The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4/15/2025 Item 6h, Kokkonen matt finmatters.com < To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Item 6h Comments for council meeting Attachments:SLO City Council reference docs. 4-15-2025 .pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Attached are 2 documents referring to my property at 2995 S Higuera Street. SLO City engineer Noah Maidrand has recommended terminating the negotiations to improve and give the sidewalk area to the City and take the "saved" monies for other City use. I object to this sudden termination of discussions and negotiations which in my opinion amount to bad faith actions and negotiations. Thank you for your attention to this item. Chartered Financial Consultant Chartered Life Underwriter CA Insurance License # 387736 Matt Kokkonen, CLU 1103 Johnson Ave San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (O) : (805) 541-1880 (C) : (805) 886-1880 (F) : (805) 541-1882 Email: matt@finmatters.com 1 rfcz�ve� b� [ • Sfio�� April6, 2024 Noah Maidrand Delivered personally San Luis Obispo City Engineer 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Dear Mr. Maidrand, I received your Letter of 3-31-2025 regarding our property at 2995 Higuera Street — APN 053-032-004 and called you the day I got it. You refer to unsuccessful easement negotiations regarding my property and refer to your "significant efforts to procure the necessary easements" while omitting my attempts to get some answers from you and/or your right of way agent as well as waiting for responses to specific items we had agreed on. Contrary to your perspective, I have been negotiating in good faith. The sudden withdrawal of the City from the negotiations clearly indicates bad faith negotiations in my opinion. Your right of way agent had indicated to me that the City had focused its efforts on other projects and only recently approached me again because itwants to address South Higuera street now again. We started discussions again and I was waitingforsome answers. I'm happyto hopefully come to a mutual agreement in short order. I am sure you have a copy of Mr. Stephen Myrick's email from December 2024. He stated he was adding several items that the Citywould be willing to include in the agreement. I have been waitingfor that agreement. Another item referred to the dated appraisal the city had provided about a year and a half ago. Real estate prices have increased substantially since then. He was going to update this matter with the City. Interestingly, the current City comparable sales were of vacant lots. My property is not vacant. It generates income and provides homes There was a project already in September 2017 on South Street on a 10,000 sq ft lot for 6 one -bedroom dwellings and a non-residential ground floor suite. That small lot sold for $63.88/ sq ft to my knowledge. I had asked for someone from City engineering to meet us at the location to see how practical the garbage truck maneuvering would be with an 18 degree slope being created from the street to the front house. That slope would also impact the parking in front of the existing house I was told by Mr. Myrick. Back in February 2024, you were requested to come to the property to discuss the parking lay -out on the 30 ft apron which essentially would eliminate parking there. I don't recall seeing you there. I have also asked for costs per parking slot that developers have to pay the City in lieu of parking places if they cannot be provided. I will lose 5 spots with the eminent domain action the City is planning for my property. Many of our tenants have resided there for many years. They are concerned about the loss of parking. So am I. Yet, your letter accuses me of not acting in good faith. Hogwash. Clearly, the opposite is the case. As I have stated before, I look forward to continuing good negotiations. However, after the huge amount of time I have spent on these matters, you are backing out. Are you now giving me notice of an action the City Council is going to take or discuss regarding my property a week from tomorrow? Is that part of your due process? I just also wonder about the City's sudden desire to act on my property immediately. Yet there is a blocked sidewalk on Pismo Street which has been there, I would say ever since I moved to San Luis Obispo in 1970. It is blocked probably because of a steep hilt with an apartment house above it. Would you please inform me of the actions the City has taken and is planning to take to remedy the possibly dangerous situation. This matter undoubtedly concerns the Engineering Department, so you would be able to comment on it, I am sure. It also impacts parking on that block. I look forward to your re -joining me in good faith negotiations on my property. Sincerely, Me o onen Firefox IlL https://outlook.office.com/maU/inbox/id/AAA4kADVjYzQ2Njl5L... 4kADVjYzQ2NjI5L... IS Outlook City of San Luis Obispo / S. Higuera Sidewalk Project (Kokkonen) From Stephen Myrick < Date Thu 12/26/20241222 PM To Matt Kokkonen < Cc JT Katavich < Hello Mr. Kokkonen, I hope you and your family had a nice Christmas Break. I am sending this email to follow up on our last site visit at your property. There are several Itemsthat I want to touch on and would like your feedback on as well. The first item is the current agreement. I have updated that agreement to reflect some additional wording based on your input from our last meeting. The main items added were to address grading and placing a layer of base alongthe southern edge of your property to allow for additional parking. This work would also include trimming the trees and shrubsthat are encroaching from your neighbor's property. I also added language that the city will relocate the mailbox to a location on your property of your choosing. I have sent these edits to the City of San Luis Obispo for their review and approval. I will provide you with a copy of that agreement once I receive It back from the City. The second item was the appraisal. I know we discussed that you were wanting to obtain an additional appraisal. That is your right to pursue that if you would like to, but I noted that you were compensated by the City for the independent appraisal you obtained from Todd Murphy In 2021. Since you were previously compensated for an independent appraisal, the City has not authorized the Compensation for a second appraisal. My Concern here is that I want to make this clear prior to you scheduling an appraisal under the assumption that you will be reimbursed as to avoid any Confusion. In addition to this, I wanted to highlight a few items from the most recent appraisal that was Completed for this property and project. In that report, the property was valued using the Highest and Best Use of the Property As Vacant which was stated as "Develop to a mixed residential -commercial use." As I mentioned, since this Is for an easement only with no Impact to the Improvements, the valuation was Appraised as Vacant land for purposes of easement valuation. The applicable Zoning was C-S, Service Commercial which is what we thought it was during our meeting. The effective Date of Value for that appraisal was August 31, 2023, so it is over a year old. With that said, there are a few nearby projects that have recent appraisals with property zoned Commercial Service. The value per square foot allotted in your appraisal was $SO. This is in line with the other appraisals, and I have seen a range from $35/ SF to $60/SF on those projects. I have updated the agreement to reflect a compensation of $40,000 which would represent a value of around $57 /SF, which is on the higher end of this bracket. We an try for $42,000 which would put you at $60 / SF but that would be pending approval from the City. If that is a number you would agree to, I can input that for your signature and send It to the City so that they have to make that decision. To reiterate, It should be noted that the city's Municipal Code, Section 12.16.050, would require the property owner to design and install curb, gutter, and sidewalk were the owner to redevelop the property in excess of 50%of Its determined value. The larger parcel's highest and best use in the after condition as vacant will not be affected. As vacant, the property would become something closer in the eyes of developers to a turnkey parcel, now having a sidewalk, curb and gutter. The remainder, as Improved, will be In a much better position due to these Improvements. In the after condition, the bar will be lower for future modifications, renovations, demolitions or any construction that might affect the property. Below is a table of recent sales. Please note that S64 Higuera Street was adjusted down from the $160 / SF price. This was due to significant entitlements on the property and was adjusted down to $46 / SF. These comparable sales are for your reference only and are not adjusted as comparable sales to your property. This Is to provide you with some insight into the value of commercial and commercial service zoned property sales in SLO. C.ri.1 lJnd 750.79d FootdiR 8133- rats N. [11o,M St San W 2 ob.,Pd 4 Buds SA,, W i, fti " NP2 COMP3 COMP COMPSCOMP COIAP7 COMPa COMP9 1rcW C..'i,.l eommeem: Ce—"., Commrtwi C....l Cam. W Comm , laM Wd Cod '..1q 1.d u,I. ta.d land Sw Hiqu.r. $I 11w 4A..11 LA H...... St. Rd. we EM,.ia 139' CAM "ACadL St N bad VPAan Si .hapuw um !h San Wrs S.n W. 9n W., San wrt San Wiz Mul. M:,. ob:po Obrspo Obupd CA CA CA a a 934, owl owl 93A01 93A01 San Wii San— S.n W., San-. San Lua obisco oevye obcpo obapo oe:P0 0524`1-pr7. 063. 0Y,.nd M`1914C7 053S32415 0:3-W1-:'i 0.3 '32-002 0S3-iI2423 S.n Wb San W.. San Ws OWWO Obi,. Ob,'" CA CA a ". I owl 93401 San W,I San Wii San Ws ob�Wd obu90 oaip9 002.3C2-446 002311422 and -029 SALE INFORIMATION SA.M.= "Mood S415000 f900.000 SA.160.000 S23SOA00 S2s25000 s1A00000 S475.000 s77 $39 $23 S6' Su S26 SIR St9 SS1 F. 9,ipN F.,, SA Fee&MM F. Snpl. F.. s,,pk i..SP:pN F. S+1p% Fe.srw* i..S O. Cen,Mtwnal ConNntrona Cw•enCeml Wan COnNnWnal Cub Cant CAM - ryy,ol 7W u1 typical 'W-oi 7,.W TW.a1 5nbd.111adti r'N r,WW TWim So w S0 So So S0 So 0 f0 &RM_ 0 aN 21110:0 11% S/AM.,1 5% SPd/2021 4% 31, Iron 01 A16r202_^ U2 rOn A/1012023 SnZ=3 Cldi.d MIR Chm" ' oo,.d Cldud cim" M .o C1u.d ch. M =42261 102014536 2021d2160 20214.A 2-OL`-11316 =120201 2011-31ca - 3106071 2=`3727 $6 BN u IOf $1 AN $3 5N 0 ON So ON 3114: r1Ni 30 " so 0% 1 of 2 1/2/2025, 12:59 PM Firefox L" the site area to provide an indication of the as -vacant land value. https://outlook.office.com/maiVinbox/id/AAhIkADVjYzQ2Njl5L... TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT NET GROSS PRICE TRANSACTIONAL' ADJUSTED PROPERTY' FINAL ADJ ADJ 1 .-- 8% S83 i.. $j8 25°m 68% 2 ... 10% S43 15% S49 26% 36% 3 ._- 4% S24 50?c Sm 57% 66% 4 5% Soy , , _ $59 .. o, 54% 5 S34 0% $34 67% 357 68% 78% 6 $26 0% S26 43% S37 42% 53% , S160 1- :. S46 15% $53 ,^:v1 146% 8 S19 0% S'9 70A, S32 68% 80% 9 $51 0% $5: $43 :1 55% HIGH S 769 1C. SS3 Mt , Sig 684 146% AVG 555 ..,-. 543 23§ S47 160, 71% MED S39 04, $43 154 $49 264 6" COW 519 - SIP SG:, S32. 16, 36ro SUBJECT SF S/SF _ VALUE Usable Lane 20700 R 455 - SI 13asm INDICATED VALUE I ROUNDED TO NEARESTS100001 455 S1. 140.000 Sack- Wry," Right of Way .Agent Califonfa DRE t02106416 H Office(805)7?3-1459 J . F. (805173--141S A1� Ten=,.e (sW5s5-:35c L"1�OClAT}J : =�' b>mner �r..'enz 2 of 2 1/2/2025, 12:59 PM