Front Page  »  

Starbucks eyeing former Los Osos bank building

August 13, 2015

Los Osos buildingBy John Lindt, publisher of Sierra2theSea

Los Osos largest shopping center changed hands in July and the new owners hope to “livin up” the center according to Clayton Gambril of family-owned Gambril Development Inc.

The Gambrils purchased the center from a partnership associated with the Williams Brothers. The 94,000 square foot retail center has a number of shop-size vacancies to fill – the largest being the former Bank of America building.

“We hope to encourage the community to see this center as their own” making it ” more bike and pedestrian friendly and having more outdoor seating,” Clayton Gambril said

The SLO-based family is toying with a new name for the shopping center, to emphasize it as a gathering place – Los Osos Central is one option, says Clayton.

The multi-generation Gambril group also own Pismo Coast Plaza shopping center anchored by California Fresh Market.

Already the Gambrils are working on sprucing up the LOVR center  improving the outdoor lighting and with plans to reduce the center’s water footprint. In addition, the family also purchased the large lot next to Haggen grocery store for future development.

The new owners won’t have to wait long to interface with Los Osos residents with plans by Starbucks to lease the long-vacant former Bank of America building that includes the drive-thru, to relocate to.

County planner Kerry Brown says a staff analysis of an application from the shopping center would allow Starbucks to use the approvals that McDonalds secured from the county in 2014 before they decided not to move forward in 2015.

“We found the application in substantial conformity with the McDonalds application,” Brown said. So that Starbucks would need only a building permit to get started. The county did turn down a request by  the big coffee retailer to offer sandwiches at this location. Starbucks move would gain a more visible location with improved access, a drive-thru and more space than they have currently down the block.

But that county staff decision has been appealed by Julie Tacker, a Los Osos activist, and the matter will go the SLO County Planning Commission August 27, Brown said. If that decision is appealed, it would go the SLO County Board of Supervisors like McDonalds did.

Tacker’s appeal asserts that there is inadequate water in Los Osos to supply the restaurant and that water calculations by the applicant “supplied inaccurate information” to the county.

A number of concerns are likely to surface as they did in the McDonalds controversy including parking, use of a drive-thru, water and whether the community should welcome chain-type eateries – although the coffee giant is already there.

Gambril says they plan to offer more outdoor seating not just at a new Starbucks but in front of Carlock’s Bakery as well and new bike racks in front of the gym.

Today, the Los Osos center is anchored by Haggens, Rite Aid and Miners. The market was a former Vons which in turn had bought  out 19 Williams Bros stores in 1992 although the Williams Bros retained the property in this case, until sold last month.

Get local news first, like CCN on Facebook.


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


91 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Businesses that cater to the Los Osos current demographic should be approved and that can be done with wavers regardless of water issues. Letting this minority of self righteous bullies who game the system and laws to further this concept of keeping our community a primitive backwater of their liking needs to be stopped. Maybe we can move to build a Walmart here by transferring the water rights of anti McDonalds and anti Starbucks residents by eminent domain, they don’t need the water and should move to some remote area that suits their liking instead of strangling our community. How much of our fuel and time is spent driving to SLO or AG for shopping and jobs thanks to these troublemakers.


0

Hey mbbizpro, (responding here because we ran out of thread)


I wish the Gambril’s well. I like to shop locally and would love to see the center thrive.


The 1.5 acre of vacant land between the nursery and Haggen that was purchased as part of the deal for $2.7M is the real mystery for me. No vacant land in the Los Osos sewer prohibition Zone will be buildable until the water issues are resolved.


This is just the climate here in Los Osos. It’s not my choice, it’s the reality we live in.


Good luck Los Osos.


0

I have to wonder where you come up with this stuff. What does Starbucks have to do with the undeveloped property?


0

“The 1.5 acre of vacant land between the nursery and Haggen that was purchased as part of the deal for $2.7M is the real mystery for me.No vacant land in the Los Osos sewer prohibition Zone will be buildable until the water issues are resolved. ”


Afraid that some people have more information than you do? Would be a bummer if they build something after you put all that energy into blocking the sewer / water pipeline and progress in total.


0

The real story here is that the shopping center sold for $17 MILLION.


0

Why is that a story? A willing buyer had to think it worth the money? Do you think that you are entitled to something because of that? Is this extortion?


0

You just said…”This is only about water.”


0

The appeal is about the water. The change of hands is about the price.


0

Why is that your business?


0

And what does it have to do with the water issue?


0

$17M for a property that is so constrained by water is amazing money.


0

And why is that your business? If buyers with the financial ability to buy the property decided that it was a good investment, why would you be concerned? I question your motivations based on your fascination with the purchase and your claims of being concerned about water. Do you sense deep pockets that you feel need to be penalized for some reason?


0

Honestly, I think the new owner was sold a bill of goods.


0

Really? Do you think that a single person bought it? If so, if they have the ability to acquire a property for $17 million, do you not think that they have the ability to assess business opportunities? I haven’t pulled the Deed, but, I am betting Gambril forms REITs for major purchases like this. Obviously, they have experience in the local market with the center in Pismo which I have been to frequently. I don’t recall any vacancies there and it is well maintained and has high quality tenants. I could see them enticing California Fresh Markets to replace Hagan’s due to their existing relationship with them.


0

It’s public record.


0

OK? What does it have to do with your concerns about water and why do you keep focusing on it? Financial motivations?


0

Doesn’t benefit me one bit.


0

Sick with your community activism, Julie.


0

I agree with others Julie. You come on saying this is about water and now are obsessing about the price? I may not agree with stance on water but you at least have an argument there that I can understand an opposing view but with you comment about the value of property, you are acting now like you need to do God’s work over there in Los Osos. If it is of that big of concern to you, then have you approached the new owner and or buyer and expressed this to them? To me if it was a TRUE genuine concern that you say you have, then to me that is the avenue you would pursue.


The price is what the market dictates and what someone is willing to pay. THAT is free enterprise and capitalism. Are you against this besides the water? Your right but you are all over the place with your arguments here and it seems like many objectives on your part.


0

I don’t think I’m “obsessed” with the price. I am surprised by it and recognize that with a $10M mortgage the rents can not be what they were and the shops and businesses currently struggling in the center will see rent increases, how else will the owner cover his investment? The center already had a high rate of vacancies, and with less and less discretionary income in Los Osos (sewer/water costs rising on the horizon) shopping in Los Osos (all over Los Osos, not just this center) will be a challenge. Sewer/water rates will also rise for businesses, commercial pays more than residential, all of that cost gets passed on to the products we buy.


I see the nexus, even if others don’t.


0

They will do like Haggens next to it did yesterday. They will go out of business. Then they (whoever takes back) would have a fire sale, market corrects for pricing and you start all over.


I’m kind of surprised that someone who sees the nexus, didn’t see this just happen in the housing market just 6 years ago and happening all the time in business.


0

Oh, I get it, you are better than anyone else. And yes, your are obsessed with the price. Why is the mortgage, rents and rent increases your concern at all? Do you not think that a group that could buy a $17 million property may have understood what the market rates are? You do know that existing businesses with leases can’t have their rent increased outside the terms of the lease that is in effect, right? There is a high amount of vacancies in the center, remember, you are preventing a huge space from being rented. Get off your high horse, you aren’t smarter than the rest of us and certainly not more savy about Real Estate than the people that bought this center.


0

It’s time to end this septic tank mentality that would have NO sewer, NO cell site and NO to practically anything else that might improve the community.

Is the Starbucks project proposal simply being viewed as just another indicator of things to come…like all the wealth that will force the residents out? Doubtful. It’s called progress, and progress is whats needed by a community that has been so negatively impacted by the obstructionists for so many years.


0

I am not arguing sewer or cell sites, the sewer is going in and there’s a very big fake pine tree at Sea Pines providing cell service for Los Osos.


This is only about water.


0

So you are the person that determines if there is enough water? Were you elected to make those decisions? Mcdonalds already went through the process and it was approved. Starbucks already is in town, so their impact would be even less wit the old location closing. Why should the landlord be affected financially when all he is doing is leasing a property for an approved use? Your opinion does not supersede the rights of the property owner.


0

It’s about the numbers mbbizpro. The Mcapproval was for one number, the application for Starbucks is different. This is not my opinion, it’s the facts.


0

No dog in this fight, thankfully, as I would be as rabid as the rest. But an amused observer since the 70’s. Nobody, on either side, will state flat out, this is about development. Areas of Los Dose-os with crappy houses on double or triple lots will see big-time gentrification. You ever wondered about why the Sheriff’s Department has to have a substation in Los Osos? Those deputies will soon be shifted to Oceano and the North County.


0

I’d like to see an indoor pistol range. No water use and excellent accessory business to the new firearms business in town.

It’s taken a while but I really think the residents of Los Osos are really starting to come around.


0

Wait a minute, Starbucks is moving from one location in Los Osos to another location in Los Osos, someone show me the water loss from that? Unless we’re going to have two Starbucks! Oh boy! (sarcasm).


0

Water allocations run with the land.

Current Starbucks can’t bring its water to McStarbucks, it belongs to the landowner.


0

You certainly could and probably would protest whatever goes into the old location. Your argument is that water usage would increase when in fact it would not. If you are concerned about water usage the total impact on the area should be your concern, or, are you interested in stopping all business in Los Osos?


0

So the old bank building must have water allocations to go with it right? It also hasn’t used any water (maybe landscaping) for years. Wouldn’t a Starbucks have fewer employees than a BofA? Dish washing probably uses a lot of water, what kind of business would be allowed into that building?


0

Actually, the bank water use was retired because the building was not used in so long. The water allocation given to it was the outdoor irrigation for the whole shopping center.


Starbucks is open from 5am-9pm everyday and has many more employees and water using customers than a bank.


The building now has approval for 980 gallons per day (not 1250 as the applicant asserts). It doesn’t matter which type of business goes in as long as the combination of businesses do not exceed the approved water allocation.


0

Some people just want to keep Los Osos a place for the commoners while they reside on their ocean view estate. It’s laughable.


0

I wish the author of this article had discussed the grounds for the appeal with me. He would have understood the appeal is not against Starbucks, or how much water the 2000 sq. ft. Starbucks will use. It’s about the vacant remainder space and quantifying how much water is left for its use. As I calculate it, there is only enough water for a single employee’s use in a 2,000 sq. ft. space. If that’s cool with the landowner, it’s cool with me, just so we are all on the same page. The consultant representing the property is suggesting there’s remainder water approved for a “hypothetical sandwich shop.”


0

Well then it really shouldn’t matter to you then. If it is the landlord that is at risk of screwing himself, then if as you say, you aren’t concerned, then why appeal in the first place?? Doesn’t make sense.


0

It’s about specifying the water numbers. I have asked Planning staff to fix it, they haven’t yet. The only avenue was to appeal. I hope it can be remedied, if so, I’ll be happy to withdraw the appeal.


0

It’s obvious people do not understand how the process works. If you move, you do not take the water allocation with you since it is presumed that another business will go into the first location. At the second site, the whole project at the center is allocation “x” amount of water. If they use it for the Starbucks’ then the sandwich shop can not occupy.


If these sites are not monitored, this is how communities get into trouble with the water supply especially during a severe drought. Rules and regulations are made to protect people, not punish people. Surely, if someone was willing to tear down their house, remove the water meter and allocate their supply then you can have your sandwich shop!


0

At last, someone else who “gets it”.


Just for clarification, the banks water use (very low) was retired because it hadn’t used water is such a long time and a promise to retrofit the landscape. So the water allocation for McDonald’s came from the irrigation meter that serves the whole center. The projected water use numbers came from the newly remodeled Morro Bay McD’s — 980 gpd., not 1250gpd. which the applicant has asserted.


The Regional Water Quality Control board approved the waste discharge based on the capacity of the septic system.


0

Why should they contact you? Do you think you own this website?

You can always write an opinion piece on the subject, Julie. With civility, of course.


0

I am the appellant, that’s why it would have been prudent to contact me. He would have been informed that the appeal is not about Starbucks, it’s about the remainder space in the building and how much water is left from the Mcapproval for its future tenants use.


0

I think that contacting the appellant would not be prudent at all, since the appellant in this case most likely will not listen to any conflicting opinions.


0

I think the appellant could have explained that the appeal is focused on the remainder vacant space and not Starbucks.


0

This state and many of its “vocal residents”will eventually kill business in California.


Two raises in minimum wage in 18 months (20% increase). Buying power does not increase because all prices go up. Guess what- the politicians now have a bigger sweeter budget because payroll taxes go up and the govt has to do nothing but tell everyone how they are helping the “disadvantaged”. By the way the big labor unions that were supporting the raise are looking for a “living wage”exemption for the unions. Clearly a ploy to get companies to allow a union shop where they do not need to pay as high wages as non union shops will pay. (Look it up, the union exemption is under consideration in LA at this very moment)


Sick pay for every employee part time or full time (the governor said to keep employees from having to come to work when sick. Oh by the way, the businesses can elect to just pay the lump sum sick pay at the beginning of every year instead of having to account for the time. I am sure that will keep the sick employees home once they spend all their sick pay money in January). Oh yeah, the Governor pushed this through 1month before his election.


Lets be honest, if California had a climate like most of the US and no ocean, we would rank 51st in economic power in the US (just after the 50 states and the Dumpster in the parking lot).


OK folks, let the attack begin.


0

“OK folks, let the attack begin.”


So you posted a derail that has nothing to do with Los Osos real estate expecting to be attacked. That make the comment a troll, fishing for negative feedback.


For future reference “Please do not hijack comment threads.”


0

His comments are totally pertinent by illustrating how businesses are being derailed in Los Osos and throughout the rest of California. While Ms. Tacker normally does a superb job of informing us of the misdeeds of staff and elected officials, in this case she is way off the mark.


0

The business climate locally and in the state are right on point. “Activists” frequently sidetrack business on the Central Coast with their “concerns.” The regulations that the state places on business keeps many businesses from forming, others to go out of business and the rest to charge higher prices. If Ms. Tacker attempting to derail this business from expanding and a denying property rights to this owner makes his post entirely on point. Intrusion by Government and “activists” are certainly the issues noted in this article.


0

I agree with PRCCM. Yes it isn’t quite on Los Osos but is making point in same context. We are turning down everything these days business related from top (state) down to and including places like Los Osos. It is related also because Starbucks would be bringing a lot of the minimum wage jobs we talk about these days and he stated as such in different manner.


I say let the positives or negatives reflect what the people think of his opinion. It isn’t necessarily fact. When we comment we are giving our opinion. As long as we are respectful and have some form related to point but if we are down to this, why do you have opinions here then? Yes I know I may get a ruler across the hand for this.


0

Please read my explanation below. I am not arguing “No Starbucks”…again, I wish the author had spoken to me or read the appeal.


0

Ok, folks, I thought I was all done commenting here and I resolved to permanently quit posting in July (which I did) when the “moderator” now behaving like an EDITOR erased three of my July on-point, within guidelines comments. Erased them without prior explanation to me, but it’s their site so I just switched to permanent read-only mode. An over-zealous comments moderator does not diminish their reporting value, in my eyes.


Nevertheless I’ll come back to now comment on this moderator, who’s newly aggressive stance is cheapening the level of discussion on this very valuable site.


Just like PRCCM says to the moderator, “his comments are totally pertinent by illustrating how businesses are being derailed in Los Osos…” Exactly right, PRCCM. Why does CCN post an article about center sale and local gadfly challenges, and then RESTRICT comments which directly cover business and center issues? As a small limited partner in a bunch of such centers, I find many comments here to be viciously, weepingly true-to-life and ON POINT. Try Greenwood Village, Colorado if you think Julie is negative for business!


Bye, folks, I’ll go back into read-only (and mail-in support-only as I still deeply value the reporting side of this site) mode for me. There are plenty of you to make valuable comments of national weight AND accurate local focus, if this newly over-used moderator function lets you in. It’s their site, I acknowledge, but sad to see extensive, generally on point and relevant discussion discouraged.


0

LameCommenter I just looked at your July deleted comments.


You brought up Obama care, homosexual marriage and racism in an article about a Sprint lawsuit vs SLO County.


You made a personal attack against an opinion writer including name calling and an accusation of drug use and had no comment about the subject being discussed.


Then there is a scattering of anti Obama care comments and name calling in articles that have 0 to do with health care, insurance etc


None of that was “generally on point and relevant discussion” or within the guidelines on comments.


“newly aggressive stance” No, more transparency otherwise same moderator, same guidelines, for 7 years.


0

Bye.


0

Ah yes, Ms Tacker trying to limit property owner rights once more adding to the cost of doing business in Los Osos. Obviously she knows far more about the impact of water usage than the Board of Supervisors. Added costs for the property owner, loss of rents for the property owner while this goes on and added costs for Starbucks, but, hey, this is San Luis Obispo County where we want no growth, no jobs and no new business.


0

The BofA building is 4000 sq. ft.


Are you suggesting the 2000 sq. ft. Starbucks proposal should get more water than what was approved for McDonald’s? Are developers of commercial to get a pass because might provide a part time job or two? Because it’s Starbucks?


If you read my appeal it shows exactly what was approved for McDonald’s and what will be used by Starbucks. The delta between the two doesn’t support anything else that uses any significant water (2000 sq. ft.remainder space) in the building. All my appeal does, is asks the Planning Commission to assign a number to the remaining vacant space. If the new owner is cool with leaving that 2000 sq. ft. space vacant until the water issues in the community are resolved, then that’s cool with me. Just so we’re all on the same page.


0

Julie, perhaps if you were to give the amount of water usage that was approved for the McDonalds project along with that approved by the replacement Starbucks, we may gain a clearer understanding of what your objections are.


Providing square footage of an existing building is less than meaningless for most of us since, if for example a business office or other low consumption tenant occupies the remaining space, potentially even less water could be consumed than the amount approved for the previous McDonald project.


Thank you!


0

The appeal spells out all the details for the Planning Commission.


The approval for McDonald’s was for 980 gallons per day (gpd), but the applicant for Starbucks asserts the Mcapproval 1250 gpd. This is wherein the problem begins.


The applicant has suggested their Starbucks will use just 860 gpd (averaged from three Starbucks stores; only one of which was a drive thru — I like apples to apples comparisons and Starbucks that have no drive thru should not be in the formula). The only drive thru water bills provided averaged use was 924 gpd.


So the question for the Planning Commission is to assign what amount of water to Starbucks and what EXACTLY is left for the vacant space.


Yes, PRCCM, an office with low water use could squeeze out the last drops from what was Mcapproved. The question is, how many gallons are available? Is it what the applicant asserts is 390 gpd. (1250 gpd Mcapproved to 860 gpd from the averaged Starbucks that include no drive thru) or what my appeal explains 56 gpd (actual approval 980 gpd and drive thru Starbucks 924 gpd)?


390 gallons a day could supply two modern day low water use homes.


The reason for the appeal is to specify the allocation per space in the building. When McD’s was going in they were going to use 980 gpd for all but 900 sq. ft. of the building and the Mcpermit prohibited that remaining 900 sq, ft. to remain vacant until the water issues in Los Osos were resolved (this could be 10 years or more).


The appeal is not about Starbucks, the drive thru, parking conflicts, the corporate nature of the tenant or any of those ‘sound bite’ issues that came up during the Mcapproval; the appeal clearly spells out the concern is only for the WATER assigned to the vacant space.


There is no public process that would come with the tenant placement for the remainder space, so this is the only time I could make the case that the water numbers were inaccurate.


Is it splitting hairs? Maybe. Is it just a few gallons one way or another? Maybe. But, as long as property owners in Los Osos are prohibited from adding bedrooms and bathrooms to their homes, each gallon, each fixture, each approval will be highly scrutinized.


0

Do you know that the Starbucks that were not drive thru are not high volume stores that exceed sales of many drive thru stores so that they used that as a basis? That is speculation on my part, but, until you know that answer, your argument is not valid.


0

The three Starbucks water records provided were for just six month periods for the drive thru at 1419 Broadway in Santa Maria and 17 Chorro and 3971 Higuera in SLO.


I don’t know if any of them are considered high or low volume stores.

This is the only data the county requested and received.


0

How can you contest them if you don’t know the history of the volume of the stores? Obviously, the county requested local data and that is what they received. Why would anything else be provided?


0

Maybe you are making my case for me. More data to average over a longer period of time would give a better idea of what actual Starbucks use is. In the land use planning world we generally use a three year average. This applicant did not provide that and I’m disappointed the county didn’t require it.


What I am contesting is the formula in which the applicant asserts is the delta between what was Mcapproved (they say it was 1250gpd, I say it was 980gpd) and what they assert will be used by Starbucks (they say it’s 860gpd, I say it’s 924gpd). I want that number identified so there’s no ambiguity in the future.


0

O.k. here is a business that could fit those parameters you mention. Real estate office. It doesn’t have much outside foot traffic and most employee usage would be minimal.


0

I agree a real estate office would fit in those parameters.


2000 sq. ft. is a huge space, not sure what kind of rent we’re talking but, the previous (before the property sale) rent rate was $2.25 /SF/Month. Such a real estate office with just one or two people would have to crank out the sales to afford (or want to afford) $4,500 a month in rent.


0

If you look at the trend in real estate offices, most are much smaller. There are already more real estate offices in the area that the market can probably support. Most agents rarely go to the office anymore due to the advances of technology. The building would sit vacant for a long period waiting for one. A real estate office also will not pay the added rent of a pad location in a high profile center.


0

You missed the point. I was pointing out the yes there are business types that would go there. To say that there isn’t, (as it seems that Julie is implying) is not quite true. In just a few seconds that was the first thing to pop into my head. So if you can come up with something that quick, I have to believe there are other useful types to.


One just popped in my head. Clothing store. Or auto parts (I’m not from Los Osos so I don’t know if they may or may not have to many).


0

The point is the left over water allocation for the vacant space has not been specified by the approval for Starbucks. The public will not get to weigh in on whatever tenant is chosen to go there; so this is the only way to get that number nailed down. We know the county denied the “hypothetical sandwich shop” the applicant wanted approval for. So we can surmise that the applicant’s water numbers didn’t fly for the county either. But, the county staff when they approved Starbucks did not specify what numbers were used, leaving me no choice but to challenge their decision. I am still hopeful they can pick a number we can agree on so we don’t have to go on with the appeal.


0

Julie YOU don’t decide who goes there. Your elected representative does that. If you don’t like, vote out. If you can’t vote out or your candidate isn’t in and majority voted otherwise, that is how the system works. Trust me I (as I’m sure others) many times has someone in office they don’t care for. I wait around till the next cycle and hope my person gets in next time.


We all live together and it is a give and take. You can’t expect you get your way every time.


0

The elected official does not decide what goes in a commercial space; the landlord and tenants make that choice. The General Plan gives parameters of what goes where and permits allow the use. Elected officials, have discretion to modify or condition the project.

I am merely holding the applicant to the approval that was given McDonald’s and not this new, made up set of numbers, they have submitted for Starbucks.


0

You mentioned that the public weighs in. From that statement that isn’t a landlord.


I get it Julie. You don’t like the project (and it isn’t just the water) and that is your right. Just admit what we all here see.


0
1 2