HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/1988, 1 - STATUS OF COURT STREET CENTER ",l'�EfING "T AGENDA
DATE YGB23'F #
• �illlllll IIIIII��� �����IIIII �IIIIIIIII �
.., a
city of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
Wer ,
MEMORANDUM R E C E IV ECD
FEB 19 1988
TO: City Councilmembers CITYCUM
SAN LUIS 0910.CA
FROM: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
VIA: John Dunn, CAO and Michael Multari, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Status of Court Street Center
During the'past several months, staff, the developer, and the project architect have
discussed, evaluated, and revised the project's design and uses to bring them into closer
conformance with the council-approved development program. Given recent project changes
and the level of council and public interest, staff felt an update on the project's
status would be timely. As background for the upcoming briefing, staff has prepared a
summary of the project's evolution, current status, and a preliminary framework for
public review.
Project Evolution
The catalyst for Court Street Center was twofold: the City's 1985 Strategic Planning
Program, and a proposal by Rossi King Organization to develop the site with retail and
hotel uses. To maintain fiscal health and provide better public facilities and services,
the program recommended improved management of city-owned property to achieve community
goals. Moreover, the 1984 proposal by RKO clearly demonstrated the development potential
of and interest in the Court Street site. Council directed staff to prepare a
workprogram for the possible development of the city-owned site. The workprogram,
entitled the Court Street Center Request For Qualifications, was approved by council in
December 1985.
In July 1986, the council authorized staff to begin negotiations with
Glenborough/Fama/Sykes, a joint venture partnership composed of Bay Area and local
developers. A conceptual plan involving a mix of retail, hotel, and conference
facilities was submitted in August, and engineering, environmental, and planning studies
began soon after. Following the Director's determination that an EIR was required, the
Council authorized staff to negotiate with Earth Metrics Inc. for environmental
consulting services.
Development Team Changes
During late 1986 and early 1987, the developer's consultants worked on engineering, soils
tests, and economic feasibility studies. Concurrently, staff and the developer began a
series of meetings to lay the groundwork for future negotiations on the project's design,
use program, and economic package. In March 1987, the development team was reorganized.
Due to organizational and internal marketing changes, Glenborough and FAMA discontinued
their involvement with the project. The remaining local partner, Sykes Group, was
restructured as Interwest Investment Group, and proposed a new joint venture partnership
to the city.
Court Street
Page 2
In April 1987 the new development team was approved by the CAO and consisted of two new
partners, Watkins Engineers and Constructors (a subsidiary of Dillingham Corporation),
and Phillip J. Lama, a development consultant, with Interwest Investments now acting as
the managing general partner as well as the local representative. By May 1987, EIR
preparation and site planning/architectural studies had begun.
In July planning staff received an administrative draft EIR and routed it for
departmental comments. However design drawings were not yet ready, and the esthetics
section of the (draft envirnomental impact report) could not be completed until schematic
architectural plans were completed. Schematic plans were presented to staff in October
1987, and raised numerous staff concerns with building height, form, and massing.
Revised Mixed-Use Concept
Several meetings to resolve an impasse over the project's design were unsuccessful. This
and other economic concerns prompted the developer to restudy the use program and overall
design concept. By January 1988, the developer had determined the hotel to be infeasible_
based on economic feasibility studies, current market conditions, and the site's limited
area. The current mixed-use proposal was then submitted, featuring a combination of
retail, office, and sports facility uses with accessory public use areas including
subgrade parking, central atrium, art gallery, restaurant/meeting rooms, racquetball
courts, and a lap pool.
Project Description and Current Status
The five-story building includes over 90,000 square feet of floor area and two levels of
underground parking. The developer intends to replace existing public parking and
satisfy parking requirements for the new uses. 140 parking spaces would be provided on
site, with the balance of required spaces provided offsite, or through payment of in-lieu
parking fees. About 33,000 sq. ft. of retail floor area comprise the ground and second
stories, with an escalator from an atrium to the second level shops and restaurant. A
public art gallery on the ground level would be provided for community use, and
landscaping, water elements, and displays would enhance the sunlit central atrium. A
sports club, including racquet ball courts and indoor lap pool, would be available for
public use. On the building's exterior, balconies, arcade's, detailing, and setbacks
would add visual interest, modulate the building's scale and massing, and integrate its
design with adjacent buildings.
The average building height is 64 feet, with an additional 10 for roof architectural
projections. Corner "cutouts", balconies, and setbacks on the Monterey/Osos and
Higuera/Osos corners soften the building's appearance, and traditional storefronts with
awnings would lend a pedestrian scale and orientation to the design. Court Street would
continue as a pedestrian corridor with decorative paving and other amenities.
The development team now consists of: Interest Investment Group (Marshall Ochylski and
Tom Sykes); Watkins engineers and constructors; TDK Architects and Planners from
Sacramento; Norm Lytle, Financial Advisor and local leasing agent; Edward Plant and
Company, national leasing agent; Rob Strong, planning counsultant; and Pierre Rademaker,
design consultant.
Court Street
Page 3
Court Street Center is envisioned as a co-operative public/private venture. The city may
choose to lease or sell the Court Street property for development, however, a long-term
ground lease appears most advantageous to the city. Terms of property lease or sale have
been duscussed in concept, and negotiations leading to a detailed financial package are
expected to start this spring.
Framework for Public Review
The administrative DEIR needs to be updated to reflect project changes. Staff expects
the DEIR to be ready for public review by April 30th. During the public review period,
the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission will conceptually review the
project, and provide additional opportunity for public comment. The public review period
will be complete June 15th, and the final EIR will then be prepared. Planning Commission
hearings on the EIR and the planned development should occur thereafter, with council
hearings to follow.
The developer intends to process the project as a planned development. This would allow
a detailed review of environmental, site planning, and design issues by the commissions
and the council. if approved, the project's uses, design, and economic package could be
linked to the PD rezoning for the Court Street site, with reasonable assurances to both
parties for timely and quality completion of the project.
Notes: The RFQ is available in the Council office.
Site plans, elevations, floor plans and representative sections will be
available on Monday; the developer will distribute additional information at the
meeting.
A model has been prepared and will be available at the meeting.
cc: Planning Commission
Architectural Review Commission
jh2/crtstl
., � watt ruvt�
aJA RE9 23,E8 . �M
TRANSMITTAL MEMO COMMENTS/REPLY
Mayor and Cit o cilmembers Re: Court Street Item on Tonight's
FROM DATE
Agenda
OXFOR YOUR INFORMATION
❑ YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE Penny requested that the attached
❑ REVIEW AND CALL ME material be available for your review
❑ REVIEW AND FILE at tonight's meeting. She will be
❑ REVIEW AND RETURN TO ME referencing it in her comments this
❑ PLEASE REPLY AND RETURN TO ME
❑ REVIEW AND REPLY TO
❑ REVIEW AND FORWARD TO
❑ ATTACH PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE
AND RETURN TO ME
❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE
--
%4EIr-ttlVti AUENUA /
- DATE rye Y3 (TEM 0 L
EXCERPT FROM COURT STREET CENTER SCENARIOS
BY GLENBOROUGH CORPORATION, FRANK MOROW & ASSOCIATES, SYKES GROUP
Introduction
I
This project represents a unique opportunity for the City of San Luis Obispo. The
site deserves/demands a design solution more responsive than the traditional
retail/office solution. Glenborough/FAMA-Sykes provides the means to fulfill
the entire potential of this unique opportunity.
Glenborough/FAMA-Sykes is an experienced development team with local
representation and significant local participation. Local talent will be used when
possible in order to provide a local perspective for the project. We have the cap -
ability to supplement those local talents, where necessary, to assure the success
of the project. We have already included the well respected firms of Landplans
Plus and Kahn & Associates in our development team and will be adding
others, with the City's input, as the project progresses.
Our development team has the financial capability/experience to assure the
timely completion of the project. We bring to the City the financial security of
knowing that we will complete the project at minimal risk to the City. We plan to
expedite the project through to final completion.
Our proposal for a mixed use of retail/lodging/conference facility provides for
maximum flexibility. It is more intensive than a 9 to 5, five day a week traditional
retail/office project in the that our proposal brings a 24 hour, seven day a week
vitality to the downtown area of San Luis Obispo.
Our team has a demonstrated record of success in a broad range of real estate
projects. Equally important, the Glenborough/FAMA partnership was specific -
ally formed to engage in cooperative real estate ventures with public entities.
Our experience lends itself to the special characteristics and challenges inherent
in development ventures with public entities.
We believe our experience substantially improves the probability of achieving the
multiple stated goals of realizing the economic and non-economic benefits while
minimizing the effect or avoiding the common pitfalls a City may encounter in this
type of endeavor.
Glen borough/FAMA-Sykes is uniquely qualified to work along with the City to
fully achieve the desired goals and objectives as stated in the Request for
Qualifications.
i
i '
Court Street Center i
0 7 • _ y 7 n •
CN 03 d � no NS : ' 0 •
� D 3N0oQ
O
OL p p O OI 7 < Dno Ck
no M
m 0i a)
o �,° y ° no . ;o no �:3 d 3 ' ° 7 3 i c,
^ un a) 7CL no c roton 7c3oarD : 1
rb
00 7 ., N v2N � c
M LA
N 4y
or fu
dv m c > oo ^ n. 7 � � o '
^ " a ° m o 3 f c 7 N
v
C n din n 7 r�^n�? 0 y •- ,� . ,y
t° o ° )
� y W
OJ o ? S '� n7
OL
CDM
l< to N
"o n n 7 W'O • 0 a -1 -. 7• „ rn • N d N N N •
d 0 ro O no p31 7 d � p S 0 O C O M 7 x 7 n C H r"On Q j • �,�71 71 `2 x
7 .n 7 no- OLa .O 0 or O rp ^y 7 m r^p d ^ 0 ^ p ° 7 rD n p -0 W 7 M lb n
7 no
o tj C . l O� d M N O N 7 d ... °^ , C p N n N d ^ F O N N�. N a rD < D i
Nd 1 xn c O7OL O 0 rb - ° dU:l to d NN'< O d >•O = rn
^ rp aCoo c ^ 3 < O d 7•C ,7.U N rn A �' °< O 7 ii, 7. 7 a w tod O U
x !n O n rn N N d N N `0 10 O. no d N C n 01 -. N d N ^no 3 m 0',
N :: re O W C is d ° rD 0 a 7" 7;c a Cl - rE ro n -. 0 rp rD :r Q'
and d,c ^� ^.-0 3 Dm a rooms x ^to �nQ '. � a.., o
NN. d -. 7. 7. 3 �M no �� n � xn �. �'^.� 3n a > > $ _Foc� NN
no no noN C 7 7
7 n ^ N R N 3 d C N 7 n rp et d d X C < a 0 ^ 7 n d d 7 a p
7 1 rn n _ no x C ': N no C t0 �_ 7 0 d W
_ a rn o a 7 C O C
°� �. v° od3r cEc ^np �� cn d off ° ono na Tata
0OL 0
to 7 A ° '� 7 N rD no Q CI 'r� cOC N rD 7 `G N to d 7 7 d. 7' 7 3 C_ n ^ O
n rn rp G d y 7 d O
0 �_ Q H H U °' c 0 j 7p a 7•° _L N N '�` �. 7 t� O j X7 'p i=<•' 7 cn
n A d cu N �.`< 0 O O O ° rp O�• y t0 O' a, to N 3 ro N'm
d x:� 7 3 no „ 3 ^ 7 !1 � d dno rD d ^ 61 C 3 '''ti�� C7 Cfl
7 7 7 7 c P rD N rp _^.•7. 7 m 7. no
OL t0 x j 7 .. .. d 0 n' O no 7 rn H H
CL M
4^ 0 H
— <p o o<to 3 °7 n d to OL m M xO Oji W 4 < O n R 3 O Z r C ato z
X d o a re v d a o T r<o no 7 ^ N n o 7• ? W 3 d
p or
N N'D < 3 0 -n d G d 7 d V N N n U t0 C d N d to rHr ^ ^ N rD
•` C C 3 C 3 ro rpi N ^ ° C N •O CU n .�. 7 C Q v 7 ^ ° n 7 0 r m Vl
Oj
ONQ�< oA CN �;t0n CU fu or:3 � t0 'D no ,N.U. d n' J zm ZF y
c pro l7`O R u » ^ n.0 �.`< N x'O 3 N O J O
C-
7 m N G� ^ n A A no no M IM n 3 j m O y m O�.O ,CN.,rb :3 _n y Q Q o - o rip
0 - . Q ^ 07-07 'opn 7p37 7 `� ^ OL re 1.,�rrc A
% x 3t°o '�'o' ] Gam— O^ 0. < ': my oC n 70°�' M <_ 3m C
n d CL no
ro U r o O G - ItO O rn N ° ro p 1 d C 1 ri �'
no M G u ^ .. O 7 0 P V N < 0 7 n( re x' ,H. d N 7 H
nQo ,�nvN ~ ?dnre < d ? a -0 no M nod og 37p0 n
0 ' a 7 ? no S^ to rp ° rn Y
3 rp 7 C
PL
rn co
c tp g O
Z
M
D OH�O r)n p N 7 Q C O ".Hi w to �RC
r- o� 3 a, cr o a� V; �A W
3�. —
0 a t3it 7 r 7 A D w 7 P a w Z7 .
�to Nc w ' A 0 a -cr c
ro 3`< O
o 0r �< . 30a <vn=N"
v n.00'° 3 X a n�o.�' c m
.,
no I to el
Q 0 O° j y 7 0 C � or z d T n n
W d m Al
c_ n 3'e oc n X
D �_ . 3 , o
to 80603
01 dno
m 3 N Vo
C
p ^ r o R no.�
V O V w