Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6b. Adopt a Resolution expressing support for the Downtown Area as the preferred location for a new Facility for the Superior Court of California Item 6b Department: Administration Cost Center: 1004 For Agenda of: 7/18/2023 Placement: Consent Estimated Time: N/A FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager Prepared By: Lee Johnson, Economic Development Manager SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA AS THE PREFERRED LOCATION FOR A NEW FACILITY FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, expressing support for the Downtown Area as the preferred location for a new facility for the Superior Court of California (County of San Luis Obispo Courthouse)” to support the Judicial Council of California regarding the preference of maintaining the Court Facilities in the downtown area. POLICY CONTEXT City General Plan Land Use Element policies listed below are key in terms of guiding staff about its engagement and advocacy that the new courthouse remain in the downtown. 1.12.1 Educational and Governmental Facilities Near the City - The City shall continue to communicate with nearby government and educational institutions to address proposed changes in the numbers of workers, students, or inmates that have the potential to result in significant adverse land use or circulation impacts on the City or may negatively influence the City’s ability to manage growth. 4.1. Downtown’s Role - Downtown is the community’s urban center serving as the cultural, social, entertainment, and political center of the City for its residents, as well as home for those who live in its historic neighborhoods. The City wants its urban core to be economically healthy, and realizes that private and public investments in the Downtown support each other. Downtown should also provide a wide variety of professional and government services, serving the region as well as the city. The commercial core is a preferred location for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking, and compact building spaces. Civic, cultural and commercial portions of Downtown should be a major tourist destination. Downtown's visitor appeal should be based on natural, historical, and cultural features, retail services, entertainment, and numerous and varied visitor accommodations. Page 9 of 165 Item 6b 4.21. Government Offices - City Hall and the County Government Center should remain at their present locations. Additional local government administrative office space which cannot be accommodated within the existing city and county properties should be developed nearby within the Downtown. (See also Section 5, Public and Cultural Facilities policies). 5.1. Public Facilities 5.1.1. Grouping for Convenience - The City shall support the continued grouping of government offices that provide similar types of services for efficient service delivery. 5.1.2. Joint Projects - The City shall work with other government agencies to cooperatively plan for new or expanded facilities. The City should encourage agencies to consider joint projects when mutual objectives can be met. 5.1.3. Civic Center - The City shall promote the continued location of the following uses in the Downtown civic center (Figure 5): A. City Council offices and meeting rooms, clerk, administration, finance, attorney, personnel, community development, utilities, and public works administration and engineering. Any additional space for these functions should be in or close to City Hall. B. County supervisor’s offices and meeting rooms, administration, courts, jury commissioner, clerk, auditor, assessor, counsel, district attorney, personnel, engineering, planning and building, environmental coordinator, and voter registration. Any additional space for these functions should be provided in or close to the County Government Center (Courthouse block). 5.1.4. Health Care - The City shall promote the location of the following uses in healthcare areas (Figure 5): A. Public Health Department; Mental Health Services; French Medical Center on Johnson Avenue near Bishop Street. B. Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center and associated health facilities on Casa and Murray Streets. C. Other compatible public or private offices or health facilities . 5.1.5. Social Services - The City shall promote the location of the following uses in a social-services area in the general vicinity of South Higuera Street near Prado Road (Figure 5): County Social and Homeless Services; California Employment Development and Rehabilitation; Federal Social Security Administration. This area should have sufficient space to accommodate regional offices of State and Federal agencies. Chapter 1 Page 1-66 5.1.6. Other Government Functions - Some government functions which have been provided at certain locations in the City should be located close to related activities, though they should not be bound to any one of the identified centers. Such functions include: A. Probation - suitable for the civic center (courts), the County operational center on Highway 1 (sheriff), or the social services area; B. Alcohol and drug treatment programs - suitable for the social-services area or the health-care area. C. Peripheral locations should be pursued for service vehicle storage. Page 10 of 165 Item 6b DISCUSSION Background The Judicial Council of California (JCC) is starting the process of building a new court facility for the Superior Court of California, County of San Luis Obispo (Courts). This effort is statewide, and the courts of various counties are prioritized by the JCC and funded through State legislation. Currently, $292M has been approved for the project. The first stage in the process is site selection. The process of site selection is defined in State code. The City’s participation in the process is limited to the Project Advisory Group (PAG). The PAG’s role is to determine the site selection criteria, the sites that should be evaluated, and ultimately the preferred and alternative site(s). The first meeting of the PAG was held in October 2022. The PAG is composed of various stakeholders from the Courts, the legal community, municipal government (the City Manager is the representative from the City) and the business community. Based on the original timeline, the target date for final site selection was April 2023. Due to challenges with the originally identified sites and general land availability, the site selection process has been delayed with a new target date for final selection in the fall of 2023. The two remaining sites under evaluation are: 1. The County property at 1144 Monterey, commonly known as the “Kimball Motors site” is the preferred site. 2. The current site of the Courts is the alternative site. This site requires nothing from the City, but does require additional funding, which the JCC is addressing at the State level to determine viability. As it relates to the Kimball Motors site, the City’s role is limited. The County is the owner of the property and the JCC is a superior agency, so the City has no land use or development review authority. The JCC has asked the City to provide a Resolution of Support for the downtown location of the Courts. However, the areas that the City has influence and the ability to impact the viability of the site are related to fire and life safety and the potential availability of City right of way. Fire and Life Safety Considerations Based on the initial review by the Fire Marshall, fire and life safety issues can be addressed through the design process. Page 11 of 165 Item 6b City Right-of-Way Considerations The potential availability of City right of way for the Kimball Motors site has been identified by the JCC as a necessary component for that location. Given the JCC’s current design, the land available within the Kimball Motors site is too small to accommodate all the Court’s criteria. One of the core requirements of the site selection process is a minimum setback of the building from adjacent roadways for security purposes. A minimum 25-foot setback is required along with secured access for vehicles from multiple approaches. Should this site be chosen there is the potential that portions of the City’s right of way on Toro Street and the Monterey Palm Alley would need to be modified to meet the Court’s requirements. There are specific processes for right-of-way abandonment that the City would have to follow should this location be selected that will require a public process and Council involvement. Other Considerations Economic Impact While the Downtown has been able to weather the impacts of the pandemic, climate change, remote work, changes in retail, online shopping, and other challenges, the positive economic impact of the Courts and their supporting infrastructure cannot be underestimated. The jurors, lawyers, Judges, Court, and County employees are key contributors to the success of our small business community Downtown and beyond. The vibrancy of our downtown and a large source of revenue to the City are at significant risk should the Courts move outside of the Downtown or the City. Next Steps If the Kimball Motors site is ultimately selected, staff will initiate the appropriate right-of-way abandonment processes. The issue would come back to the City Council in a public hearing for action following Planning Commission review. Should any negotiation of price and terms related to any transfer or relinquishment of real property between the City and the Courts be necessary, Staff would also return to the City Council in Closed Session for additional direction on price and terms. This information would be fully developed through the research associated with the abandonment process. Public Engagement There has been no public engagement at this time , however, public engagement would be included in any subsequent right-of-way abandonment processes. The public will have the opportunity to provide comment on this item before or during the City Council meeting on July 18, 2023. CONCURRENCE The Fire, Community Development, Public Works, City Attorney’s Office and Administration and IT departments concur with the recommendation. Page 12 of 165 Item 6b ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Ultimately, the development of the new facility will require a project-level environmental review. The City would be a Responsible Agency with discretionary approval authority over a portion of the project because permits will be required for needed public improvements to the surrounding curb, gutter and sidewalks. Access to utilities, including water and sewer service will also require permits from the City. The current recommendation is to approve a Resolution in support of all sites in the downtown area, which is not considered a “project” under CEQA section 15378, since the Resolution itself is an administrative activity which will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: N/A Funding Identified: N/A Funding Sources Total Budget Available Current Funding Request Remaining Balance Annual Ongoing Cost General Fund $ N/A $ $ $ State Total $ N/A $ $ $ Continued engagement with the JCC regarding the Kimball Motors site does not have immediate fiscal impacts, but the long-term fiscal impacts of the Courts leaving Downtown and/or the City are significant. In addition, should the Kimball Motors site be selected, and any negotiation of price and terms related to any transfer or relinquishment of real property between the City and the Courts be necessary, staff will return to Council via Closed Session for direction on any reimbursement and/or payment associated with the transfer of City-owned real property related to the project. ALTERNATIVES The Council could direct staff to end engagement with the Judicial Council of California regarding the sites Downtown. This action is not recommended as it would not be consistent with current policy, and it could have severe economic impacts to the City. ATTACHMENTS A - Draft Resolution Supporting a Court Facility Downtown Page 13 of 165 Page 14 of 165 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2023 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA AS THE PREFERRED LOCATION FOR A NEW FACILITY FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA (COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COURTHOUSE) WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is the largest city in the County of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2023, the City Council expressed support for the Court location to remain in the downtown; and WHEREAS, the Judicial Council of California (Judicial Council) is responsible for and has final approval authority over all court facilities projects pursuant to the Trial Court Facilities Act (Gov. Code §§70301 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the Judicial Council of California is the Lead Agency for the evaluation, environmental review, siting, funding, and construction of a Court Facility pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15051(a) and the City will work with the State during the development and environmental review stages of the project and may submit comments as a responsible agency as defined under CEQA ; and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that the final design, location, and timing of siting of any potential Court Facility has not been determined at this time, and ultimately will be decided by the State of California through the Judicial Council of California; and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that, if a location in the Downtown is selected, it may be necessary for the City to: 1. Abandon a portion of Toro Street between Palm Street and Monterey Street 2. Realignment of utilities on Toro Street 3. Abandonment of a portion of the alley between Toro Street and Santa Rosa Street 4. Close street parking on Monterey Street along the courthouse property frontage between Toro Street and Santa Rosa Street 5. Participate in public processes necessary to the Judicial Council’s efforts to implement the project, including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and Page 15 of 165 Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2 R ______ WHEREAS, the process by which a new courthouse is sited and constructed is lengthy; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to collaborate with the San Luis Obispo Superior Courts to facilitate a location within the City of San Luis Obispo as the Judicial Council of California decides to prioritize the courthouse needs for San Luis Obispo County; and WHEREAS, any proposed project to develop a public facility will require adherence to CEQA processes to ensure consideration of environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the City’s policy and planning documents support the downtown as a location for a Court Facility; and WHEREAS, the City values intergovernmental partnerships to promote efficiency and maximize public value. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: 1. The City supports the continued location of the San Luis Obispo Superior Courts within the Downtown area of the City of San Luis Obispo; and 2. The City commits to promote and creatively participate in the responsible development of the Court Facility in the vicinity of the Downtown by supporting the efforts of the Judicial Council and San Luis Obispo County Superior Court to define a proposed Project Description, identify a preferred site and/or alternative site location, and to implement the Judicial Council’s project consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and other applicable law and public hearing requirements. 3. The City commits to working with the State in its efforts to mitigate the project’s potential effects on circulation and to optimize traffic flow and access to Toro Street, Monterey Street (consistent with the needs of the project), and the Monterey/Palm Alley during and after construction of the new San Luis Obispo Courthouse. Page 16 of 165 Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 3 R ______ 4. This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act under State CEQA guidelines §15262 as it is a commitment to study and this resolution is not a statement of commitment and that full environmental analysis of the project including any transportation or other related impacts shall be analyzed by the Judicial Council who shall serve as lead agency and the City of San Luis Obispo may submit comments as a responsible agency and work with the State of California on CEQA compliance. Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2023. __________________________ Mayor Erica A. Stewart ATTEST: ______________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. _________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk Page 17 of 165 Page 18 of 165