“Prado Road Rezoning”
December 1996
 

The recent City Council preliminary decision to rezone property on Prado Road from O(office) to C-R (retail commercial) is controversial and may well be overturned at the January 7, 1997 council meeting. Since I supported the rezoning, it is appropriate to express my views at this time.

Current zoning of the property allows government-type offices similar to Padre Plaza or the county building at Higuera and Prado. The current master plan shows 4 buildings up to 50 ft. high, covering 125,000 sq.ft, located near the center of the site. The proposed project shows 3 stores combined in one building, up to 35 ft. high, covering 75,000 sq. ft., located away from the freeway. The proposed restaurant occupies 10,000 sq. ft. and is located near Elks Lane.

In 1995 the project was brought before the City Council for preliminary review. Primary Council concerns at that time were that the project not have a major effect on downtown sales and viability and that the project would not significantly increase traffic congestion in the vicinity. The developer was directed to prepare a study report covering those issues. The study requirements were prepared by staff, which monitored the progress. Staff agrees with the methodology and the general conclusions, which are:

• The project offers the opportunity to stem over $42 million of general merchandise sales annually that currently leaks to Santa Maria.
• The market for the project is freeway and regional and has minor overlap with the downtown markets.
• The project will have a minimal impact on downtown as a whole, affecting only 12 out of over 600 BIA member businesses and less than 1% of downtown sales. There are mitigations available to those businesses affected.
• The project will create 250 permanent jobs, will generate over $28 million in sales and will produce $283,000 annually in sales tax to the City.
• Existing roadways will function at acceptable levels of service with project development without the interchange.
• The project would accommodate the preferred interchange design and would contribute its fair share of the cost of design and construction of the interchange.

Three General Plan policies might be critical to this project. Staff determined that one policy was site -specific to the Drive-in Theater property, but not to this site. Reasonable people might interpret the other 2 policies in different ways. I believe that the staff, Planning Commission and the City Council went over this wording in exhaustive detail when the General Plan was adopted, therefore the words reflect exactly what was meant and can not be expanded to reflect what some might have wished to include. I believe the proposed project clearly complies with the General Plan policies (this interpretation is concurred with by staff but not by the planning commission).

Will the city in the forseeable future have a greater need for government-type offices or for highway oriented retail-commercial? Recent government and public utility downsizing at every level have greatly reduced the need for government-type offices. On the other hand both the Nukes Report (prepared for this project) and the UCSB Economic Forecast (prepared for this region and county) show that San Luis Obispo is rapidly losing its status as the retail hub of the region, with $42 million leakage in annual sales to Santa Maria and other nearby communities. Since sales tax is the city's largest single source of revenue, it is critical for balancing the city budget and maintaining high service levels. My conclusion is there is currently a greater need for retail-commercial zoning than for government-type office zoning.

The vast majority of public testimony for this project was in opposition, however much of it related to matters other than the REZONING which was before the Council. Expressed Concerns:

A. Don't allow this unfair competition to my business.

B. The Nukes Report is incorrect.

C. Don't change the appearance of this important gateway .

D. We don't want "big box stores".

E. We don't want THESE stores.

F. Don't allow "scatteration" of retail uses

My reaction to the comments:

A. The Council's primary concern must be the well being of the entire city, rather than the protection of individual business.

B. City staff set up the parameters, worked with Nukes during the preparation and concur with the general conclusions.

C. The proposed project will be lower in height, about 2/3 the building area and farther away from the freeway than the previously approved project. Existing landscaping along the freeway will allow only a fleeting glimpse of whatever is built

D. The proposed project will be comparable in size to the Scolari-Payless complex, hardly qualifying as even a medium box.

E. The Council is dealing with a land use issue, not with specific stores. If the zoning is changed, I would be pleased if Trader Joe's decided to relocate to the site in place of one of the proposed stores.

F. To me "Scatteration" means SLO shoppers scattering to nearby communities rather than shopping here in compact San Luis Obispo. We could keep more shoppers here if we had more stores with a broader selection and more competitive prices.

The Chamber of Commerce gave excellent written and verbal testimony.

Two Council actions regarding this project are of concern to me:

• Last year the Council implied that if the developer satisfactorily addressed concerns regarding effects on downtown business and with neighborhood traffic, his project would probably be approved. If the Council really didn't mean that, it should have been straightforward at the start and saved considerable time, cost and effort for all concerned. Council action with this project reinforces the belief that we aren't to be trusted.
• More disturbing is the announcement by one councilmember that he will change his vote due to the number of phone calls and comments he received after his vote to approve. Changing a vote because of pressure or threat leads to intimidation of individual councilmembers by the most vocal of dissident groups, and eventually to chaos in city government. On individual issues, councilmembers are in contact with only a tiny percentage of voters, who may not reflect the collective will of the community. Voters place us in office because they believe in our integrity and our philosophy of government. We can best represent them by always making well thought out decisions consistent with our vision for the city.