HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/1988, 1 - COMM MEETING AGENDA
v.ITE FE873 86 {I M
HAROLD MIOSSI
SAN LUIS OBISPO . CALIFORNIA 93408
POST OFFICE BOX 606
m. nAvI�Ot1Lt
February 23, 1988
Mr. Ron Dunin
Mayor, City'of'San "Luis 'Obispo •. .. ..
City Hall
San Luis Obispo,- CA
Dear Ron:
I see you and the Council will be considering the Court
Street Project this evening.
I would appreciate if you would bring into the
discussion the question of enlarging the San Luis Creek
channel under the project, possibly to the extent of having
the developer make improvements immediately adjacent on
Higuera Street to widen that channel.
It is utter folly to allow new buildings to continue to
restrict this channel which has only a thirty-year storm
capacity; at least for the older structures that encroach on
the creek the matter can be remedied if and when they are
demolished or removed down the line. .
Would you please bring this up to the Council.?
Sincerely;..,
HAROLD IOSSI
HM/mp
RECEIVED P
FEB 2 3 1988 (°''�
OTv CLERK
SAN UUFs 08SPQ.CA
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 23 88 ITEM # ° Nr
To: San Luis Obispo City Council e C . eDu
From: Richard P. Warren Z.
Date: 2/21/88 .J. DvuA.�
Re: Safety in Mitchell Park J. Ck1'fViu
aoweeo
My family lives in the vicinity of Mitchell Park, but we seldo u§eprpes
the park. The reason we avoid this park is that it does not feel safe
due to the normal gathering of homeless and transients, particularly
around the restroom area.
Del Mar Park in Morro Bay has what appears to be a safer
alternative in restroom design. The main elements of the design are
shown in the sketch below, and include private toilet cubicles (that
can be totally viewed if the door is opened) and open air sinks.
�. 2' 6" .�
4, 0"
® l�
O
Open air sink
for hands &
face
Conceptual Sketch Of Restroom
Alternative For Mitchell Park
Please consider the above when evaluating options to add to the
safety of Mitchell Park.
I also favor an increased police presence (Walk-through, not
Drive-by).
In addition, please take whatever other measures are necessary to
make Mitchell Park an undesirable location for homeless and
transients to congregate.
Tha.pk you,
Richard P. Warren
ME 1NO J AGEND
DATE =fa 23 ITEM
city
of
SOBISPO
"a =vi'," "' 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
MEMO CC' : (?_00"dwe,
J. Du�u�v
R. P.cquE T
February 23, 1988
A4. rA-e./
TO: City Council
FROM: Community Development Director N\I\
SUBJECT: Possible rescheduling of March 12 "Density Workshop"
The council will recall setting a special community workshop for March 12 to discuss
issues related to density and unit size. A high level of public interest has been
expressed on this topic. Staff is preparing for the workshop which will include a bus
tour of various multi-family projects.
When the workshop date was chosen, there were no apparent conflicts with other competing
events. Yesterday, staff received brochures announcing a one-day conference on "Growth
Management in San Luis Obispo County" sponsored by Vision 2000 Associates for the same
day. Among other presentations, State Senator Marion Bergeson is scheduled to speak on
statewide growth trends.
It seems a lot of the people who would attend one event would be interested in attending
the other (realtors, developers, architects, planners, Chamber of Commerce, etc.)
including city staff, councilmembers and commissioners.
Although we seemed to announce the date for our event first, as a matter of practicality
it would be relatively easy for us to change our meeting date and virtually impossible
for them to change theirs.
Therefore, staff recommends the council reschedule the workshop to another day. I have
already talked with the Vision 2000 representatives to encourage earlier and better
coordination with the city in the future.
March 19 or 26, both Saturdays, would appear to be good alternatives. If a new date is
chosen, staff will, of course, notify all interested parties of the change.
ds/data#l;denwork
AMM -2.
Revised WONG J AGENDA
DATE FL923 se STEM
ATTACHMENT b1
,q, CG 610Q of Y
Wastewater Management Plan Impemenation Revised Agreement �•�urh
Waste l
g !�
Task Costs
Task No. Task Description Costs Direct B. �'"�✓
1 . 0 Proj Management $12 , 800. 00
Per Diem $4 , 000. 00
1. 1 Management plan $6, 339. 20
1 . 2 SRF Financing $11, 068.80
2 . 1 Kickoff/WDR $2 , 972. 80
2 . 2 Brainstorming $14 , 956. 80
2 . 3 Geotechnical $16, 632 . 00
2 . 4 Site Survey $6, 237 . 00
2 . 5 Stream Enhancement $13 , 782. 40
Wesco $4 , 500. 00
2 . 6 Ag Irrigation $14 , 902.40
2 . 7 Laguna Lake $6, 579. 20
2 . 8 Source Detection $4 , 486. 40
2 . 9 Field Work $27 , 238. 40
Flow Monitoring $6, 750. 00
2 . 10 I/I Alternatives $4 , 236. 80
2 . 11 I/I Analysis $15, 753 . 60
Total $173 , 235. 80
i
- MEETING AGENDAy �
}ATE FEB 23'85 ITEM #
To : Council Colleagues W '
From: Penny PIZ
Re : Local Water Projects Update 4
The recent newspaper article on the water and reservoir
status has prompted this somewhat over-due memo. The Council
has not had an update on any of the local projects endorsed
in the Budget or proposed Water Management Plan. I
personally do not want to be surprised come May .
I would appreciate the Council ' s support in directing staff
for such an update. It should include the following:
1 . Amount banked in Whale Rock ;
2 . Local well evaluation ; '
3 . Conservation factor as additional SAY ;
4. Coastal Stream Diversion Project;
5. Salinas Dam ;
6 . Available info. on present water available .
cc : John Dunn
Bill Hetland
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 1988
Crry CLERK
SAN LUIS OWSPO.CA
" EXCERPT OF STAFF REPOT ON COUNCIL MEETING UY' )-1D-00
0 CITY COUNCIL FROlt -.1BY ROSS, COMM. DEV. DIR. PREP, J BY JEFF HOOK
� INIIIII�pA���IU city of San Luis OBlspo
AWSZo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
Basis For Selection
The panel believed both of the top-ranked firms could successfully
complete the Court Street project. Glenborough was ranked first
because it seemed more responsive to interview questions and staff
requests for additional information. Glenborough's preference for
ground lease as opposed to sale of the site, and for a high quality
retail/hotel project was considered to be the most promising
direction for the Court Street Center. overall, Glenborough showed a
strong "team" commitment during the selection process, and the panel
felt this was a prerequisite to a successful public/private venture.
What' s Next?
once council authorizes negotiations to begin, several things happen:
1) the developer posts a surety deposit for the right to _
exclusively negotiate with the city and to cover city costs
during negotiation,
2) the developer begins marketing, geotechnical, design, and
other technical studies leading to the preparation of a
"development plan" ,
3) the development plan is submitted for conceptual review by
staff, Planning and Architectural Review Commissions, and
Council ; and an initial environmental study is done (staff
anticipates the workscope of a focused EIR being prepared at this
stage) .
4) staff, city's consultant, and developer negotiate the terms
and content of the "Disposition and Development Agreement" (DDA)
which prescribes terms of lease or sale, city participation,
project design and major uses, and development timeframe as
outlined on page ,5 of Exhibit "B. "
Under the terms of the draft negotiations agreement, the parties
would have three (3) months to negotiate the form and contents of the
DDA, and an additional 45 days to finalize and execute the DDA. If
at the end of the 4 1/2 months, good faith negotiations have not
resulted in a completed DDA, either party may terminate the exclusive
negotiations agreement.
Council approval would be required at each key decision point. At
any point up to consummation of the DDA the city may, for good cause
(see pages 7-9, Section 8--City Approvals, Exhibit "B") , withdraw
from negotiations and seek other development proposals, or abandon
the project entirely.
7-3
��� �Ili�llllilllll WIS OBISPO
II�IIIII III
cityo sAn
i
990 Palm Street/PoSC Office Box 8100 S is Obispo, CA 93403-8100
ounce members via�Paul Lanspery
FROM: Jeff Hook
DATE: February , 1986
SUBJECT: Court Street Center RFQ Response
We've received seven statements of qualification" from developers
interested in the Court Street project. The response is
encouraging. At least two out-of-town developers have opted to
"joint venture" with a SLO representative. And there's an
interesting cross-section of developer interests and backgrounds
represented. As you can see, several developers have completed
retail commercial projects of the highest caliber.
Copies of the SOQs will be available in the Council office. If there
are any questions or comments, please call. An added note. Our _
consultant, HRS&A, has also received the SOQs and will be evaluating
developer' s qualifications. They've emphasized the importance of
discretion in public communications at this stage--particularly
regarding developer's financial statements and potential tenants.
In the next two weeks, staff from various departments will be
evaluating the SOQs. After the March 18 hearing on downtown parking,
HRS&A and staff hope to meet with each councilmember individually to
discuss the project.
COURT STREET CENTER: STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATION (in no particular
order)
1. Glenborough Corporation, Los Altos (general partner)
Frank Morrow and Associates, Palo Alto (limited partner)
Sykes Group, San Luis Obispo (limited partner)
Glenborough Corp. has been significantly ' involved in major
commercial, industrial, office, residential, and hotel development in
Northern California, particularly "silicon valley. "
Frank Morrow & Associates is a real estate consulting and investment
firm for several large public and private sector clients, including
Stanford University.
The Sykes Group is a local construction management firm. LandPlans
Plus, a landscape architectural firm, and Don Kahn & Associates, a
project scheduling firm, are also on the project team.
Previous Protects (includes projects done separately by the
partners) :
-Stanford Shopping Center--an innovative 1.3 million sq. ft. retail
center
-Cupertino Place--18 acre mixed-use development (MXD)
-International Business Park, San Jose--375 acre R&D park