% Source: PCR Kotin The San Luis Obispo Downtown includes major shares of many key retail activities in the City, including approximately 6076 of apparel establishments, over one-third of all eating and drinking places,about 25% of the home furnishings and appliance establishments,and more than 30% of other retail. The importance of Downtown in specialty retailing is further indicated by some of the categories within other retailing. Downtown includes 21 of 29 of the City's art/novelty stores,9 of 16 sporting goods stores, 10 of 19 stationery/book stores, 10 of 15 jewelry stores and approximately 25% of all specialty stores. In terms of taxable sales, Downtown accounts for 97o of citywide sales of general merchandise, drugs,food and liquor during 1997. Downtown shares were higher in other categories, with 85% of apparel sales, 3776 of restaurant sales and 32% of sales in all other retail stores. 9 4-20 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 City of San Luis Obispo Downtown Share of Total City Retail Sales 1997 Downtown Total City Downtown Sales Sales Sales Share of ($Millions) ($Millions) City Apparel $27 $32 85% Eating and drinking places $27 $73 37% General merchandise,drugs,food and $11 $119 9% liquor All other retail stores $49 $152 32% Total Retail $113 $377 30% Source: PCR Kotin Note: Sales do not include automotive-related sales San Luis Marketplace Impacts on Downtown San Luis Obispo Some preliminary conclusions regarding the impact of the proposed San Luis Marketplace on Downtown may be drawn. • The anchors of San Luis Marketplace are general merchandise and home improvement,including appliances. These stores are not viewed as providing significant competition to existing retailing in Downtown. • Some sub-anchors, such as electronics/appliances and office supplies, will have some impacts on Downtown retailing. • The most significant impacts on Downtown retailing are anticipated to come from the apparel stores, specialty stores and restaurants in the San Luis Marketplace. The foregoing discussion of Downtown impacts is explicitly preliminary in character and does not consider any of the numerous steps that may be undertaken to mitigate potential adverse impacts. These include joint merchandising,cross-referral services,and a better and more detailed knowledge of the tenant mix. 10 4-21 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 Fiscal Impacts of San Luis Marketplace Based on the net sales of San Luis Marketplace, i.e., after subtracting estimated transfers from other San Luis Obispo retailers,total annual project revenues are estimated at$985,500. After subtracting annual costs of $101,900, the annual operating surplus is estimated at $883,600. After the allowance for capital replacement(capital improvement plan costs),the net fiscal impact is estimated at$852,700. City of San Luis Obispo Fiscal Impacts of San Luis Marketplace City of San Luis Obispo General Fund (In 1999 Dollars) Annual revenues $985,500 Annual operating costs $101,900 Net recurring operating surplus $883,600 Annual capital improvement plan costs $30,900 Net annual fiscal impact $852,700 Source: PCR Kotin Relation to Proposed Freeway Interchange Costs The developers of the proposed San Luis Marketplace have indicated that the project is unable to absorb,as an infrastructure cost,the full$8 million to$10 million development cost of the Prado Interchange with the 1-101 freeway. The developers acknowledge that construction of that interchange,or at least its commencement,is a likely prerequisite for the opening of the San Luis Marketplace. To bridge this financial gap, they have proposed a program by which they would capture a major share of the net new retail sales tax generated for the City in order to reimburse them for the obligation to build the Marketplace. The developers have represented that the additional revenues associated with the renovation and expansion of the GottschaWs and other stores at Central Coast Plaza should also be included in the pool of revenue available to reimburse them for interchange costs. Similarly, they have suggested that it would be inappropriate to reduce these revenues by services costs. Upon careful review, PCR Kotin finds it difficult to ascribe additional sales 11 4-22 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 at the Central Coast Plaza to San Luis Marketplace since these sales are likely to occur independently of this project. In addition, the amount by which they will be increased cannot be reasonably determined in advance. Similarly, there is no precedent for considering additional revenues without considering the additional municipal service cost required to accommodate the revenue-generating facilities. Accordingly,the fiscal impact of$852,700 shown above becomes a reasonable proxy for the total pool available. Precedent would suggest that not more than one-half of this pool should be dedicated to reimbursing or otherwise subsidizing a project. Accordingly, there would be approximately $425,000 per year available. Assuming that mechanisms were found to finance the interchange on a tax-exempt basis,the illustration below suggests that the debt service would be in the neighborhood of$683,000 to$712,000 per year. It would appear,therefore,subject to a host of additional terms to be negotiated,that reimbursement of perhaps 48% to 62% of the cost of such an interchange is a reasonable prospect. Low Cost Estimate High Cost Estimate Construction Cost $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 Term in Years 20 20 20 20 Interest Cost Scenario Low High Low High Rate 5.75% 625% 5.75% 625% Annual Debt Service 683,388 711,698 854,235 889,623 Available from Net Fiscal Impact For Debt Service 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 Construction Financed Amount 4,975,000 4,777,000 4,975,000 4,777,000 %of Total Cost 622% 59.7% 49.8% 47.8% The interest rates indicated are an estimate of a range of "all in" rates incorporating an allowance for capitalized interest and various issuance costs. They are intended to be illustrative. Actual interest rates will vary depending on market conditions and the nature of the security provided at the time of issuance. 12 4-23 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity February 1999 Downtown Strategy The development or recommendation of selected strategies for enhancing downtown retailing is an explicit part of the PCR Kotin assignment. It is related to but not identical with the analysis of regional retailing patterns and the impacts of San Luis Marketplace. What is critical, however, is that the recommendations developed in this report with the assistance of Downtown/Main Street Visions, specifically consider the regional retailing patterns identified by the PCR Kotin study and the specific potential impact of the San Luis Marketplace as a contingent possibility. In general, the Downtown retail strategies developed to reflect the following general observations and conclusions: 1. The mix of retailing in Downtown San Luis Obispo,although generally rich and attractive, could benefit from additional expansion. 2. The mix of retailing as it now stands and as it may reasonably be expanded, will probably benefit more than it will be hurt by the opening of San Luis Marketplace. 3. The generation of substantial additional shopping traffic to the City by virtue of San Luis Marketplace,whether it comes from new visitors,new out-of-town shoppers,or from in-town shoppers no longer leaving town will have a clear benefit for Downtown. 4. Among the areas in which Downtown can meaningfully expand its retailing presence with the addition of selected chain store tenants requiring floor areas in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 square feet or more, which in turn would require land reuse or assemblage to create parcels not currently available. 5. A more focused and larger commitment to retailing events and integration of retailing would also enhance opportunities in Downtown San Luis Obispo without having adverse effects elsewhere in the City. 6. A conscious effort to create some proactive cross-referral mechanisms between San Luis Marketplace and Downtown San Luis Obispo could be beneficial for both centers,particularly if developed from the beginning,if,in fact,San Luis Marketplace goes forward. 13 4-24 SANTA. MoNICA LOS ArvGELES AT :HMENT 3 IRVINE Memorandum �e�w MAR 2 9 1999 City Qf S. .p. TO: Ken Hampian, City of San Luis Obispo minl gtration DATE: March 25, 1999 CC: Bill Stader, City of San Luis Obispo FROM: Allan D. Kotin RE: OUTLINE AND STRATEGY FOR NEGOTIATION WITH DEVELOPER OF SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE At your request, and as a result of a conversation in February 1999, PCR Kotin has prepared this memorandum to address coming issues in the processing of the San Luis Marketplace Project.This project, which is a large promotional shopping center to be located on property known as the "Delidio Property" near the intersection of Route 101 and Madonna Road, will require the construction of a new freeway interchange. Based on prior negotiations, two issues are dear with respect to the financing of this interchange. The first is that the City and State are unwilling or unable at this time to fund it from their own funds unrelated to the project.The second issue is that,while the developer of the proposed shopping center has agreed to"front end"the costs for this interchange, the economics of his project will not permit that he bear these costs completely without any reimbursement. In May 1998, this issue was reviewed in detail in an extended meeting with the developer in San Luis Obispo. Subsequent presentations to the City Council by both the City Staff and the developer resulted in a decision to commission an extended study of the fiscal impact of the proposed San Luis Marketplace Center,coupled with an associated analysis of downtown retailing and downtown retail strategy.This study was completed in February 1999 by PCR Kotin and is entitled "Economic and Fiscal Impact of Proposed San Luis Marketplace and Implications for Downtown Retail Activity." While that report deals at some length with the quantification of fiscal impact and the determination of whether or not that fiscal impact appears adequate, under certain assumptions, to reimburse significant portions of the cost of the interchange, it does not deal at all with the mechanics or transaction structure. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of the transaction structure and an overview of the process by which the City and the developer may reach agreement. This memorandum is divided into three basic sections.The first deals with the likely shape of the completed transaction.The second section deals with some alternative views of the process to reach agreement on that transaction.The third and final section deals with certain aspects of the negotiations and data requirements required for successful negotiation. PROBABLE TRANSACTION STRUCTURE Overview of Alternatives Broadly speaking, there exist two generic alternatives for a transaction structure in which the City would agree to a contingent partial reimbursement of the costs incurred by the developer in funding the interchange. In one alternative, the City incurs a debt to the developer in the amount agreefor 1210- lNilsnire Bo..ievarc. 5;... 11,50, Loi ^oe.._. CA 90'72= . . v:i:. .(,,^r r.e..coe . 310.020.0900 _ 310.E20.1703 SArJTA MONICA - Los ANGE1ES Ir;viraE Memorandum RE: OUTLINE AND STRATEGY FOR NEGOTIATION WITH DEVELOPER OF SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE reimbursement with the understanding that the debt is payable only in an amount equal to a designated share of additional defined fiscal revenues, typically sales taxes. An alternative mechanism, more frequently referred to a the "assessment" or "tax reimbursement" mechanism,would involve the funding of the interchange through a public bonding mechanism in which the ultimate responsibility for paying the bonds would be secured by the proposed project,with provisions for reimbursement in amounts representing defined portions of specified fiscal revenues. The second alternative would be comprised of the following steps or elements: 1. With the cooperation of the City, a Community Facilities District (Mellow-Roos) or assessment district would be formed including,at a minimum,the property underlying the project and,at a maximum, that property and some adjacent properties that would also benefit from the interchange. 2.The district would issue bonds, the ultimate security for which would be a special tax or direct assessment on the underlying real estate: presumably these bonds would have high enough debt service coverage to sell at a satisfactory (i.e., low tax-exempt) interest rate without any further guarantees or credit enhancement. 3.The liability for paying these bonds would rest, ultimately,with the owner of the project,since the bonds would be a lien on the project.Whether or not other properties would be encumbered by the lien and the sequence and timing of their payment is unclear. 4. There would be a reimbursement agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo in which, each year, the owner of the shopping center would be reimbursed or relieved of his payments in an amount equal to a preestablished share of a designated fiscal revenue stream typically defined as sales taxes in excess of a previously defined threshold. 5.This agreement would have a term,at the end ofwhich reimbursements would cease;that term may be, but is not required to be, equal to the term of the bonds. This second structure, although much more complex than a simple contingent note from the City to the developer,is advantageous in several ways.First of all,it permits tax exempt financing which typically carries a significantly lower interest rate than the borrower's private borrowing costs. In addition to this crucial advantage, it also provides a clear security mechanism of sufficient strength that the City does not have to worry that it would be confronted with the necessity to pay the bonds. Finally, and perhaps most critically PCR Kotin Page 2 March 25, 1999 SANTA MONICA Los ANGELES - IRVINE Memorandum RE: OUTLINE AND STRATEGY FOR NEGOTIATION WITH DEVELOPER OF SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE for the developer, this is the only approach that does not require him to find the money from private debt or equity sources at the beginning to fund the interchange. The requirement to attract that additional capital from additional private sources could easily disable the project since all forms of repayment would be regarded as contingent and uncertain. Even as it stands, the reimbursement agreement creates certain uncertainties for the developer and his investors, but there is sufficient precedent for this concept and the amount of debt service on the bonds would not be so burdensome as to prevent it from working effectively. The use of this transaction structure, which is the likely one in this instance, creates the need for several parallel transactions, determinations and public policy decisions. It has been anticipated from the very beginning that the agreements covering this would, in fact, be embodied in a statutory development agreement which would be negotiated as pan of the entitlement process. Reimbursement by Other Benefitting Property Owners Furthermore, there is the issue of other reimbursement agreements. It is manifest that the interchange will benefit many properties besides those in the shopping center. Whether or not a mechanism can be established for those properties,when they develop or change ownership, to proportionately reimburse the City or the developer for their costs in this matter is a critical but open item. It is clear that the developer and property owner would want to see any costs that he incurs and which are unreimburscd by the City, recovered to the extent that other properties are permitted to develop explicitly as result of the additional traffic capacity created by the interchange. It is equally clear that the City would seek to recover any moneys that it had advanced from public funds for reimbursement, even if such moneys were from the "surplus" fiscal impact that this project generated for the City. That"surplus", or more generally any surplus from retail development, is a critical ingredient in allowing the City to fund its other operations and support other land uses which have generally negative net fiscal impacts. A likely result is going to be some negotiated reimbursement agreement in which any funds reimbursed by other developers or property owners would be shared pro rata or in some predetermined priority sequence between the City and the developer. While such an agreement is not necessarily critical to the transaction, it is likely to be time consuming and it will be a matter of some importance. 4-27 PCR Kotin Page 3 March 25, 1999 SANTA MONICA LOS ANGELES IRVINE Memorandum RE: OUTLINE AND STRATEGY FOR NEGOTIATION WITH DEVELOPER OF SAN Luis MARKETPLACE NF= Specific Elements of the Agreement Associated with this form of transaction are the determination of several key elements in the agreement for reimbursement.Among the most important of these are the following: 1. The designation of the outlets or scope of the area from which property taxes are to be measured. In the developer's mind this should include the existing shopping centers. The City's position should be that it only include the new shopping center. 2. The designation of a threshold of existing sales to be subtracted from that amount, 3. Provision for indexing the threshold either by CPI or by some measure of generic retail sales growth, 4. The determination of a deduction to be made from the gross sales to reflect the estimated transfer impact,typically done as a percentage but also done by measuring actual changes in other outlets, 5. The determination of the share of the remaining excess to be allocated to reimbursement. In Section 5 of the"Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis"prepared by PCR Kotin,the hypothesis was that fifty per cent of the net revenues after estimated transfers would be allocated. This was chosen for purposes of illustration and because it represents a highly defensible and conservative City position. There exist variations and alternatives which remain to be negotiated. NEGOTIATING PROCESS There are several elements which govern the success, structure and timing of the process by which an agreement of this type is determined. In general, they require first some agreement on the critical costs and quantitative elements,followed directly by agreement on the general structure to be proposed and, finally, some agreement on the mechanism by which the parties will come to an agreement over a period of time and which will clearly precede the actual construction. As noted above,there needs to be critical agreement on at least two key items early in the process since their general magnitude shapes the entire character of the process.The first key item is the cost and timing of the interchange.The second key item is the scale and probable tenants of the shopping center.Without the first PCR Kotin Page 4 March 25, 1999 SANTA MONICA Los ANGELES - IRVINE Memorandum RE: OUTLINE AND STRATEGY FOR NEGOTIATION WITH DEVELOPER 6''`" OF SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE MS% item the magnitude of the costs to be reimbursed cannot be established. Without the second item there is no reliable way to estimate the revenues to be shared or to establish a sharing basis. To some degree, the second item has been addressed in the preparation of the PCR Kotin "Economic and Fiscal Impact" analysis. This information was, however, explicitly tentative and preliminary and was used to establish the general policy guidelines of the City. It is anticipated that if the project goes forward there will be additional derail and specificity about the tenant mix. It is important to recognize that in almost every situation of this type,the tenant mix originally contemplated has changed as a manifestation of market changes and other factors. It is critical that key anchor tenants and the amount of space devoted to general classes of other types of retailing be established early in the process. PCR Kotin, in undertaking similar analyses elsewhere, has found that sometimes an inordinate amount of time is spent agreeing on this if the developer has not thought it through or made the appropriate contacts and investigations of the retail market at the time that the agreement is being prepared. Even with an agreement on these two items, provisions must be made for the fact that they are both likely to change to some degree between initial negotiations and final development. A second critical item is agreement on the overall structure. There seems to be some limited consensus between the developer, the City Staff and their respective consultants, that the Mello/Roos or assessment district approach is the best one to take. What is not clear at this point is whether or not that structure is intended to cover properties other than the shopping center and/or the extent to which future reimbursement from third parties benefitting from the interchange is to be a critical part of it. Both of these issues need to be resolved early in the process at least at a conceptual level since they change the nature and character of the transaction. Finally, there is the issue of sequence. Broadly, the city must deal with two issues of sequence and phasing of the actual negotiations. The first issue concerns whether or not there is an intervening stage involving a detailed memorandum of understanding as opposed to a generalized exclusive right to negotiate. Detailed memoranda of understanding are time consuming and difficult. On the other hand, they provide an opportunity for both parties to make a fairly detailed and mutual but nonbinding commitment prior to undertaking the rather substantial expense of legal documentation. Tentatively, the actions taken by the City Council in 1998 suggest that this is the approach to be taken. If that is the case, then a schedule for regular meetings, exchanges of documents and the resolution of the two critical issues described above needs to be established early. In general, PCR Kotin would recommend the following strategy based upon very similar situations in the past: PCR Kotin Page 5 March 25. 1999 SANTA MONICA.. — Los ANGELES IF,VINE Memorandum RE: OUTLINE AND STRATEGY FOR NEGOTIATION WITH DEVELOPER OF SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE %mom 1. Assuming authorization to proceed with negotiation of an MOU by the City Council, the parties should first meet to establish the factual data on both costs and prospective revenues to the best extent possible and to set a time for the submission of a basic document by the City's Counsel to the developer. 2. That document, which is a draft MOU, should be prepared and submitted for a detailed, regular schedule of negotiations at weekly or bi-weekly intervals should be established for working through the terms of the memorandum of understanding. 3.The memorandum of understanding should,among other items,specify in considerable detail the nature and character of the legal documents to be developed, including the extent to which there will be options and conditions precedent to their actual execution. SOME SPECIAL ISSUES AND PROCESS FACTORS One of the most important things the City has to determine is the composition of its negotiating team and the funding of what can be significant negotiating costs. One way to deal with some aspects of the funding is to offer an inducement resolution from the City Council indicating the possibility of future bonding early in the process. This has the advantage of allowing much of the costs of negotiating to be recovered as part of the bond proceeds. The offsetting disadvantage is that it adds modestly to the bonding requirement. In general,developers would prefer to add to their debt service,particularly at tax exempt rates,rather than pay up front. To the extent that City costs are not covered by the bond or that a bond is not issued, the City must also face the issue of the extent to which it wants the developer to bear the costs of negotiations, which could easily exceed one hundred thousand dollars. Closely associated with this is the decision about composition of the negotiating team. It is often, but not necessarily the case, that the City does not use the City Attorney for detailed negotiations but rather, uses special counsel specifically familiar with the types of negotiations and agreements involved in such a transaction. Whether or not it is the City Attorney or special counsel that is used, the composition of the remaining negotiating team also has to be established. A common, but by no means universal practice, is to have a senior official of the City, but not the City Manager, a financial consultant, an attorney and one or more representatives of specially affected department withing the City government. It is not appropriate, as a 4-30 PCR Kotin Page 6 March 25, 1999 SANTA MONICA Los ANGELES IR Memorandum RE: OUTLINE AND STRATEGY FOR NEGOTIATION wrrH DEVELOPER OF SAN LUIS MARKETPLACE general rule,to have large negotiating groups since that tends to make it more difficult to have meetings and will tend to slow the process. Knowing how sensitive this issue is to many of the City's different departments,PCR Kotin would note that provisions should probably be made for some broader Advisory Committee which is updated regularly on the process of negotiations and from which attendees at specific sessions are invited to deal with particular issues. The creation of a project calendar early in the process is absolutely critical because of the fact that the long time associated with this process is inimical to successful pre-leasing from the developer's point of view. There is some outside limit which the developer can accommodate and still go forward with his leasing and hold prospective tenants. That limit needs to be set forth and it needs to be done both within the context of the interchange and the negotiation of the agreement. One of the most critical issues in this entire agreement (which is essentially procedural but still critical) is at what point in the process of developing the interchange will the City have sufficient confidence to allow the shopping center to proceed. From an economic and market point of view it clearly cannot defer the construction of the shopping center to the time at which this interchange is open. It is not clear it can even defer it until the time it is fully under construction. What may be a likely scenario is to defer it to the time at which the contracts are let, the amount is known and the bonds can be issued. HAProycccs\SIo98 I%WP\Mich 1ncc.wpd 4-31 PCR Kotin Page 7 March 25, 1999 MEETING AGENDA DATE "a_._ °—ITEM # ECOUNCIL ADD DIR VIIAO ❑FIN DIR ACAO ❑FIRE CHi-F 0ITORNEY ❑PO DIR Memo NEE ❑POLICE CHF ❑M MT EAM ❑REC DIR L� ❑UTIL DIR WE:" ❑vEas DI To: Mayor& Council From: John Dunn, CAOE-} /� Via: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director f°w A S By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manage Date: April 12, 1999 Re: San Luis Marketplace EIR Questions Councilwoman Marx has asked a series of questions regarding the processing of the EIR for the San Luis Marketplace. The following is staffs reply to that inquiry: Jan: 1 got your voice mail message regarding the San Luis Marketplace EIR process and tried to call but got no answer. 1 thought that / would a-mail you the response instead. In addition, since other Council members may have similar questions, and because the CAO directs that significant information be shared with all Council members equally, I will provide a 0hard copy"of this reply to your collages. First, you ask who is on the City's "Dalidio team." Then: is actually more than one answer to this question. The Dalidio project (also referred to as the San Luis Marketplace project) is an application submitted by Bill Bird and the Dalidio family for development of the property. This `team" also includes Kevin Bird, attorney Mike Moms, and planner Andrew Merriam. The City `team" starts with the City Council, which gave the staff very spec direction in July 1998 regarding the processing of the development application. As you know, the application includes requests for annexation, prezoning, architectural review, and environmental review for a project that includes commercial, residential, and open space components. As with all private planning permit applications, they are assigned to a staff planner in the Development Review Division for processing. The application in question was made on April 1d, 1998 andwas assigned to Pam Ricci. RECEIVED •Page I APR 1 2.1999 SLO CITY COUNCIL w In terms of the project team for this application, it includes City staff from all departments. As with any development proposal, input is needed from Public Works, Fire, Building, Police, Utilities, Natural Resources, and Finance. Currently there are two review efforts underway that involve various City staff members. The first is the project's fiscal impact analysis that is called for by the General Plan. That work effort is being headed by the Finance Department and City Administration. The second analysis is the project EIR which is being managed by the Community Development Department. Your message also inquired about the EIR process itself. Specifically, you asked about the recent scoping meeting that was held and about the notification for that meeting. The meeting in question was a public scoping meeting that was held during the required EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) period. To better understand the process and the purpose of the meeting, I should fill you in on past City actions related to this project. Following the submittal of the planning applications in April of 1998, staff took the project forward to City Council on July 21, 1998 to determine whether there was still interest on the community's part for the development. On a 4-1 vote, the Council directed staff to process the application and proceed with the required environmental and fiscal analyses. Following the July meeting, staff prepared the required initial study which concluded that the project could result in significant environmental impacts. As such, CEQA requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Staff developed a scope of work to address all project impact areas which was forwarded to the City Council at a public meeting on September 15, 1998, for review and approval of the workscope. The Council unanimously approved the EIR workscope with suggested changes and directed staff to obtain the services of a qualified consultant to prepare the project EIR. On November 13, 1998, the EIR contract was awarded to Rincon Consultants out of Ventura, California. Work on the EIR was delayed because the project applicant didn't submit payment for the EIR until February 1, 1999. Once received, Rincon was authorized to begin the analysis with a goal to have a draft EIR for public review by July 1999. Once a city begins the EIR preparation process, it is required by CEQA to prepare and send a Notice of Preparation (NOP) that solicits input on the EIR scope to Responsible, Trustee, and involved federal agencies; to the State Clearinghouse; and to parties previously requesting notice in writing (California Administrative Code Sections 15082 and 15083). Although CEQA does not require the City to involve the public in this process, we feel if important to •Page 2 do so. To this end, the NOP was mailed to 37 local, State, and Federal review agencies and local environmental groups known to the City to have expressed interest in the project. One of those groups included ECOSLO who by contract with the City, has agreed to be a clearinghouse and contact point to get information on proposed projects out to individuals and groups in the environmental community. In addition to the NOP, staff held a special meeting to give any interested party an opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIR. This "scoping meeting" is once again not required by CEQA and was done at staffs request as an added opportunity to gain early community input. Notice of the meeting was mailed to the same individuals and agencies who received the NOP. In addition, staff placed a legal add in The Tribune advertising the meeting and requesting input. The NOP period is still running and will not close until the end of the day Thursday, April 15". Any individual who may have missed the original Council meeting discussing the EIR workscope (September 1998) or the public notice and scoping meeting of March 29 , 1999, can still provide the City with comments on the EIR workscope. Comments can be either mailed to our offices at 990 Palm Street, sent to us via e-mail (pricci@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us), faxed at (805) 781-7173, or hand delivered. We would appreciate any input that the community has and will provide that feedback to the EIR consultant for consideration in the final document. Once the draft EIR is completed (anticipated to be the first part of July), the City will provide notice and make the EIR available to the public as required by CEQA. In addition, copies will be provided to the City Council, Planning Commission, and the ARC for review and comment. Noticed public hearings on the EIR and project will also give the community ample opportunity to provide input on the potential project related impacts. I hope that this answers your questions on the process and the steps staff had gone through to involve the community. We will also continue to keep all Council members informed and involved in the process. Please let staff know if there are any additional questions regarding the project or the EIR process that we are currently involved in. CC: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney Pam Ricci, Associate Planner 0 Page 3 APR-14-99 02 :54 PM CHUCK & LIZ CLARKE 8055458456 P. 01 MEETAGENDAAGENDA DATE ITEM # 2TOUNCIL CDD Din GkCAO ❑R I April 14,1999 p'ACAO ❑Fid_C...:.' [ATTORNEY ❑PW CIR eCLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF ❑MGMT TEAM ❑REC DIR p ❑LML DIR SI_.O City,Council Members ❑• l7 PERS DIR 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 FAX 781-7109 Dear Council Members, The development of the Dalidio property is an issue about which l've been very concerned for a long time. I firmly believe in the individual's right to use his own property and to make a prolit. But I also believe that this right must be balanced by conunon sense and the common good, 1 think the plan to spread buildings and concrete over acres of open land is almost "sinfill" when there are adjacent acres of already-developed land which are sorely under-used (Madonna Plaza and Central Coast Mall). 1 know there are plans to redesign and fill up Central Coast Mall (supposedly). I find it difficult to believe that there is a need in this city for ALL these additional shopping opportunities. I would prefer to see both Madonna Plaza and Central Coast Mall completely torn down and rebuilt as an attractive, well-designed shopping area (ycs, big box stores would be fine!), than to see them turned into further"ghost towns" as more open land is covered over. I am sure that the issue is much more complex than this, but i urge you to explore all options creatively before caving in to the attractive and "easy" solution which is now proposed. Sincerely yours, Elizabeth Clarke 1132 Vista Del l..ago San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 RECEIVED APR 1 4 1999 SLO CITY COUNCIL TEL N0 .5435140 Apr 16 .99 14 :44 P .01 MEET I . _ AGENDA ANGIE KING DATE ITEM # Attorney at Law ._..... _._.... PO Box 12909 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 voice: (805)544-4321 FFCAO email: aking@sfonet..org ❑F1', ❑�.❑F,. .FROM: Angie King, FAX number 543-1305 ❑KOL"❑RECDIR DA'Th: April 16, 1999 ❑UTa DIR ❑PERS DI. f '1'O: Mayor Scttic and members of City Council Numbei: 781-7109 Message attaches! letter 'Total pages_lulus this page= 2 Original will_x_,. will not be mailed. RECEIVED APR 16 1999 SLO CTy CLARK TEL N0 .5435140 Rpr 16 , 99 14 :44 P .02 ANGIE KING Attorney at Law PO Box 12909 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 voice: (805)544-4321 fa:: (805)544-4331 email: aking@alonet.org April 16, 1999 Hun, Allen Settle, Mayor Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 by FAX and mail RE: April 20 meeting agenda hent on Dalidio Property Dear Mayor Settle and members of the City Council: I am writing to request ,you keep the Dalidio property as open agricultural space. This property curuains some of the best farming land in the area. It provides a clean environmental workspace for City residents. Farm workers contribute to our public revenues as much or more than office workers. To lose this job base would mean workers lose their jobs and the City loses revenues. To say that big box store employees and fast food workers would replace this income fails to take into account the larger loss of our agricultural base. Once land is paved over, it's gone. Remember Joanie Mitchell: "they paved paradise and made it a parking lot." In addition, l understand the land in question lies in a flood plain. This is not a problem for agricultural land, as excessive rains will soak in. However, the cost to construct a building, pavements, sewer facilities etc in a flood plain will increase the cost of the proposed projects and might not even then take care of the problem. However, my biggest objection to building yet more concrete is that new construction cation is not needed, except for bankers collec,-ting interest and construction companies collecting profits. There are already too many empty spaces in the existing shopping centers immediately adjacent to this proposed construction site. Why not refurbish them and market the existing space before approving additional building? Anyone entering the City limits from the south now sees a vista of farmland stretching west from I Iighway 101. Do we want them to see, instead, a concrete wall? Please do the right thing and deny any further construction in prime agricultural land. Thank you. Very truly your , ANGII✓KING A City icsident RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail:mchmidt@calpoly.edu April 15, 1999 MEETIN a0-q.gAGENDA 4 DATE ITEM # Re: Daliidio —Shopping Center vs.Water Reserve To the City Council: Some weeks ago I made a presentation to the Council regarding preservation of the Dalidio farm as a way to guarantee the city maintains the 2,000 acre foot water supply beneath Its soil. In the staff report for the shopping center, at the bottom of Page 4-6,this idea is kissed off in a shockingly mendacious and misleading manner. The report states"only about one acre would be needed for a pumping station and same goal can be largely achieved'by developing the property. - ,5211AO SIN DIR The same goal as keeping it open and undeveloped? How ridiculous! VCTORNEY 0 PW DIR HIEF -@r6LERKIORIG O POLICE CHF Further,staff deliberately misleads the council in this rejoinder to my presentation. t*QT TE;W O REC DIR 10MG61T i ci.:.I G-UTIL DIR The issues are these: @1 1. If the area is developed, i.e.,paved and built upon,you lose the percolation value of the land for recharging the underground basin.This is not theoretical.Water peres through that soil at an unknown rate.The land is a sponge for much of the rainy season. It collects large amounts of water during heavy storms, and keeps them in place rather than discharging them to the creeks. During the irrigation season,the land also remains wet, and a considerable amount of the irrigation applied peres back into the ground water. In a drought,wastewater effluent could be spread on these fields to replenish the aquifer,the percolation would purify our tertiary-treated water sufficiently. IF THE FARM IS DEVELOPED,YOU LOSE YOUR PERCOLATION FIELDS. IF DEVELOPED,YOU HARM THIS WATER SOURCE'S PRODUCTIVITY. 2. If developed,the major surface activities will be automotive.This will cause the multitudinous pollutants oozed, dripped and otherwise deposited by motor vehicles to contaminate the increased runoff, and subsequently the ground water. DOING ANYTHING WHICH WILL CLEARLY CONTAMINATE THIS WATER IS UNINTELLIGENT AND REPRESENTS POOR PLANNING. 3.Then there are the subsidence issues. If subsidence of buildings due to pumping ground water is in fact an issue, and your legal staff seems to believe that it is,then it would be very unintelligent to multiply the city's liability for such subsidence by allowing massive development within the likely subsidence zone. Such an action would be malfeasance of office.VERY LIKELY,ONCE THE SHOPPING MALL IS DEVELOPED, WE WILL HEAR STAFF ADVISE AGAINST DRAWING WATER FROM BENEATH IT FOR FEAR OF LEGAL LIABILITY. My premise about the value of preserving this land for water supply protection remains unchallenged by this transparent effort by staff to divert attention from its merits.Staff should be required to do a lot more research before dismissing this idea. Si;rely, Richard Schmi Attachment: Previous letter on subject. RECEIVED [APR 1.� 1999 CITY COUNCIL RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail:rschmidt@calpoly.edu March 22, 1999 Re:"Water Reliability Reserve"— March 23 Agenda To the City Council: "State water."The City Council should not even be considering"state water"as an option for providing part of the city's water supply.Twice in this decade this city's people have voted down the "state project," so why isn't it dead?What sort of representative democracy do we have in this city? Is it true that a"Yes" vote means yes, but that a"no"vote just means you'll have to vote again, and again, and again,till you finally get it"right"? Is it any wonder that citizens regard their"representative"government with cynicism when this sort of thing goes on? There is no need to be considering the"state projecr as a source for the 2,000 acre foot emergency water reserve, because we already have a better emergency source. (It is also irresponsible: Remember how the"state projecr utterly failed during the last drought?The state project is an acknowledged reliability turkey.The project is so overcommitted the San Francisco Chronicle reports it will be unable to meet its delivery contracts nine years out of ten during periods of normal rainfall, and in a drought, it cannot be counted on at all. Do those who propose this water source figure we don't need emergency water during a drought?And what about the economic consequences of"state water?"Is its"cheapness" why cities like Solvang have pulled out all the legal stops to try to break their state water contract which is bankrupting both city and rate payers?) The better option staff neglects to mention.There is a much, much better solution for providing an emergency supply of 2,000 acre feet, and we already have it. But beware—the city is about to give this supply away in a silly chase for more shopping centers and sales tax revenue. A pool of ground water plenty large enough to supply the 2,000 acre foot reserve sits beneath the undeveloped farmland bounded by Madonna Road and Highway 101,commonly called the Dalidio Farm, but actually comprising several ownerships.This area,which has some of the best farmland in the world, is also the.focus of on-going community debate about the preservation of our most characteristic and sign.ficant agricuNwral landscapes. Mearwhl!artha city is madly processing development proposals for tiie area, including one to double the size of the existing Madonna Road shopping centers which are already more than half vacant. A ground water study by Boyle Engineering concluded several years ago that the city could pump 2,000 to 3,000 acre feet per year from Dalidio on a sustained basis, and that the underground aquifer would refill quickly even in years of only moderate rainfall.The water is there,just beneath the surface. It doesn't need to be imported from anywhere(relying on costly and polluting electricity-guzzling pumps to get the water over mountains). It costs practically nothing to pump this water from the ground—we could even use windmills, and treatment facilities, according to past city reports,could be provided for well under$1 million. In fact,emergency wells in this area saw the city through is last drought. But aquifer preservation and city water wells are not compatible with the contemplated development of the land's surface. We get one or the other, not both.The land must be kept open i i is to be our municipal water reserve. The city should purchase this land outright,usingIts water development funds.to protect Its existing emergengy water reserve.This is by far the cheapest solution for providing a reliable emergency water source. It is also the best solution,for it makes us self-reliant for our emergency water supply and leaves us free from entanglements with other city coUM.. state and federal bureaucracies. not to mention litigation.which muddy--and may ultimately destroy--all other water supply schemes. A bonus of this plan Is Its great environmental benefits. The city's best ag land gets preserved, and can, if needed, provide a reliable emergency local food supply should the lines of commerce ever break. The scenery which the city's people love, and by which freeway travelers distinguish our city from Studio City,Santa Maria and San Jose,gets preserved.We are saved from a Santa Maria-Ike blight of shopping centers stretching along our arterials and our freeway. This plan is the proverbial"win-win'situation.We help keep San Luis Obispo the beautiful place it is. All in the interest of providing a thrifty source of emergency water. This is the way to go. Let's do it. Let's buy the Dalidio Water Reserve, and keep'it in public ownership for all time. A council which executes such a plan will be long celebrated for Its foresight and for Its positive contributions to the cltv's future. Richard Schmidt PS.The only significant objection I've heard to using the Dalidlo ground water for a reliability reserve is offered by reference to the Bear Valley Shopping Center lawsuit.This is a non-starter for two reasons. First,even'd the lawsuit were legitimate, risking having to pay off its damages once every 25 to 100 years would still make this a very cheap water source when compared to the alternatives. Second,the city lost this suit not because of the merit of the plaintiff's case but because it failed to defend itself competently by marshaling expert witnesses who could have demolished the plaintiffs'shaky claims. Instead,the attorney hired by the city(who is now a convicted felon), made ludicrous defense'arguments that the city had "pueblo rights"to pump water which superseded the rights of surface owners to be free of building subsidence,an argument so off the wall that R was being publicly ridiculed by other attorneys from the 'defense"attorney's firm even while the case was in court. (Pueblo rights are an established fact for only a few cities;San Luis Obispo is not one of them—;.his propositior of the"defense'was on its face absurd.)The"loss"of this lawsuit through failure to mount a good defense simply is not a legitimate reason to shun this ground water as a"reliability reserve.*The positive economic, environmental and water security advantages of creating a Daildio Water Reserve remaln unblemished by this rogue litigation. SLO DOWNTOWN ASSOC . TFI :805-781-2647 Apr 19 99 7 : 20 No .002 P .01 MEETING AGENDA DATE L4-c;o-qq ITEM #= OApril 1999 TO: MAYOR ALLEN SFI'I'LE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: 4PIllFBORAH HOLLEY,DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION ADMINISTRATOR RE: MAimETPLACL• STUDY On April 15, the Downtown Association's Economic Activity committee met to discuss the Marketplace study and develop a formal response prior to the City Council meeting scheduled for April 20. After reviewing the study and accornpanying staff report,the committee has reached the conclusions given below. The Downtown Association would like to thank the City for acknowledging the importance of the Downtown area to the community by requiring that the study are aaddress pact otl tell workD g ntow an til e he need for Downtown to remain competitive. It is heartening to know we i good of our City. Several ere will t be all rtunity Board consent beforegreed the meettiing,jit ile ts believed that thesttee and epoints tlwould receive Board support. to obtain The committee believes it's important to thank the City for its commitment to the Downtown. "this commitment demonstrates an awareness of the Downtown as the heart.and soul of the community. But we can't rest on our laurels. Regardless of whether or not the Marketplace devcloprnettt becomes a reality, the Downtown still faces a new era of competition--from other areas of the county which are developing and from catalog and on-line shoppers--or is subject to its own stagnation if not carefully guided. These, then, squire that planning and investment in and for the Downtown be given urgent consideration, as ,uggested by Ron Cano,California Main Street.Visions, in the study. Of major importance is the "buying in" of the Council to the concept of the strategic plan by approving requested funding ($25,000) for this endeavor and then working with the Downtown Association as a partner in developing a time line for moving forward with both the plan and the projects it would most likely suggest: parking,public amenities,Court Street development,etc. it is interesting to note that many -red by California Main Street Vision literature are desired and u of the suggestions offnderstood by the Association but have lacked funding and other resources to achieve. Secondly, as the plain charge of our organization is to promote the Downtown and provide an optimum atmosphere in which our businesses can thrive, it is not seen as our charge to advocate for or oppose outside.enterprise except in the case where very direct threats could jeopardize Downtown's viability, especially since it.is unknown at this time which businesses would contract with the Marketplace. [But it must be remembered that while the study argues that the number of"crew" shopping trips will benefit Downtown, a positive, there will also be some "transference" of existing shoppers and their dollars which will adversely affect some businesses in the Downtown, a negative.] 1..astly, it is agreed thtit issuing the MOU and later approvals should carry requirements that acknowledge community responsibility and that.the City should also pay careful attention to efficient.use of land both within and outside of Downtown. As many mall developers are realizing, there is a current reaction against the shopping center experience and these centers,once built,are hard to remove if they tire not efficient, as we have experienced twice in our city. Perhaps there are businesses that could locate instead in the Downtown if the space were made available for thein such as currently exists under parking blacktops. FCL.ERKIORIG t"DODIR FIN DIR O FIRE CHIEF EAR IVED oPwotR 0 POLICE CHF O RCC DIR9 1999 oPERS� I COUNCIL SLO DOWNTOWN ASSOC . TEL :805-781-2647 Apr 19 99 7 : 21 No .002 P .02 The Downtown Design Conccpt Plan offers a wonderfully devised solution to increasing density on already developed bard in the Downtown by moving most of the parking to the periphery in structures and converting many of the patchwork parking lots to more efficient commercial property. Therefore, we wish to remain focused on the Downtown element of the Marketplace Study and remain neutral in other areas except to urge careful decisions on land use,sales tax reimbursements, and continued nurturing of the Downtown commercial district. cc: Correnc Cotta, Chair, Economic Activity Committee Jim Sargon Howard Carroll Mike Stanton Ken Hampian Diane Sheeley • MEEI iNG AGENDA DATE 4-"-Q ITEM # San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416 David E. Garth, President/CEO April 15, 1999 FErAT CIL Mayor Allen Settle L Dw City of San Luis Obispo RNEY ❑990 Palm Street WORIG ❑T TEAM ❑REC U2 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ❑UTIL DIR ❑PERS DIR Re: San Luis Marketplace Economic Study And Follow-Up Dear Mayor Settle: On behalf of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce,I wanted to convey to you our general support for the CAD's April 20, 1999,recommendation regarding the San Luis Marketplace Economic Study And Follow-Up. Typically,the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce does not take positions on individual development projects. At this time,the Chamber does not have a position,for or against,the San Luis Marketplace.However,at its April 15 meeting,the Chamber's Board of Directors did take a position in support of the GAO's recommendations to continue to participate in processing this project One of the Chamber's strategies for achieving our vision of San Luis Obispo,outlined in our Economic Vision document,is to keep San Luis Obispo the retail and services hub of the County.One way of meeting this goal is to create new retail and services opportunities.As described in the Kotin study,this project will attract more regional customers to the City and keep our residents from traveling elsewhere to shop. The Chamber supports the land use for this area as established by our community's General Plan and encourages you to follow it as well.Ultimately,if this property is annexed,there is an exciting opportunity to obtain open space at the gateway to our City.One of our concems is that if the area were to remain under the County's control there may be a risk that it might not be so protected. We look forward to your adoption of the CAD's recommendation and continued participation in this process.Thank you for considering our concems. Sincerely, 96WkL_ J Deborah S.Nicklas Chairman of the Board RECEIVED cc: City Council APR 11 9 1999 SLO CITY COUNCIL e-mail: slochambergslochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo com FROM : DOUG BUCKMRSTER PHONE NO. : 805 927 42' Rpr. 20 1999 10:26RM P1 i _ Iftnas 8T itne Ri.-,lichLand PO BOX 721 • CAMBRIA • CALIFORNIA 93418 ■ (805) 917.7119 MEETII . AGENDA DATE ``gra ITEM # Apirl 20, 1999 19-COUNCIL "DD DIR re: Dalidio Project Ca FrN DIR 0 FIRE CHIEF 0 PW DIR San Luis Obispo City Council CJ POLICE CHF 0 REC DIR O U71L DIDear Council Members: p PERS I � As our name implies, Friends of the RanchLand is dedicated to preserving agricultural activities in San Luis Obisbo County, and especially along the North Coast. There are over 700 active supporters. We feel we must weigh in here, too. The potential loss of the Dalidio Ranch to sprawl is difficult to imagine. There are so many impacts, but these need to be mentioned: 1. Agricultural soil here is almost unparalleled - anywhere.. To pave it over would be a travesty, verging on immoral because of the loss of food to humanity. 2. The size of the proposed project is ridiculous — more or less equaling all of the SLO business sector downtown. 3. This is a flood plain Agricultural land recovers quickly. A shopping center and surrounding residential lands would be damaged severely. Who will pay for these damages? The taxpayer. Permitting vast development on the Dilidio property is ill- conceived. 4. Another shopping center next to two failed or failing centers makes no sense at all. SLO must bite the bullet and fix up the existing mess before considering adding another potential failure. 5. To destroy the viewshed at the southern gateway to SLO makes absolutely no sense at all. That beautiful farmland is a joy to the eye. Please keep it in perpetuity. A conservation easement by the owners would make great tax sense. Thank you for considering these last-minute concerns in your deliberations_ Sincerely, Doug Buckmaster President RECEIVED APR 2 0 1999 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING . AGENDA DATE 4-A0-RLLITEM # From: James Lopes <jlopes®fix.net> To: CITYSLO.SLOIPO(JMARX) Date: 4/18/99 8:53pm F!O� TCDD MR OAF: . Subject: Dalidio & The Marketplace ❑F: Y ❑F L April 18, 1999 :lu ❑F:'.._..C::,- TO: ;:= To: City Council Members AM ❑REC DIR [3 0 UTIL DIR From: Jim Lopes ❑ERS DIR i'� Re: Dalidio & the Marketplace project The Dalidio property has one of the best soils around, and it's rare - less than one percent of all coastal soils are this type - Cropley clay. Other factors make it a fantastic farming opportunity. why convert it to urban use, when neighboring shopping centers are underutilized? I hope that you will ask for more time to allow the community to respond to staff's rush to a decision and to review several issues. 1. Should 100% of the Dalidio property be retained in agriculture? How could that be achieved? I support the county general plan for the property, which is designated Agriculture. This category would have to be changed by the Board of Supervisors to allow the project to occur in the county, which is definitely a possibility. What could the city offer the Dalidios as an alternative? Has the city done the best it could by accepting the Dalidios' offer of 50 t open space? I support the city offering acquisition of conservation easements, and property tax relinquishment in return for annexation, and the creation of an Agriculture zone and ag preserve program within the city. . 2. Can the city control what happens at Madonna Plaza and the Mall? Other cities have planned existing centers, and offered incentives for the owners to go forward under the approved concept plans. Boulder, Colorado did this with a Safeway site. Has anyone asked staff to investigate that effort? Boca Raton, Florida focused a planning effort on a failed mall, and Mizner Park was created - a retail and residential success. Has that effort been investigated? I support a city-sponsored design charette or longer community process, to which the owners are invited but not in control - and an exploration of financial incentives that the city could offer the owners if the final concept plan is followed. The city could end up with all the desired hardware, toy and office stores desired on the existing properties, and perhaps downtown would still thrive. Most importantly could be the preservation of a rare prime agricultural property. Rather than have a showdown now on the Dalidio property, it should be given more time to have community review and input to the council from the Planning Commission, and perhaps through a workshop. If a showdown must happen due to all the pressure, I hope you will agree with a t]REC EIV E D APR 1 9 1999 SLO CITY CLERK the Dalidio property is worth saving and fighting for, and the existing centers need life support from the city in order to get the quality we deserve. Because this item is unfortunately set as the last item on the agenda, I may not be able to attend. Thanks, Jim Lopes jlopesofix.net or 541-1681 CC: CITYSLO.SLOIPO(DROMERO,JEWAN,ASETTLE,sstendahl,ksc. . . ME' IG AGENDA DATE Lac' lq ITEM # 2230 Exposition Drive No. 30 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 GfOUNCIL CSD DIR GKAO WIN DIR April 19, 1999l— C9 D ❑FIRE CHIEF 9 ORNEY ❑PW DIR M-CI.ERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF City Council ❑ T E ❑REC DIR City of San Luis Obispo I ❑UTII.DIR ❑PERS DIR Subject: Dalidio decision on April 20, 1999 v P ( �i ✓�L. a%luzc•ma�cL• Honorable Mayor and Council Members: As you know, I am concerned that the City Council is being asked to rush to a decision about the entire matter of developing the Dalidio property. Nothing except a legal ad has appeared in the print media about the agenda item's issues or decisions, and documents have only been available for a short time. Perhaps if a month or two were given to a meaningful public review of the entire spectrum of issues, the public would have a more informed ability to respond. If you must make a decision on Tuesday night, I hope that you will consider the enclosed material. I think that a different path could be taken, to preserve the Dalidio property in farmland entirely, and to redevelop the existing centers into a more intensive shopping environment, even including Big Box stores. To do this, the city needs to take control of a planning process for all three sites, and have prepared a community-driven concept plan that can be implemented financially as well as physically. This year's budget could include the funding to initiate a process using well-qualified consultants to bring the community together on how this area should evolve. I hope you find the enclosed material interesting and relevant to such a process. And, I hope that you are convinced that the Dalidio property is, as the Nature Conservancy has recently recognized in its listing of valuable natural resources in San Luis Obispo County, a precious resource for continued prime agricultural use. Sincerely dees Lopes RECEIVED APR 1 9 1999 SLO CITY CLERK Section 4: 1Ylalking 3RedeYe1apme3nLt York The projects profiled in this report show that underutilized, paved-over lands can success- fully be transformed into vibrant living space. Every community has used developed land that can accomodate growth more cost-effectively than can the farms and forestlands that are being converted to subdivisions, strip commercial, and suburban shopping malls. For redevelopment to successfully protect rural lands, contain infrastructure costs, and reduce auto dependency in the state, new attitudes and approaches to development issues will be needed on the part of citizens, developers and local governments. A climate of trust, built on a recognition of the interests of each party, and nurtured by genuine efforts to achieve mutually beneficial development, will be crucial to success. Redevelopment projects appear to work best when the developer, the city, and the residents and businesses of the neighborhood can unite behind a common vision for the site. g) Rede welopment andthe"N 3MY"Syndrome From a regional standpoint,more and more local governments are recognizing that efficient, transit-oriented development makes sense.Yet in spite of growth management planning,many Washington communities are poised to continue developing in low-density,sprawling patterns. Minimizing sprawl in the next 20 years will mean redeveloping existing communities at higher densities. But citizens often resist commercial activities and increased residential densities in their neigh- borhoods.When neighbors organize in opposition to a project,they can often succeed in thwarting iL Frustrated developers and planners decry the"Not-In-My-Backyard"(NIMBY) syndrome,arguing that it contributes to sprawl by driving development pressures outward toward the fringes of town.From the standpoint of the neighborhood activists,they are simply organizing to prevent poorly conceived developments that threaten the quality-of-life in the neighborhood. Both of these perspectives are valid.To protect farmlands,forests and natural areas,and to ensure a cost-effective system of public infrastructure, most growth must be channeled into existing developed lands. Many of the projects profiled here suggest that the best way to overcome the NIMBY fear of growth, ironically, may be to support it—in a proactive way. To succeed, redevelopment must be tailored to the needs of the current residents. VVhat's in it for the Neighborhood? People cannot be expected to support change where they live unless they have a very clear picture of what the changes will look like, and support the changes. The bigger the role that neighborhood interests play in crafting that picture, the more likely they are to support it. Community leaders are increasingly recognizing that for redevelopment to work in low- _ density communities, community members must play a meaningful role in shaping the vision and details. Michael Bernick of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system's Board of Directors points out that, "the transit village idea has been tried before, but it always faltered because the residents did not support it...(In, for example, Oakland's Fruitvale neighborhood) they did it right, they started with the residents."15 195 Ruth Eckdish Knack, "BART's Village Vision." Planning,January 1995. &N X15 EVF�r?MO AO AVA Li vrt-es Coo4Av il,n ES 71 Fi The .-.tevelopment strategy of creating mixed-us titers around transit stops, within walking distance of existing neighborhoods and development, has a great deal to offer residents. A neighborhood with slower traffic, safer walkways and bikeways for young and old, convenient access to shops, services, and other activities, more trees and plantings, and a neighborhood center with gathering places that reflect a neighborhood's distinct identity— these features of"small town America" have tremendous appeal. If existing residents are going to support new development in their neighborhoods, it must make the neighborhood a better place to live. As the projects profiled in this report show, this can be done with investment in quality, pedestrian-oriented design, especially if neighbors are involved in shaping development so that it helps fulfill important commu- nity priorities. B) Developers and Sustainable Redevelopment Allowing the neighborhood to shape the form that development will take is an unaccustomed practice for many developers, implying a new sort of partnership with the community.Jim McMillan, whose firm was a partner in building San Diego's successful Uptown District project, believes that an authentic two-way dialogue between developers and neighbors is key to the success of redevelopment projects. McMillan believes develop- ers must go beyond lip service and 'public relations strategies that involve the public only superficially, to really listen and work to incorporate the desires of the neighbors into the project design. In this process, however, it is vital for developers to tell citizen planners which ideas will not fly economically and why—and then to explore other options for achieving the underlying goal. "It's harder, but its worth it. It's much more gratifying to work in partnership with the community," says McMillan.196 Challenges for Developers Building subdivisions on rural land will remain simpler and more profitable than building in existing communities as long as the public is willing, and can afford, to extend roads, electricity, water, and other infrastructure and services. Redevelopment is more complex than building on the fringes because the human environment is more complex. In-town projects must work not only with concerned neighbors, but with the pre-existing layout of buildings and capacity of infrastructure in the area. Problems can arise, too, from regulatory burdens inherited from previous owners, such as contaminated soils. In contrast, rural lands can be cleared and prepared for building relatively rapidly. Time is of the essence to developers. To buy land, design a development, and to construct it requires significant capital. The costs of borrowing money are a major expense, and each time delay adds to development costs. The relative simplicity of building in rural areas is very attractive to developers because borrowing costs and risks can be minimized. For builders committed to redevelopment, simply obtaining financing for mixed-use, in-town projects can be very difficult. Because decades of development have been domi- nated by the separation of residential and commercial spaces, few lending institutions have expertise in both areas. The result is a lending bias against projects that attempt to inte- grate these uses."' 196 Jim McMillan, principal,Oliver McMillan, San Diego, California. Personal communication, June 199S. 191 Jean Driscoll, Financial Consultant. Presentation at the Local Government Commission 7 conference, "Putting Our Communities Back on Their Feet:The Next Steps," Biltmore Hotel,Los Angeles, May 4-5, 1995. For example, when Columt ealty Trust was preparing to build its first lett in the State-Thomas area of Dallas "it was almost impossible to get financing," according to CEO Robert Shaw. Eventually they convinced Japanese investors to provide financing only because all five of the taxing jurisdictions in the area were participating in the Tax Incre- ment Financing District that supplies infrastructure for development in the area."e What's in it for Developers? For redevelopment to work for developers, growth management strategies must address the basic challenges that now encourage sprawling development. If this can be done, redevelopment will offer developers distinct economic advantages: Crafting consensus around the vision and design details of a project among neighbors, the city, and the builder will allow building to proceed relatively rapidly, reducing the borrowing costs of developing property. Community consensus behind a development vision will also help attract financing. Jim McMillan credits the support of the city and of citizens for increasing the comfort level of Great American Savings Bank with lending the necessary construction funds to build the Uptown project in San Diego."" With supportive capital facilities policies from local governments, compact communities can better afford the higher quality infrastructure that adds value to real estate investments. Columbus Realty Trust's investments in high-density housing, for instance, are greatly enhanced by the city of Dallas' infrastructure investments. Most of the projects profiled in this report helped catalyze a revitalization that elevated the value of all the private and public investments in the area. Good design that responds well to the needs of surrounding residents can contribute to socially vibrant and economically successful mixed-use centers. As Tom Crocker, devel- oper of Mizner Park points out, "By making it an around the clock environment with complementary uses, we were able to create a 'critical mass' and a synergy lacking in a single-use project."zoo Identifying potential Projects The model projects suggest that,in assessing the potential viability of a site for redevelopment, developers should consider these key factors: How will the project link to uses in the immediate surroundings?At the Mashpee Commons, the old shopping mall was completely isolated from other developed areas. As a consequence, the new Main Street does not benefit from foot traffic or social vitality from neighboring parcels. At Mizner Park, enormous potential for foot traffic from nearby high-density residential and civic buildings goes unrealized because the area lacks direct, comfortable pedestrian walkways. On the other hand, the Uptown District in San Diego is well-integrated within an established residential and commercial neighborhood which explains the remarkable success of its large grocery in spite of its lack of prominent — - signage. 18.Rick Loessberg,"In-Town Housing Economic Development Commotary,Vol.18,#4,Winter 1995. "'Jim McMillan, 1995. :ooJoAnne E.Sklar,Marketing Director.Crocker&Company.Personal communication,July 1995. r W,.-. is missing from this neighborhood? Each 1, _,ect within an area need not contain all the components of a [nixed-use center: housing, shops and services, offices, public buildings, parks and public spaces. A new redesign project should strive to provide missing pieces. At "The Crossings," the developers are making the case that adequate retail is available dose by and is not needed on their site, a point worth considering if good pedestrian link are established. Columbus .:� Realty Trust has carved out a U•"' market niche: bringing well- yit designed, high density housing and pedestrian improvements to places that already have adequate retail and recreational opportunities, and a high concentration of jobs, within walking distance. Barrio Logan is tailoring the uses of the commercial and service spaces in its mixed-use buildings to meet high-priority needs that the community has identified for itself. C) Local Government:A New Era of Proactive Planning Sustainable development requires a very different approach to planning for growth than we have used in the past. Often during the last 40 years or so, much of the local govern- ment role in development planning has been "reactive": its policies provide only a vague guide for market-driven development; zoning segregates land uses; standards ensure automobile convenience; and permitting powers are used to negotiate a few amenities for the community on a project-by-project basis.201 In contrast, transit-oriented planning can be more proactive and comprehensive: the community or neighborhood outlines a vision for its future, community goals are estab- lished, an implementation plan is formulated, and public-private partnerships are devel- oped to invest in implementing the plan.20' Several public participation techniques, profiled in a new guidebook by the Local Government Commission, are proving to be effective tools to "collect and communicate information about people's values...(that) can, in turn, be incorporated into plans that meaningfully reflect citizens' desires.""' When local governments build consensus around.well-defined visions for the future of the community, they help fulfill a basic mission of democratic government. Former mayor Rick Cole credits Pasadena's ambitious public participation efforts with making the city more open, responsive and effective. He says the process, "has also raised the level of trust among citizens - not in trusting City Hall, but in trusting that they own City Hall."20` Once plans reflect the needs of neighbors, projects that fit into the vision can proceed smoothly and local government can avoid much of the conflict that development proposals often elicit. This not only saves developers money, but local governments as well, because land-use conflicts can consume large amounts of staff resources and even result in lawsuits. "'Snohomish County Transportation Authority,A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation,Volume 11: Applying the Concepts.Lynnwood,Washington,December 1993. '0'Sno-Trans,1993. M Center for Livable Communities, Participation Tools for Better Land-Use Planning:Techniques&Case Studies. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, California, 1995. 74 L°'Center for Livable Communities, 1995. R._ .-ioritizing Resources To make redevelopment attractive to both builders and neighbors, local government must reprioritize its infrastructure and staff resources. First, it can invest in neighborhood-level participatory planning. Then it can streamline the development process for projects that fulfill the clearly defined neighborhood vision. Finally, it can support efficient develop- ment with capital facilities funds that enhance the livability and quality of infrastructure in growing neighborhoods. To begin, planning staff must be given the time and resources to support neighborhood- level planning; helping residents to explore and define the built aspect of their community's future. If a site-specific plan for an area can gain the buy-off of not only neighbors, but also fire, emergency service, and other relevant officials, a single environ- mental impact review document can be prepared for the entire site. Then staff can work to ensure that proposals to implement portions of the plan can proceed in a streamlined manner. Supporting good plans with infrastructure resources is critical. By crafting a "least-cosi' capital facilities policy, local governments can give priority to investing in already devel- oped areas where growth can most efficiently be supported. The goal for capital invest- ment in these growing neighborhoods should be to soften the impact of higher densities with "livability infrastructure": street trees, sidewalk improvements, traffic calming, neighborhood parks,public art,landscaping,and other neighborhood-level improvements. Tools:The Specific Plan The state Growth Management Act recognizes the importance of A Specific Plan vereu5. . . community buy-in, and autho- rizes local governments to include d o sols within their Comprehensive Plans, UJi plans that are specific to "sub- ' " "'"'' facsGues natural 5 P E e IF"[G . : 9 PLAN ' areas." The Snohomish Transpor- VISION • �� � � - tation Authority calls sub-area f�anar� planning the key step "for the incentives community to be truly proactive."cos Sub-area planning allows local governments and residents of an A Conventional Sub-Area Plan area to set the framework for development, instead of forcing residents into a defensive posture Capital Pealnios - eionwrti�c in reaction to various proposals pi . d "t from private developers. Commu- v S U 5-A RE A, transportation *PLAN � park5 •� • . ��� crmiartmcntal zoning code r ulatlong ios Snohomish Transportation Authority (Sno-Trans).A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation, Volume Il:Applying the Concepts. Lynnwood, Washington, 1993. nitit.,in California have a long history of success. ase of sub-area plans, called "specific plans," that include a detailed implementation component. A specific plan also helps overcome the difficulty of coordinating development where there are numerous property owners clustered in a single area. It establishes an integrated master development plan for the entire sub-area with its own specific land use zoning, street and infrastructure standards, design standards and development regulations. This plan supplants general codes and standards, but must be consistent with the framework of the larger region's Comprehensive Plan. Specific plans are created through a collaboration of local government and the residents and property owners of the area. Local government typically funds the process, recouping its costs through subsequent development fees."' Specific plans provide certainty to both residents and developers. Residents can rest assured that proposals must conform to the vision that they helped create, and developers have dear parameters of expectation in which to work. When specific plans undergo thorough environmental review, separate reports are unnecessary for individual projects that are consistent with the specific plan. This can save developers a great deal of time and money. Local government can operate more efficiently, too, because project-by-project planning and wholesale review absorbs a great deal of staff time and resources.201 Tools: Participatory Planning The participatory planning tools in use in many cities and towns are giving residents the ability to forge a dear design vision for their communities and neighborhoods, which are then adopted into Comprehensive and Specific Plans. The Local Government Commission's guidebook to participation tools concludes that, "A proactive planning process which includes a well-designed citizen involvement component allows citizens to understand exactly what it is they are getting and assures that everyone will be happy with the plan and the individual projects at build-out.""' Several tools for working with citizens to design a vision for their neighborhood or community have proven effective. These include:... Computer Simulation: Using computerized visuals,all stakeholders in the area can see what different development patterns and street and building designs will look like on specific sites. A photo of the site is scanned into the computer. Then simulation technol- ogy allows a technician to add or delete various features of the scene to illustrate alterna- tive futures. What if we add on-street parking, awnings and street trees? What would a three story mixed-use building with balconies look like at the edge of that parking lot? Computer simulation technology allows residents, public officials, and other stakeholders to preview the visual impact of their ideas. :oe Sno-Trans, 1993. 101 Sno-Trans, 1993. "'Center for Livable Communities, Participation Tools for Better Land-Use Planning. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, California, May 1995. "'Centex for Livable Communities, 1995. 76 Hands-on Simulation Gamt Lizens explore alternative futures for their munity by moving buildings and land use icons around on a tabletop model of the area. The small toy-like buildings and land uses are sized to scale so that citizens can see how much land is consumed by various uses, for instance. In small groups, participants create land use plans for managing growth, and then as a larger group discuss the implications of the plans for quality-of-life, cost and workability of infrastructure, and the like. Hands-on simulation games educate citizens about community planning challenges and initiates discussion about how to respond to growth pressures. The Visual Preference SurveyTm:Citizens view from between 40 and 240 slide photos showing a wide variety of streetscapes, many from within the community. Participants record their impressions, scoring the images on a scale of minus 10 to plus 10. The collective scores for each image are analyzed to develop conclusions about what sorts of streetscapes and elements people would like to see more and less of in their community. Guided tours: Stakeholders are led on a walk through the actual places that are being discussed or planned. A guidebook for the site or series of stops is prepared to provide participants with relevant background information and thought-stimulating questions. A workshop follows which allows the participants to voice their insights, ideas, concerns, and other thoughts, which are then compiled into a summary of the experience. Design charrettes: Residents and other stakeholders join in an intensive collaborative effort to create a detailed, ready-to-implement design plan for a specific area. The charrette process, which can last between one and seven days, is "one of the quickest and best methods for developing consensus" for a site, according to the Local Government Com- mission. Its goal is to "bring together all the key people with all the pertinent information to 'get the plans right the fust time'." This includes property owners and residents, developers, planners, engineers, architects, fire and public works authorities, and the concerned public so that implementable decisions can be made with everyone present. . Charrettes require a great deal of advance preparation to ensure all the pertinent informa- tion will be available to participants. The fust day of the charrette is an introductory kick- off where general data and issues concerning the site are presented and participants tour the actual site. The days that follow consist of small teams of design professionals sketch- ing designs for feedback from participants, whose comments guide the next set of more detailed drawings. "Pin-up" sessions at the end of the day allow the whole group to assess the on-going design work and identify changes to incorporate for the next day. By the end of a charrette, the community has ready-to-implement project plans with detailed illustra- tions of building types and uses, public spaces, infrastructure engineering, and ecological restoration. A Pro-Redeirelopxnent Policy FY•axneWork Because building on undeveloped land is simpler and can be more profitable for develop- ers, it is unlikely that a significant portion of Washington's growth in the next 20 years will be channelled into underutilized developed lands unless local governments energeti- cally rethink their development policies. Z, E= This important work has begun in many communities, prompted by s' the state's Growth Management �o•1 �r Act. Changing policies to favor If. - sustainable redevelopment will - e affect many local government t 3 functions, including planning, •: .. _`'— _ - -i infrastructure investment, tax and y Growth in already developed areas should be rewarded with high-quality regulatory policies, siting and design of public buildings, 'livability infrastructure." intergovernmental relationships, and public education. Planning: Bringing citizens into the planning process will cost more up front, but will likely save much more over time. Not only will it help to avert disputes over development that can consume tremendous amounts of staff time and resources, but it will help agen- cies and community players to focus on opportunities for efficiency. Pro-active planning can be pursued at three levels: • Developing a community-wide vision for a livable future will provide overriding regional goals to frame development discussions. Portland, Oregon; Vancouver, British Columbia; and San Diego, California have pioneered exemplary community visioning efforts. • "Roadshed planning" that views an entire arterial corridor as a connected unit, like a watershed, will allow property owners, residents and agencies to see how actions in one area affect other areas—and to begin to work together as a team. Richard Untermann points out that Highway 99 north of Seattle is served by five different jurisdictions. Roadshed planning would help these entities harmonize their efforts, simplifying project funding and traffic management, for instance. • Participatory,neighborhood-level planning allows creation of a clear design vision for specific areas by involving neighbors, property owners, and relevant agency officials. With adoption of"specific plans" for these sites, neighbors can be assured that development will proceed only according to the shared vision, and that it will be accompanied by public improvements that enhance the neighborhood's livability. Infrastructure investment:For redevelopment to succeed,growth in already developed areas must be rewarded with high-quality infrastructure and services. The land-use vision can not only encourage cost-effective infrastructure provision, and provide a framework for coordinated planning by various agencies involved in transportation, affordable housing, utility services, and parks. • Limiting expansion of the road, sewer, and water supply networks while channelling most growth onto already developed lands, will keep system costs fromescalaEing rapidly. Funds can be shifted from system expansion to system maintenance and to investment in "livability infrastructure" (sidewalks, street trees and landscaping, traffic calming, parks, etc.). 78 • Multi-modaltranspo rnpolicies are vitally important to prevent the road system from being overwhelmed by automobile traffic. Shifting money °. - away from projects that expand the road network ;•,w will free up funds to improve conditions for walk- _ e ing, bicycling, and transit. Additionally, experts in non-motorized transport are severely underrepresented on the transportation staffs of = most local governments, which can be addressed through replacement of retirees, new hires, and =''4 training of existing staff. a t.a � f Regulatory policies:Some traditional approaches to g� ry Po PP regulating developmentmentar now out of date and need to M® sites lack adequate e infrastructure for pedestrians,such be revised, some becoming more flexible and others as continuous sidewalks. becoming more sharply defined. • An urban growth boundary that is tight enough around existing development to limit the supply of rural lands available for development is essential for creating economic incentives for redevelopment. • Careful fiscal review of proposals for development on non-developed land will lielp identify projects that will cost local governments more than they generate in tax revenue.The review process should analyze development from a cumulative perspec- tive as, for instance, a large shopping mall will typically encourage strip development on the corridors that approach it. • More flexible zoning codes are also a must. Many codes still enforce a strict segrega- tion between residential and commercial areas. In addition to allowing mixed use centers, zoning codes should support increased density around such centers by allowing accessory units, garage apartments, and infill that blends in with the prevail- ing architecture in the surrounding neighborhoods. • Pedestrian-oriented site design standards should replace the current auto-oriented standards. The minimum parking standards in many local codes require oversized parking lots, for example. Building projects located near shops, services and transit, and projects that can share parking with neighboring businesses for use at different times of day should be allowed to provide less parking.Standards should minimize the number and width of curb cuts (where cars cross over sidewalks between parking lots and the street), but they should encourage site plans that link buildings with safe and direct walkways and that place buildings so that they face directly onto the sidewalk and street. Street standards, too, should be revised to prevent roads from being wider than necessary. edevelopment projects should benefit fr xpedited permitting when they are consistent with approved specific plans, as well as from lower parking supply requirements. • Building and street design standards are important for ensuring that higher density development is attractive. The standards should be effective in assuring quality, pedestrian-friendly design, e' yet flexible enough to not stifle creativity. 71" _ fl._'; Tax Policies: A .i `" • Minimizing subsidies for sprawl is one of the most igr •: crucial goals for bringing the economic incentives ' of developers in line with the economic interests of the public. Local jurisdictions with authority to charge impact fees on development should con- n Sider setting higher fees for development that costs more in public services—typically new growth on the urban fringes. Alternatively, fees can be waived The City of S®Diego is committed to efficient development. New housing or reduced for development that enhances already downtown and at rail stations is making transit investments more cost- developed areas, for example, new housing effective. projects downtown. • Minimizing subsidies for driving is also very important. Local jurisdictions can begin by estimating how much of their total expenditures provide services that benefit drivers. Then the payment of these costs can be shifted from general fund sources and property taxes to revenue sources that are directly paid by drivers, such as the gas tax. PublicBuildings: • The siting and design of public facilities, such as courthouses, City Hall, schools, offices, and libraries are one of the best opportunities for local governments to lead by example. Public buildings can help anchor mixed-use centers and downtowns, while providing convenient access for residents. The buildings should exemplify good design, enhancing the pedestrian environment, linking with transit, and reinforcing the public realm. Intergovernmental Relationships: • Region-wide growth management is needed so that tight urban growth boundaries in one county do not simply drive development to low-cost rural lands in an adjacent county. • Regional revenue sharing should be negotiated to prevent the competition for retail sales tax between neighboring jurisdictions that often undermines efficient land use. This requires that jurisdictions agree that large revenue producing facilities should be located in the most efficient locations, but that the wealth they generate will be shared in a fair way. 80 eoject Profile: Mashpee Commons As one of the first projects to attempt to redesign a large paved area using neo-traditional design principles, Mashpee Commons is of interest, perhaps as much for what it lacks as what it features. The project is significant if only because it transformed a 4-5 acre auto- oriented shopping center in Mashpee, Massachusetts, set in a vast parking lot, into the Main Street of a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented retail center. The project was initiated by Douglas Storrs and Arnold N11 r+t++ Chace Jr., whose family built the old 70,000 square feet shopping center on the site in 1962 to serve a nearby °`"" PP g —'.. 4 �=.7i gated retirement community. Storrs and Chace came to —��- feel that modern shopping centers lacked character and :• __ �' ' believed the small town communities of their youth possessed qualities that could and should be incorporatedinto modem projects. In 1984, they began to catalogue the features of nearby villages that seem to work, to assemble acreage around the old shopping center, and to plan a new vision for the site. "We don't feel that you have to put up a strip shopping center or enclosed mall Arnold Chace,Jr. had a new vision for this shopping center his family built to be financially successful," said Storrs.187 in 1962. In order to prevent strip development around the �. Mashpee Commons site, Chace and Storrs bought up another 275 awes of rural lands around the original = :j shopping center site. They hired Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, pioneers in the "neo-traditional" k urban design movement, to turn their vision into site plans for a new community built around the old shop- ping center. The developers spent years trying to sell the 1 town on the project and obtain the necessary zoning changes. They held several public meetings, attracting t 100 to 150 participants to the process, a fairly high level i of interest in a town of 9,000 people. The fust of three project phases is now built: the new Main Street, which includes shops and restaurants with Mushpee Commons replaced the old shoppiag center with pedestrian-friendly h offices above; a movie theatre complex; a bank; and a US designs that echo traditional American town centers. Post Office.The new streets are narrow— 12-foot car lanes plus 8 feet for parallel parking. Sidewalks are 10 feet wide, sheltered by awnings and framed with planters and benches.1B' 107 Paul M. Sachner, "Common sense."Architectural Record, McGraw-Hill, Inc, March 1989. 1B°Paul M. Sachner, 1989. 6 The origi. -,fans for the Commons' also included a 75-room hotel, the town had, two places of wor- ship, a child care center, and residential housing.1 ' Housing originally slated for the project was never :y '� ,�I► -! n built because of financing problems. The owners, however, are now seeking permits to subdivide the property into neighborhoods that would surround and link with the commercial center."' The Commons retail space is 90 percent occupied. } �t" The project currently includes 159,000 square feet of ground floor retail. A new street adjacent to Main Street, North Market Street, includes another 70,000 ALP square feet of commercial space."' On aerial pmpective of the Mashpee Commons whea completed. Mashpee Commons is emerging as the town center of the City of Mashpee. The city has moved its public library and both its police and fire headquarters to the Commons.The city is also consid- ering siting a new high school on the Commons near a.proposed 3,000 acre wildlife refuge. A new band shell (proposed by a group that organizes a community concert every July at the Commons) and outdoor skating rink are proposed for sites nearby."'A year- round performing arts center has been proposed near the Commons, and it received a $2.6 million pledge in September 1994 from Ernest Boch.197 The Commons landowner, Fields Point, will donate or sell the land at favorable terms to the performing arts center project. They have also donated land for a 2I-unit elderly housing complex."' Nevertheless, despite the radical departure from mall architecture and excellent pedestrian streets, Mashpee Commons remains a shopping destination that people reach by car. According to Mashpee Commons Vice President for Marketing,•A. John Renz, the local community is not large enough to support the mall and the stores must attract customers from throughout the region. Most of the stores have been recruited from the downtowns of nearby communities. The Commons does not create opportunities for people to meet their needs by walking because it lacks housing, and much of the planned housing will be built at a standard, moderate suburban density. Transit links to the site are weak, although a bus line that serves Cape Cod does stop near by. Mashpee Commons provides an excellent outdoor shopping environment for people on foot. It does not, however, provide a real model for mixed-use sustainable redevelopment because the old shopping center that it replaced was so remote and isolated from existing communities. Therefore, it lacks surrounding neighborhoods to integrate with and it does not provide the convenient access to shops and services for residents that will contribute to a reduction in automobile dependence. 189 Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Towns and Town-Making Principles. HaLvardUniversity Graduate School of Design. 19'John Renz, Vice President, Marketing, Mashpee Commons. Personal communication,June 1995. 191 John Renz, Vice President, Marketing, Mashpee Commons. Personal communication, June 1995. '92 William Mills, "Big changes in the works for Mashpee." Cape Cod Times,January 8, 1995. 193 Quarterly Notes: Newsletter of Boch Center for the Performing Arts, "Ernest J. Boch Commits 68 $2.6 Million," vol.2, #l, Mashpee, Massachusetts, Fall 1994. °'Jeff McLaughlin, "Residents' support means smooth sailing for Cape arts center." Boston Sunday Globe.September 19, 1993. Project Profile: Shirlington Village The Shirlington Village project transformed a failing 1940s auto-oriented shopping center located in Arlington, Virginia (a suburb of Washington, DC), into a vibrant mixed-use center focused around a pedestrian-oriented Main Street. Frequent bus service connects the site to Washington's excellent Metrorail system three miles away.Several garden- style apartments and high-rise residential buildings are within walking distance of the site.111 The project's first phase covered 16 acres,integrating the old shopping mall into the new retail and office buildings . •p? ' that frame the converted"Main Street."The original limestone and granite facades ofthe existing center were ,.ter'.• restored wherever possible.The street was enlivened with _- street furniture,special lightposts,colorful awnings,trees and lush plantings.Glass-covered arcades connect the Main Street to parking structures.On Main Street,an elaborate, 139 1.G�G'^}➢qy • �• �, recirculating fountain runs along the center median. Bytheearly 1980s,thisauto-oriented shopping centerhad failed.Theoriginal A multi-screen cinema creates foot traffic in the evening. limestone andgranite fawdeswere incorporated into theShirlington l illage The Village includes five food outlets,including three sit- redevelopment. down restaurants.Several tenants of the previous mall were retained,including a post office,dry cleaners,fabric store,and Best Products. At the request of the community,the developer incorporated and is subsidiz- ing a grocery store on the plaza level.Events hosted by the Village include school art exhibits,arts and craft shows,and a wine festival.140 The original Village plan,created by RTKL Associates of Baltimore,includes 2 S acres total,including a hotel,five office buildings,and 490 residential units around the shopping district.141 The Village currently includes over 280,000 square feet ofretail,92 percent of which is leased,as well as almost 65,000 square feet of office space.141 There are now eight residential developments inclose proximity,including several condominium buildings,with the Village's commercial Main Street serving as the center of the community.The area's housing has attracted a lot of young professionals and young couples without children.l" pYp Retail and office buildings frameShirlington 1e Kris Addington,Project Editor,Project Reference File:The Village at Shirlington. Village's Main Street. The Urban Land Institute,vol.19,no.20,Washington,DC,October-December 1989. "'Kris Addington, 1989. 140 Kris Addington, 1989. Kris Addington, 1989. 'Main Level Existing Lease Plan,"The Village at Shirlington,Cigna Investments,Inc.,owner. January 31, 1995. "' Louie Estrada, "Shirlington: It's Not a Close Secret."The Washington Post, December 11. 1993. f r Th _)ject was initiated in 1984,when the Olive, Company joined with the two local businessmen who owned the site to redevelop it.After considering conventional options,they chose to integrate the existing shopping center as the centerpiece of a mixed-use project. Preliminary plans were submitted in early 1984 and were approved later that year.Arlington County's commercial zoning was unusual for the mid-1980s in that it allowed mixed-use development.Construction began in 198Swith O� offices completed first in 198 6 and retail completed in 198 7. The developers negotiated the details upfront with the community and public officials,such as the mix of uses and shared parking.They held periodic community meetings to discuss the project's progress and invite comments. The developer was required to improve the surrounding streets and side- walks,improve utilities and place phone and electric lines underground,and to landscape the site. The renovation of existing buildings made the project more affordable,as did the savings on parking construction due to shared parking between uses.The developers used a conventional construction loan,which was replaced with a permanent mortgage when the project was 60 percentleased.'•S Within 18 months,the first phase retail space was fully leased;the office space within six months.16 More recently, property manager John EO'Leary of Trammel Crow, a resident of Shirlington, told the Washington N Post, "We've been very fortunate. Several of our shops here have been Glass-coverod arcades connect the Main Street doing outstanding business.""r to parking structures. As one of the fust projects to retrofit a dying shopping mall,Shirlington has been a great success.It showed that"recycling"ofold malls can be economically viable,and it re-established the pedestrian-oriented Main Street as a design alternative to the typical mall surrounded by parking. It has also provided the high concentration of nearby residences with access to a mix of shopping and entertainment activities within walking distance, a key to making it easier for people to drive less. Kris Addington. 1989. KrisAddington, 1989. "'Kris Addington, 1989. "'Estrada, 1993. 58 _4 '_mil=•. Model" h.' . Projects . ' Mixed We Half of the initial 136 apartments were rented before F construction and • '+ - •_� ; �' all were leased a before opening day. The units N facing the public y� . ��d`;_ +t�-- square u+erefiled Sbefore those that ; , face the ocean. Community Support Turns Shopping Mall into a Mixed-Use Downtowr : . Total Anes izner Park is a mixed- 28.7 ..s- use redevelopment " c f housing , Housin Units project og 272 shops, and public _. , 3••.•l�1r�"".5 spaces that serves as a downtown Retail Sq. Ft. center for Boca Raton, Florida. Its 236 000 well-publicized crowds of users have Office Sq. Ft. prompted other developers to design 262,000 similar projects throughout the state. Papulation The chief concept of Mizner Park is •� -� its ample public space,or`urbanity.' 480 • o, £ Avg. Density The development focuses on a linear + j public laza strop defined like a (units/net ace) P PY ;.' nn`` 22,7 grand hallway by rows of specialty I bstores and cultural facilities at Average Walk a ''%�. ' -�1' •'rte;. ground level, apartments above, and ; � .�. to Shopping a promenade of trees. It is this all - ,�`!�'"`. 1 minute too-uncommon combination of Avg. Minimum architecture and sociology that &Maximum creates a strong sense of place — and ♦ The LArefier D'Arr identifies the ,tea : ,, Cinemas and dreJuntre nu+sc+tm. Temperature also generates thriving business 0 560 4 90 activity. 1414 K St., Suite 250 4 Sacramento, CA 95814 n' 916 / 448-1198 fax 916 / 448-8246 Cj ori•• p:f Dieu`n%rhe aparnuerrr: over retail anode(rum rhe plaza. The Plaza Real Inside the plaza,one feels as if they are within a large,public room with a transparent ceiling. The massing of buildings on each side,lined with a promenade of towering trees, help create this perception. There are many things to choose from: an eight-screen movie house,amphitheater, a future museum,seven restaurants and 40 specialty shops. In the hot and humid climate of South Florida,shade is a pleasant asset. The ground level along each side of the plaza is fronted by a continuous arcade that allows pedestrians a visual connection to the entire street while shading them from the sun. The entire plaza has no asphalt,great- ly accentuating the pedestrian atmosphere through its use of red brick streets and color-tiled walkways. Most parking is accommodated in four multi-story parking garages at each corner of the site. Cars parked along the street serve as a buffer The Plaza Real iu dbe evoihr� . between traffic and pedestrians. Implementing the Plan rm:--nnc+.cl.� �`v'ic�riS�f:er f— 1 ✓!':r-✓� "- c I Mn 1987,the City of Boca Raton's Community Redevelopment Agency ; i ne Tk,Dev lopmer tTeam- sought to replace their typical mall surrounded by parking— the classic �Ctty1�Bi'ry ofBoca TYaton C ttununttyr "island" shopping center. A developer, Crocker & Company, indepen- u fl� "�rtiy; �elgp entenry�� s"+ al!! densly bought the site,aware of the Agency's intentions. The City subse- `Ft9 1,T�ry�1a. ` ±f��'�,' ; it 11 quently bought the land and leased part of it back to the developer. The city held a referendum at the developer's request to hear the com- muni - 33 Real3Swtef335,; '} 4, r; � ���TsT ty's opinions on the Mizner Park proposal. An overwhelmingly pos- r .Qca,gC00 a-�: � � yF,e X307)362-0606. .a.0 L a.-� itive reaction resulted in a contract the following month. The project tiv4- .r�i�I `��< � opened less than two years later after extensive public review throughout �esrgne� `C?boper Carry'&Associates s�,�x•4 ;wr? { r �-^ z� the design process. c� ,err '. x,l w?:(202), 860130 x...l,....,,.e The 28.7-acre site was valued-at$58 million,to beaid back b tax incre- ; Lender: ;r:aTeache4's.Irisu'rance `,i_ a,, ' ;" P Y ''t'": :'� arA"niiuiry`Compa '.'; =''' :' y ment financing(increased tax revenues from higher property values in the area). The site improvements,totaling $6.5 million,and the project con- ,. .. .+i,.r"LI '''11.'••F , c_::.���;�+inj C1'r J. ,.,, ,.,�y;.�,.••' .• -0E rProled,5t5`thus; Bpu]aand'fully;leaseda ' r struction costs of$53 million were financed by the Teacher's Insurance & :N'�ar �'" � r�i n 'i!�:,:� i r Annuity Company through equity. .......c��-,Y�I�LPu!ti..�:+' i.Y7i�s;._��=�''?Mlu':�"..!•+�•'i11'?� Mizner Park - .�•••+' �, • . . . . t.. Site Plan ,m• a • • The green open space ci dre a ^� + • renrral mall and plaza unites the ;' �• �.r.... Civic Site # r sites Parlous USPS,and invites Of b people to snnnhar. •, The L'Atcher D'Art is tt lomted in Jiont ofthe 10 • m' — Henn 45,000 square-firor •00 o ®; ,F + ' huerrnational Museuan of Cartoon •s`�. �� • Art. The nein farobson s departnnrut store. i • a P slated for a Novcunber 1996 opening, u,ill add urate retail spate to Mizner Park's balance _ of ronunerrial, residential,and cultural uses. e P V1 Community-Building Mizner Park's large number and wide variety of activities attract a sub- stantial number of people, helping its square become the community focus for the City of Boca Raton. It also hosts many community events, including lively arts festivals,symphonic and jazz concerts,and a circus. ' The central green has become a popular gathering spot for city residents and travelers alike. It's a place where people can stroll after dinner in one of seven restaurants,children play and friends meet.The outdoor dining plaza,on-street parking and apartment balconies overlooking the central green contribr the pleasant hum of activity. Housinq over arcaded retail and tiled u,alku ays. "The amphitheater has enjoyed much success as citizens and visitors find this a delightful place to enjoy music and entertainment;' writes the Boca Raton Magazine. "The free concerts which enjoy crowds in excess of 5,000 are given by,among others,our own Boca Pops and the Florida Philharmonic." Prescription for Success Boca Baton's Community Redevelopment Agency initiated the project,and united business leaders,private citizens and cultural groups with city offi- cials to plan the downtown's future. Precedents were used by the developer to serve as models of inspiration including East Hampton on Long Island, Old Town Alexandria,Virginia,Palm Beach's Worth Avenue,South Street Seaport, in New York City,and Cross Keys in Baltimore. Dining in the outdoor eating plaza. Primary activities are what draw people into an area. The cineplex and amphitheater provide the primary magnets that encourage the impulse shop- ping that is so vital to commercial survival—along with a resident pop- ulation on the site. - Parking is primarily located in park- ing structures behind the main build- ings, separated from the pedestrian _ o - focus of the main plaza. This - trian quality has made Mizner . a popular destination. A sketch of the world's largest tnuseum of cartoon art,which opens in March 1996. •Yi:, rE Arcade ol'shops and restaurants. Preferred means of travel within Mizner Park. A view of the housing and retail mix. � ,.. - iT.-'ms..µ.:_. '�- .�f..-�;.•.,..:.' Economic Sustainability :Livable ' igher-.ens fy ; (P P P 9 l,,,F'j "_� � ',� -'• � " �.. v._�_ The land for Mizner Park was purchased in June 1988,and the plans were approved =� 4 '� the following Y ear. Construction started in October 1989. When it was coin- ,;M 1 1 1 =IVLiznet•Park, pleted 14 months later,90% of the retail space was already leased. The shops sold out Raton, of inventory and restaurants ran out of food during the first few weeks after Mizner r... Park opened. The numbers continue to impress, with average sales per square foot over $400 per year. Mizner Park is now home to a total of 40 businesses,including seven restaurants. The downtown center retail is anchored by entertainment facilities and restaurants rather `Th�,11�uc;of Uses,; ,, "-•,,,ti . _ _ �_ e�,-` than large department stores. That makes the site an attractive shopping destination for tourists and other city residents —and a rich array of neighborhood-serving uses 1 r , , 1 Residential: for Mizner residents. For these residents,cultural and entertainment facilities are also only 2.0 minutes away on foot. The AMC Theaters multiplex, L&N Seafood, and nOff`ce; Ruby Tuesday restaurant are among the top-grossing outlets in their national chains. •r - . . ray'. - ;�_. Mizner Park breaks the conventional requirements that developers generally set forth .95 as mandatory for selling the project: there is no retail visibility from adjacent arteri- �,,.�=•�.�a-rte.,,-EZT '4;' _. : '}. r -; ";,.:.•-,.,,,,_; .,: ..;•,�:�.;�_� ;-_„ :Ft.��=.w als,and the arteria] streets are absent from view once inside the site;cars and parking are segregated from the plaza; the residences are located above the commercial dis- I} ',_1.Y, ys �,r; ,,:,• v � ..-T , trict;and the office space has no monumental identity and is in-scale with the rest of 1 AVeidgetdlk�Rg D1std11Ce . the site. Trees are a prevalent source of shade,and add to a relaxing atmosphere. minutft;.pace:`3 ih es'" 40 Besides being good for business,Mizner Park's pedestrian-oriented environment also t GtoE� decreases dependence upon cars,lessening the use of petroleum,reducing air pollu- tY.. tants,and encouraging social interaction and a sense of community. sh Tr.yyans [ tafiori s rat itt Creating Land-Use Diversity f 1 ,v: l,�` t iversity is a key ingredient to a community's vitality. A number of primary uses ifi'ZV I s .; Don the site help to ensure this vitality: Mizner Park has a multiplex movie the- ti't•r"..is•c?:r •�''b.u'.i::}..,,Pr •:. cd":�:r;� _j,`,1<' atre, an amphitheater, open space for special events, and, opening in March 1996, a cartoon museum. Its short blocks-approximately 400 feet long-support pedestri- le ! d1 ;; G„r r, � _ an accessibility to all parts of Mizner Park. ,.il The varying ages of buildings integrate the site into the exist- betupacesy Aver�wyFFiold,�e�tq. , mg architecture; and its older buildings provide affordable yf. .g3�°.. .•• y, ,•w. '�� -� fit. 'tz ehousing. tznrj;'R'�deli"ha'1 4y S�'i.aG-9'•f �—y 1N"Cl�yrw '''det'�tlal�• 4I ,y n ,re F, +n Open space comprises 67/0 of l�rzrtQv"�*`G-'�m_merctal V. the site's total acreage. There 5i' rctare 9.6 acres of open space per �• 1 �?vitytGo ercal tt 'r• =' �` `a 1,000 people in Mizner Park. 't�'�np: ��`=�'dkr.:E:rrtisiF!"�<1'a.�_�.,;a•:�::;�s�`=�--�,F?&'�^'.:.