HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/1988, 1 - STATUS REPORT ON COURT STREET CENTER �I�Ih�I�III�IIIIIIIIII�II��I � f MEETING DATE:
In�uII c� o san tuts osispo 7-5-88
COUN 1L AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; Prepared By: Jeff Hoo
SUBJECT:
Status Report on Court Street Center
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1) Endorse the conceptual building design and a use program with two floors retail
with art gallery, restaurant, and conference rooms; 2) Authorize staff and the
developer to proceed with development review; and 3) Extend the Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement for six months.
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION
At its February 23rd special hearing, the City Council reviewed Court Street Center and
continued the discussion to allow advisory body and community comment. Councilmembers
wanted Planning Commission, BIA, and Chamber of Commerce comments on the development
program before giving direction to the developer and staff. The council's discussion was
wide-ranging (summary of meeting is attached); however most comments seem to focus on the
suitability of the proposed uses and feasibility of alternative uses. In response to
council comments, the developer prepared pro formas for 10 alternative use mixes (see
section on Land Use for a discussion of use alternatives).
Planning Commissioners reviewed Court Street Center at their April 6th, May 19th, and
June 15th meetings, and their comments are summarized below. The BIA and Chamber have
also reviewed the project, and letters summarizing their comments are attached.
Following council and commission comments, staff asked H.R.& A to evaluate the
developer's pro formas (cost/income projections) to help assess the feasibility of the
various use mixes. The consultant's findings are summarized below, and the both the
report and the pro forma are attached.
Project design and uses have not changed significantly since February. Final design,
environmental review, and financial planning and marketing are on hold pending city
council direction regarding appropriate uses. The Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA),
originally approved by council in 1986 has expired, and the developer has asked the city
to extend the ENA to allow design development and negotiations to proceed.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
In July 1987, Earth Metrics Inc. submitted an administrative draft EIR for Court Street
Center, based on the project's original retail/office/hotel use program. Staff comments
on the draft have been returned to the consultant, and a revised workprogram has been
prepared to address project changes; however the developer has asked to postpone further
environmental study until the proposed uses are confirmed.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
In 1984, the city council initiated a program leading to the development of this key
downtown lot. The city was under no obligation then, nor is it now, to lease, sell, or
develop the site. The ENA allows either party to terminate the agreement if, after
exercising good faith and reasonable judgement, a mutually acceptable project is not
forthcoming. Consequences are discussed in more detail under "Alternatives", below.
/-l
�������►►►u��pll��p`gl�lU city of San Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
BACKGROUND
Situation
At its February 23rd special hearing, councilmembers reviewed the project's design and
use programs, and referred it to the Planning Commission, BIA, and Chamber for comments.
Following council and commission suggestions, staff asked H.R. & A., the city's economic
consultant, to examine the feasibility of selected uses in greater depth, and to evaluate
the developer's economic projections. This report summarizes commission comments and the
consultant's findings, key issues, and staff's assessment of the project.
In most respects, the project has not changed significantly since council's last review.
Economic projections have been updated, and floor plans have been modified to provide
additional building setback along Court Street. The developer is still exploring the
feasibility of various use mixes; however the retail/office/health club continues to be
the developer's preferred alternative. This use mix is still the most refined use
concept in terms of program planning and tenant interest.
ADVISORY BODY/PUBLIC COMMENT
Plannine Commission Comments
At its April 6th, May 19th and June 15th meetings, the commission reviewed Court Street
Center. Commissioners discussed a wide range of issues, including use alternatives,
economic issues, site design and parking, and the city's RFQ (Request For
Qualifications). At the June 15th meeting, commissioners were unable to agree on the
appropriate uses for the project. They voted 5:0 (Commr. Duerk absent; Commr. Roalman
stepped down due to a conflict of interest) to forward their comments to council. A
second motion expressing commission preferences and/or concerns on specific issues passed
3:2, with Commrs. Crotser and Hainline dissenting (draft minutes attached).
In summary, Commrs. Gerety, Schmidt, and Kourakis, while supportive of the concept of
developing the Court Street site, were disappointed with the proposed project and felt it
would do little to achieve downtown goals. Commrs. Crotser and Hainline felt the
proposal was generally acceptable, and that it would be an appropriate addition to
downtown.
BIA/Chamber of Commerce Comments
The Boards of the Downtown Business Improvement Association and the Chamber of Commerce
comments area attached. Both endorsed the project, while stressing the need for special
attention to parking, treatment of Court Street, and project amenities like the central
atrium. The retail/office/health club use mix was judged appropriate; and both
emphasized the importance of including uses which will result in the most economically
successful project possible.
����N�i�►►I(�IINI�III� II�I`I city O� San tuts OBISPO
NNaZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
EVALUATION
Economic Consultant Report
H.R & A.'s report concludes that:
1. the proposed mix of tenants is consistent with the city's RFQ, and if properly
marketed and managed, has the potential for creating a vibrant, successful
enterprise.
2. The scale and distribution of retail and office space seem appropriate for
attracting quality tenants.
3. From a purely economic standpoint, the retail/office project -- with or without
the health club -- is a much more viable project than any of the other land uses
being considered. Of the 10 alternative use mixes studied, only three appear
feasible in terms of market interest and economic feasibility: Retail/office/health
club, retail/offices (without a third use), and a retail/office/inn concept.
Further, the report suggests that development of a hotel/conference center, department
store, market rate housing and/or a movie theatre are probably not viable uses at this
time, since they would not generate sufficient income to offset construction costs and
debt service, nor make the project attractive to a developer (or lender). It notes,
however, that a high demand probably exists for subsidized family or senior housing and
suggests that a non-profit entity like the Housing Authority could, assuming grant monies
were available, administer low-cost housing as one of the project's uses.
Most questions and problems raised with the developer's pro forma have been clarified in
the revised version. And while some significant questions remain (computation of parking
in-lieu fees, revenue projections, nature of city financial participation and return),
the relative economic strengths of the various uses appears unchanged. Until the city
defines an acceptable use mix (or a range of uses), cost and revenue projections must be
viewed as rough estimates — useful for comparisons, but likely to change substantially
once building design, city requirements, and uses are firmed up.
Appendices describing floor area requirements for various retail uses, and a summary of
leasing strategies used by other public agencies are also included. Interestingly, the
national average floor area for junior department stores -- 23,475 square feet — would
fit within the proposed two-floor retail concept for Court Street Center. By contrast,
most full line California department stores require more floor area than is available
here, ranging from 85,000 sq. ft. (I. Magnin, Bullock's Wilshire), to 150,000 sq. ft.
(Sak's Fifth Avenue), with some stores in the 200,000 to 350,000 sq. ft. range.
Hey Issues
Staff identified four key issues, and these are discussed below: 1) Land Use, 2)
Consistency with the RFQ, 3) Compatibility, and 4) Parking.
1 -3
iiu��►n►►I�u►IIIIIIIIP�'"°'q���U MY of San-Luis OBISPO
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Land Use
The Court Street Center RFQ does not well out specific uses. It emphasizes that a
variety of uses are allowed in the C-C zone, and that uses will be guided by the site's
size and location, development standards, market demand, and developer interest and
expertise. However the project is envisioned as a coordinated public-private effort, and
the RFQ sets sets several public interest goals related to land use:
1. Enhancing downtown's economy by expanding the variety and volume of retail sales
and related uses.
1. Reinforcing downtown's historic role as the hub of cultural, social,
entertainment, and commercial activity in the county.
3. Developing an attractive, economically feasible project with minimal public
costs and optimum private investment opportunities.
At its previous hearing, councilmembers' chief concerns seemed to be: 1) Was the
proposed mix of uses appropriate in terms of downtown's character and economy, 2) Was a
use combination involving a hotel or major retail use (ie. department store of 30,000 sq.
ft.) feasible? and 3) Are there other special uses, such as housing, performing arts
facility, or conference center that would be feasible?
As a "mixed-use" project, this proposal includes three main uses: retail, professional
office, and health club. 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. About 33,000 sq. ft. of quality office space is planned on the third and
fourth floors. The health club, including lap pool, racquetball courts, weights and
other activity areas comprises about 20,000 sq. ft. The health club facilities would be
available for public use on a walk-in basis. Meeting rooms are also proposed in
conjunction with a 5th floor cafe or restaurant, in response to council suggestions. An
art gallery on the ground level would be provided for community use, and landscaping,
water elements, and displays would enhance the sunlit central atrium.
In addition to the developer's preferred alternative above, nine other use alternatives
were analyzed, all with onsite parking (see pro formas and H.R.& A. report):
Alternative No. Uses
2. Retail/Office (two floors retail plus three floors offices)
3. Retail/Office/Inn (two floors each of retail and office, one floor 36-room inn)
4. Retail/Entertainment Complex (17,000 s.f. retail w/ theater and restaurant
5. Jr. Department Store/Offices (34,000 s.f. retail)
6. Department Store (102,000 s.f. retail)
7. Hotel/Conference Center/Retail/Office (138 room hotel w/ 22,000 s.f. retail)
8. Hotel/Streetfront Retail (138 room hotel w/ 17,200 s.f. retail)
J— �
������►�►�►iullllllllll�° °����IU MY Of san tins OBISPO
iMoZa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
9. Retail/Office/Apartments (about 33,000 s.f. office & retail, 23 apts.)
10. Retail/Affordable Housing (17,200 s.f. retail, 42 units)
Use Summary
Of the 10 use alternatives, only four appear economically viable:
-Retail/Office/Health Club (developer's preferred alternative - alternative 1)
-Retail/Office (with five floors) (alternative 2)
-Retail/Office/Inn (alternative 3)
-Retail/Office (w/ four floors)
Based on this developer's market studies and financial interests, and given current
economic conditions, the retail/office/health club or retail/office/inn appear most
feasible. Most successful mixed use developments consist of three or more revenue
producing components, each independently viable. Collectively, the various uses should
enhance the project's attractiveness and profitability, thus creating the commercial
"synergy" common to MXD's. These two alternatives appear to meet these criteria.
Alternative uses such as a single-tenant department store, hotel, entertainment facility,
and market rate housing are attractive but appear financially risky, probably requiring
substantial, on-going city subsidies to make them viable. For example, the junior
department store/office use would have a negative cash flow after debt for the first five
years projected at $1 million. For the same critical five-year start up period, negative
cash flow after debt service for a full line department store and the
retail/office/hotel/conference center alternatives are projected at $4.36 million and
$4.51 million, respectively.
In summary, Staff feels alternatives 1 or 3 are the best options. Alternative 1 appears
to be the strongest financially, while alternative 3 appears more risky due to the "soft"
hotel market that currently exists, and the likelihood that substantial public subsidies
will be necessary to make the use viable. If the council prefers alternative 3,
additional design and feasibility studies would be appropriate. The council may wish to
support the parking, retail, and office components of the proposed project, and defer a
decision on the 5th floor use pending further discussion and market studies by the
developer
Consistency with the RFQ
The current proposal has been closely tailored to fit the RFQ guidelines. In most
respects, this proposal meets or exceeds development requirements and the city's stated
objectives.
1 — �
�,���i�H►UIIIIII�I�In�ui►���III city of san Luis osispo
NNIFEM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
With the exception of building height (50 ft. allowed, 64 ft. height proposed), the
project meets city development standards. Parking, treatment of Court Street, and
building design concepts appear consistent , although will require additional study and
possibly changes during environmental and design review. The RFQ noted that partial
abandonment of Court Street, a 40-foot wide right-of-way used for parking and driveway
access, would be considered if adequate light, circulation, and air could be maintained
for adjacent uses. Staff supports a partial abandonment, provided that shading, building
scale and mass, and circulation issues are adequately addressed (see next section).
Compatibility
In general terms, staff and the city's consultant considers the project to be
compatible with adjacent uses, both in terms of architecture and land use. The project's
architectural character reflects a mix of architectural styles and details reminiscent of
San Luis Obispo in the early 1900's, fused with contemporary architectural elements. The
chief issues seem to be: 1) impacts on light, noise, and views for the adjacent uses,
and 2) circulation and character of Court Street.
The draft EIR addresses compatibility issues in detail, and recommends mitigation
measures such as building design changes, special construction and business management
measures, and maintenance of adequate street width along Court Street. Neighboring
property owners have submitted a petition expressing concerns with several aspects of the
project (attached). Staff believes that the concerns about Court Street's treatment can
be adequately addressed by increasing the building spacing along Court Street (25-30 ft.
minimum), by modifying the building design and setbacks at upper stories to maximize
sunlight into Court Street. The current proposal involves variable building setbacks
along Court Street, with a 25 ft. wide travel way for most of Court Street. The partial
abandonment is proposed to accommodate a larger building footprint, and to offset the
loss of floor area from the proposed 8 ft. street widening along Osos Street.
Parking
The project would remove 118 existing parking spaces, plus generate an estimated
requirement of 185 spaces for its own uses. Of the 303 spaces required, 140 spaces are
proposed on site, with the balance of the requirement met by constructing spaces offsite
(eg. participation in a city-sponsored parking structure), or through payment of in-lieu
fees. Onsite parking is an essential component, as well as a significant amenity of the
project which may justify flexibility in building height and setbacks along Court
Street. If the site were sold for private development, it could be developed under city
standards without providing any onsite parking provided that in-lieu parking fees
were paid.
Staff recommends that the required spaces which aren't provided onsite be constructed at
the proposed Chorro and Marsh parking structure through developer participation, rather
than simply paying in-lieu fees. Some opportunity may also exist to provide enhanced
public transportation (ie. special jitney or bus service) linking the project with other
commercial areas to reduce overall parking demand. The details of how the parking
requirement will be met are unresolved, and with council direction, would be refined
during negotiations.
����i ►lullllllll!{►�� °q���ll city of san tuis oBispo
N loom AMara COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ALTERNATIVES
1. Endorse the project concept, authorize staff and the developer to proceed with
project studies and public review, and grant a six-month time extension for the
ENA.
This would allow environmental review, project design, and marketing efforts to
proceed. A tentative workprogram schedule is attached, showing the probable order of
key tasks, hearings, and project approvals which appear necessary. Under this
scenario, the city council still retains the authority to terminate negotiations if
the city and developer are unable to enter into a mutually acceptable development
agreement regarding uses, project design, amenities, lease terms, city participation,
and other project details.
If council supports conceptual approval, direction to the developer and staff on
three key issues would be timely:
A. What are the most appropriate uses or use mixes for the project?
B. Is partial abandonment of Court Street appropriate, and if so, how much public
street should be retained?
C. How much parking should be provided onsite, and it what manner should be balance
of required parking be met?
2. Do not endorse the project concept.
The council may determine that the architectural or land use concepts are not
acceptable, and that continued discussions and/or negotiations are not warranted.
The council could base this, at least in part, on Section 9.A.(a) of the ENA which
allows "no fault" termination of the agreement if the city does not accept the
developer's conceptual development plan. Acceptance or rejection of the development
plan is at the council's sole discretion, and its decision is final.
3. Continue consideration of the project.
There is no mandated deadline for taking action on Court Street Center. If the
council needs additional information, or feels that the project is not ready for
conceptual approval, it may continue the item. Due to the number and complexity of
items scheduled for upcoming agendas, further council review before September is
unlikely.
The additional delay and uncertainty resulting from a continuance may result in a
loss of developer interest in and commitment to the project. If the project does not
proceed, the city will continue to use the site for public parking for an indefinite
period. To date, the city's project investment has been limited to staff time and
printing costs. By discontinuing the project, the city would not incur significant
expenses, nor would future development options be restricted. However the city's
support for and commitment to a major mixed-use development on this site would be in
question, and future efforts to encourage private development of the site may be
hampered.
1 - �
��u��►�IIIOIIfiII�IiI�' ��Ul�� city of sari LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the council endorse the project concept, as follows:
A. What are the most appropriate uses or use mixes for the project?
Developer's proposal for first four floors; either health club or inn for
fifth floor pending further marketing analysis.
B. Is partial abandonment of Court Street appropriate, and if so, how much public
street should be retained?
Partial abandonment is appropriate but most of Court Street should be kept
open (minimum 30 feet for most of the length) with upper story setbacks
near apartments. Sun/shade analysis should be part of evaluation of final
design.
C. How much parking should be provided onsite, and it what manner should be balance
of required parking be met?
Developer's proposal for on-site is acceptable. Off-site implementation to
be determined at a later date (either in-lieu fees or direct participation
in new structure).
Also, authorize development review to proceed, and grant a six month time extension of
the ENA. This will allow project design, tenant selection, public review and
negotiations to progress in a timely manner. The project's design and proposed use mix
promise significant, direct and indirect public benefits, and appear economically,
esthetically and environmentally feasible at this stage. It appears to be in the city's
and the developer's best interests to allow the project to proceed, with council
direction, to allow further refinement and evaluation of the development program.
Attachments:
-Vicinity Map
-H.R.& A. Report ,
-Project Pro Forma
-Petition from Neighbors
-Project Chronology/Tentative Workprogram Schedule
-BIA/Chamber of Commerce Letters
-Council and Planning Commission minutes
NOTE: Copy of ENA available in Council office
jh2/crtst2
r OV
I
• '
111"'� �Z s !�\ ,t•�/ _ \ � V a' �i
I CI N 1 I MAP
�''�!!�'�I►����li����lillllil
city of sAn tuis oBispo
=-5;;:: MSM01 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, A 1
March 3, 1988
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dunn and Councilmembers
VIA: Michael Multari. Community Development Director
FROM Jeff Hook, Project Manage,
SUBJECT: Recap of Council's discussion of Court Street Center
At the February 23rd hearing, councilmembers, planning and ARC commissioners, and the
public reviewed the status of the Court Street Center project. Here is a summary of the
issues covered, and staffs understanding of the council's key concerns.
I. Staff Presentation. Staff introduced the project and gave an overview of the
project's history, design and use program, and outlined a tentative public review
schedule. Mike Multari noted that staff has been working with the developer to bring
an acceptable project to council early in the public review process. The item was
informational only, and no specific council action was necessary.
2. Developer's Presentation. Marshall Ochylski of Interwest Investment Group
explained changes in the development team and introduced team members: Tom Sykes,
CEO and general partner in Interwest Investment Group; Peter Freeman, Treasurer,
Dillingham Construction; Jerry Jones, Vice-President, Watkins Constructors and
Engineers, Inc.; Norm W. Lytle and Associates, financial consultant and local
leasing, Edward Plant and Company (not present), marketing consultant; Ted Kopecko,
TDK Architects, project architect; Rob Strong, The Planning Mill, responsible for
project planning and development review coordination; and Pierre Rademaker, exterior
design consultant.
Mr. Ochylski described the project design and use concepts in detail, and presented
slides showing the site plan, parking, and floor plans. He explained that the
central atrium, balconies, subterranean parking, second floor restaurant/meeting
rooms, and health facilities were intended for public use as well as building tenants
and customers. The retail/hotel concept was abandoned by the developer the results
of a Laventhol and Horwath study made it appear economically infeasible. The new
mixed-use concept consisted of retail uses, professional office suites, and a health
facility, restaurant, and miscellaneous public use and service areas.
EXIT
Recap
Page 2
Mr. Rademaker described the project's architectural design and presented slides
describing the building's compatibility with other downtown buildings. He noted that
the project was designed with not one but several different architectural styles to
reflect adjacent buildings and historical antecedents. The building would be a
unique, yet highly compatible design. He felt it would 'fill in' a void in the
city's downtown which, until recent times, had been occupied by rather dense, large
buildings.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. Chamber of Commerce. Maggie Cox, SLO Chamber of Commerce Director of Government
Affairs, felt that development of the Court Street site would be appropriate, but
that it would be premature to comment on project specifics until the Chamber had
evaluated this proposal. She said that the Chamber was eager to work with the
Developer and the City to bring Court Street Center to fruition.
4. Business Improvement Association. Dodie Williams, BIA Administrator, explained
that the BIA had been aware of and involved in the Court Street Center project from
its inception. The BIA feels that retail uses are the most important component of
the project, and that this location is appropriate for the proposed development
5. Planning Commission. Janet Kourakis, Chairperson of the SLO Planning Commission,
noted that this was the first time she had seen the project's design, and that she
anticipated many commission comments on the proposed uses, site plan, and parking
issues.
6. Architectural Review Commission. Brian Starr, ARC commissioner, expressed
support of the 'fragmentation* of the building's design into multiple facades to
reflect the downtown architectural context He complemented the project's overall
design.
7. SLO County Arts Council. Jan Hagaman-Jercich, President of the SLO County Arts
Council, voiced support for the proposed art gallery to be dedicated for public use
as part of the Court Street Center..
COUNCIL COMMENT
Councilman Settle. He voiced support for the project, and was pleased to see the
number of public amenities in it -- including on-site parking. He felt the project met
many of the city's objectives as stated in the Court Street Center RFQ guidelines, and he
would prefer ground leasing the property instead of selling it. His main concern was
that careful attention be paid to the selection of retail tenants.
He recommended that the city and developer continue to discuss the project's uses and
economics. If necessary, he could support a reduction in the atrium space to allow more
retail floor area.
!- 11
Recap
Page 3
Councilwoman Pinard. She complemented the project's architectural design, but had
concerns with the proposed use mix. The appropriateness and public appeal of the health
club and luxury offices seemed questionable, and she expressed disappointment with the
loss of the hotel use. She felt a 24-hour residential use was needed downtown, and
emphasized that the downtown needed a large, anchor retail tenant — larger than the
18,000 s f. tenant proposed. She encouraged the developer to explore additional uses,
and not prematurely abandon the idea of different components, possibly including meeting
rooms, low- to moderate-cost housing, and a small performing arts facility. She
emphasized that other community groups should, perhaps including the Citizen's Advisory
Committee, be kept informed and involved in the project.
Councilman Reiss. He stated his main concern was maintaining downtown's vitality,
and, that the proposed tenant spaces seemed too small to serve the purpose of an
'anchor'. He noted that he had no comments on the architecture at this time, since land
use and financial issues were of greater importance at this stage.
Councilwoman Rappa. She expressed disappointment at the loss of the hotel, and
wanted to see much larger retail spaces occupied by a large anchor retail tenant The
architecture was attractive, and would be adequately addressed through public review. At
this stage, she felt uses were the key issue, and that the office and 3rd use (eg. health
club) needed more study. She felt it was difficult to react to the proposal since
councilmembers had just received the information.
Mayor Donin. The Mayor felt that a strong retail component was essential to the
success of the project. He emphasized that larger retailers were needed downtown, and
that the type of tenant for Court Street Center needed to be more clearly defined. He
would like to see a clarification of the project's tenants, financing, and economic
assumptions. He had concerns with offices, but if offices are included, they should be
larger in size. He questioned whether the health facility might create 'image'
problems. He supported the proposed art gallery, and suggested that the developer work
closely with the Chamber of Commerce, BIA, and staff in selecting uses.
He wanted to see a tentative schedule listing key milestones and council review dates.
He asked that the project be brought back to council in six weeks, after the Planning
Commission has discussed the project. He agreed with other councilmembers that the
atrium could be scaled down to allow expansion of the retail floor area. He also would
favor medium-sized meeting facilities included in the project. He complemented staff and
the developer on progress made to date, but asked that the council receive a written
report on the project's status at least once a month with periodic study sessions or
meetings, too.
cc Planning Commission
Architectural Review Commission
Citizen's Advisory Committee
Chamber of Commerce
BIA
SLO Arts Council
Interwest Investment Group
jhl/cscrecap
1
DOWNTOWN SAN LU15 OB15PO
BU51NE55 IMPROVEMENT A550CIATION
March 30, 1988
Planning Commission
c/o Planning Department
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The City has asked the Business Improvement Association for
its involvement and input regarding the proposed Court
Street Project. What follows is the result of deliberations
by the BIA Board after the project developer presented a
progress report at its March 8th meeting.
The Court Street Project will be a welcome addition to the
downtown for several reasons. It will maximize use of a
block that has been sadly under-utilized for many years, the
project will serve as a commercial anchor at the east end of
the downtown, and the proposed architecture is complimentary
to nearby buildings. Further, with its proximity to City
and County offices, Court Street will become the premier
space for professionals.
A motion was introduced and passed at the board meeting
that, because of the extensive studies recently completed,
the developer be allowed to determine the proper retail,
commercial and recreational mix.
1 . Edward Plant Company is a consultant of national
repute that represents the calibre of clients who can assure
the financial success of the project.
2 . Prospective tenants will not lease space that is
insufficient to serve their needs. Speculation regarding
appropriate size of retail outlets, including space for
display and storage, should not be a part of the City' s
deliberations.
Use of the top level as a recreational facility is innova-
tive, is a use not currently available downtown, and would
be compatible with the type of tenant projected for the
office levels.
P.O. Box 1402, Son Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 541 -0286
1 - 13
�l
BIA - Planning Commission - Court Street - 3/30/88
The BIA does not feel the site is appropriate for residen-
tial use for the following reasons:
1. Both the City and developer are seeking a good (and
early) financial return, and low income housing could not
provide that return. Additionally, property values in that
location are too high for residential use.
2. The Anderson Hotel and apartments in nearby
buildings are filling much of the downtown residential need.
3 . Parking for residents would have to be dedicated,
and there is already a downtown parking shortage.
4. There is no grocery store in the immediate area -
an essential factor for residents without a vehicle.
There were some concerns expressed by the BIA, as well as
the adjacent Court Street business owners.
1. The project's parking deficit of 71 spaces needs to
be addressed and resolved. The developer is aware of the
problem, and has told the BIA he will work to resolve it.
(This spring, the BIA Parking Committee will present a com-
prehensive plan for additional parking in the core area. )
2. Court Street merchants are also concerned that the
planned 1125-foot pedestrian way" could become a "garbage
alley" and be detrimental to their businesses. BIA staff
has had discussions with the developer, who does not feel
this situation would occur.
As an added attraction, the BIA would recommend allowing
Court Street restaurants up to eight feet adjacent to their
buildings for sidewalk cafe types of use - with only one row
of tables permitted.
The BIA hopes for an expedient review process, and is very
willing to respond to any questions from the,,�mmission.
Sin erely,
EilBIA rExecutive Commilee &
-2-
I - ISI
REUEIVEU
MAR 0 '1988
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo. California 93401 • (805) 543-1323
David E. Garth • Executive Manager
March 30, 1988
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce urges your support
of the proposed Court Street project. This endorsement
comes to you following lengthy study and review by members
of our Economic Development and Retail Committees, and final
approval by our 21 member Board of Directors. All groups
voted unanimously in support of the proposal.
The Chamber applied the following criteria to its review of
the proposal:
- Overall community benefit: The Court Street project will
fortify San Luis Obispo's downtown as the commercial, social
and cultural hub of our community. Downtown will be
enhanced by the project, and, due to its range of uses, the
project clearly offers amenities to residents, visitors and
workers alike. It will make good use of a parcel of land
that is a gateway to our downtown core. .
Appropriate land use: The Court Street proposal offers
San Luis Obispo a unique mix of uses which we feel are ideal
for the site. The retail, office and recreational uses,
combined with such public amenities as gallery space, and
interior atrium and exterior balconies, creates a project
which can both succeed economically and protect the
character of our downtown. The developers have hired the
best available experts to devise an ideal use mix. The
proposed mix reflects these acknowledged experts' opinion of
uses likely to succeed in the building. We feel the retail
proposal is a sound one and will boost San Luis Obispo
downtown' s role as a shopping center. Information we have
gathered also points to a need for high quality office space
near the courthouse. The fitness center provides an
additional service for downtown users which is important to
maintaining the viability of our downtown as a hub of all
ACCREDITED
CHAM.[N or Cow"KFC[
I - Is
1
types of activity.
Most importantly, we urge you to recognize that a building
incorporating uses which are not economically viable would
be of no community benefit and would ultimately be a drain
on community resources. We need to construct a building
which can succeed in the free enterprise marketplace, and we
believe the Court Street proposal represents those ideals.
-- special Amenities: We are gratified that the project
developers recognize the delicate interplay of factors in
the success of our downtown, and have offered a building
which is not only economically viable, but additionally
gives our community such features as the interior atrium,
gallery space and meeting facilities. The building is a
stunningly attractive one, and creates a proud cornerstone
for our downtown.
�Parking: While the project does provide more than the
required of parking spaces, we do feel it will
further impact our downtown parking supply. We urge the
developer and the City to continue their work in developing
nearby off site parking.
We are pleased that the developers recognize the sensitivity
and importance of this project to the continued health of
downtown. They have contracted with the best experts in the
development industry to devise a project which is both
economically sound and philosophically desirable to our
community. We urge you to join with us in applauding this
project and moving forward in making it a reality for San
Luis Obispo.
Best regards,
Conrad Byars
Chamber President
R &A
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alscbuler, Inc.
HPolky Managementand Consultants
3345 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 407, Los Angeles, California 90010 (213) 387-2333
MEMORANDUM FOR: Jeff Hook, City of San Lu s Obispo
MEMORANDUM FROM; Francine F. Rabinovit d
aul J. Silvern, HR&A
SUBJECT: Viability of Various Alternative Uses Proposed
for the Court Street Project and Review of
Developer's Pro Formas
DATE: June 6, 1988
In this memorandum we present our response to various
questions about the Court Street Center project which you posed
to us following the Planning Commission meeting of April 6th.
These include questions about the viability of various uses that
have been suggested by the developer and local decision makers,
our comments on the latest pro formas prepared by the developer
for 10 alternative combinations of project uses, comparisons of
space requirements for various commercial tenants, and several
examples of other public ground lease projects.
In summary, we evaluated three specific alternative uses, and
reached the following conclusions:
* A health club use was proposed in Interwest
Investment Group's (hereafter the "developer" ) current project
proposal to the City. After reviewing this issue further, and
learning more about the proposed operator, Kennedy Nautilus
Center, we continue to believe that this use positively responds
to some of the objectives in the City's Request for Qualifica—
tions, and should prove to be a asset to the project and to
workers in the downtown area. The health club appears to be
competitive with other available health and fitness facilities.
Nem York office: 67 Irving Place, Fourth Floor, New York, New York 10003 (212) 505-6661
1- 0
More importantly, the operator is a very experienced local man-
ager of such enterprises, and will be making a substantial capi-
tal investment in the venture.
* A movie theater, an example of an entertainment
use that may be appropriate for the project, was suggested by
some Planning Commissioners and City Council members. While this
use is certainly a "people draw, " it is not clear that downtown
retailing (as opposed to perhaps restaurants) would benefit from
the presence of additional movie patrons in the downtown area.
Further, a movie theater would probably have to be a multi-screen
facility, and it therefore presents several physical construction
problems that might prevent the Court Street project from achiev-
ing other stated project objectives. The cost of providing the
required number of parking spaces either on-site or through in
lieu fees makes this a prohibitively expensive use of space in
the project.
* Housing as part of the project's mix of uses,
was also suggested by some Commissioners and Council members. Our
further investigation of this issue indicates continuing doubt
about the viability of market rate apartmentsi at this location,
due to an imbalance between development and operating costs
versus income, and very high uncertainty about market support. On
the other hand, there is probably very high market support for
subsidized family housing or senior citizen housing, but the
economic viability of providing such units would be entirely
dependent upon a very limited number of public subsidy programs
that are not likely to be either familiar to or available to the
developer.
iSince the City hs indicated a strong preference to ground lease
rather than to sell the site, condominiums are probably not at
all feasible due to the complexities of financing individual
airspace ownerships above leased ground, and the further Com-
plexities of financing condominium ownership within the context
of a mixed residential-commercial project.
2
Our assessment of each of the above uses results from
contacts with industry specialists and local San Luis Obispo
professionals (e.g. , realtors, developers, lenders and public
officials) . We have not performed detailed market studies of
these uses, which would be required to provide you a definitive
reading on their viability. Instead, and consistent with your
direction, we offer our best professional assessment based on
reliable secondary information sources.
Next, we provide you with our comments on revised "pro
formas" prepared by the developer for 10 different alternative
use mixes for the project. These pro formas appear to have incor-
porated corrections and responses to many of the comments about
the previous pro forma that we reviewed in our memorandum dated
March 30, 1988, but we continue to find a few, mostly minor,
problems with these more recent pro formas that should be re-
viewed with the developer. These concerns notwithstanding, we
concur with the basic conclusion presented by the pro formas:
that from the developer's perspective, the office/retail alterna-
tives (with or without the health club) are a much more economi-
cally viable project compared to any of the other options, which
range from marginally viable (e.g. , retail/office/"inn" alterna-
tive) to infeasible (e.g. , hotel and housing alternatives) as
presented. It should be noted, though, that any change in the key
assumptions underlying these pro formas (e.g. , a willingness by
the City to subsidize the project to achieve a desired, but
apparently uneconomical use) may alter the relative ranking of
the alternatives.
We also provide two appendices to this memorandum contain-
ing additional information you requested. Appendix A is a table
illustrating typical size ranges for various types of retail and
other commercial tenants typically found in regional shopping
centers, and which may be considered for the Court Street pro-
ject. Appendix B provides capsule summaries of public ground
3
lease projects in other California locales that have been under-
taken by counties, cities, redevelopment agencies and port
authorities.
ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THE COURT STREET PROJECT
As the Court Street project has been reviewed with the
City's Planning Commission and City Council over the past few
months, questions have been raised by several decision makers
with respect to the proposed health club use, and about a movie
theater and housing, two uses that were not part of the devel-
oper's proposal. In addition, questions have been raised about
attracting a large "anchor tenant" to the project. In hopes of
illuminating the discussion about an anchor tenant, Appendix A
to this memorandum presents a list of space requirements typi-
cally associated with various categories of commercial tenants.
Here, we address issues concerning the health club, movie theater
and housing uses.
The ProRosed Health Club
In our March 30th memorandum we observed that, in our
opinion, the health club proposed by the developer for the fourth
and fifth floors of the Court Street Center project presented
several advantages for the project:
* Its amenity value for attracting other tenants
to the building;
* That its use pattern is likely to be complemen-
tary with other proposed project uses; and
* Positive synergy between the health club and
other proposed uses ( i .e. , patronage of each use
would be good for the others) .
4 J-20
We also observed that the biggest unknowns were: (i) the strength
of the market at the project location compared to other available
health and fitness facilities in San Luis Obispo; and (ii) the
qualifications of the operator.
Over the past few weeks we have reviewed these issues
further. We continue to find favor with the health club concept
for the reasons previously stated, and we believe the proposed
concept has a very good chance of finding market acceptance. We
also believe that the proposed operator, Kevin Kennedy of Kennedy
Nautilus Center, has the experience and reputation needed to
create a successful venture.
Our research suggests that the proposed health club will
probably be distinguishable from all of the other health and
fitness centers now available in the City. At the proposed size
of 26,565 square feet, it will be the largest such facility in
the City, and second only in scope of facilities to what is now
available at California Polytechnic. Briefly, the existing fa-
cilities that might be considered competition include the follow-
ing:
* Calendar Girl Health Club (964 Foothill Boule-
vard. This facility is for women only. It offers about 10,
relatively small aerobics classes daily, and features a weight
room, exercise machines and jacuzzi and sauna. Memberships cost
about $200 per year. The facility is open from early morning to
early evening on weekdays, half a day on Saturday and is closed
on Sunday.
* Gold's Gym (3183 Duncan Lane) . This is one of
three facilities in San Luis Obispo that specialize in weight
lifting as the principal exercise activity, and tend to attract
a relatively young clientele ( i .e. . 18-25 year olds) . A few
aerobics classes are also offered. Memberships are about $200
per year. The gym is open every day of the week, with more lim-
ited hours on the weekend.
* Maloney' Gym (3546 S. Higuera) . This is another
facility specializing in weight lifting. It is larger than Gold's
Gym, and offers a few more daily aerobics classes. It also fea-
tures some exercise machines. Annual membership fees are compara-
ble to the above facilities. Hours are about the same as Gold's
Gym.
5 I-2 �
* The Club (3563 Sueldo) . This is the third
facility that focuses on weight lifting, but like Maloney's, also
offers aerobics classes and various other kinds of exercise
machines.
Each of the above facilities is relatively small, and is
oriented to very specific exercise/fitness submarkets. Most are
located well away from the heart of downtown, and therefore do
not cater to downtown workers. The only downtown facility that
offers a full range of exercise activities, and is oriented to a
wide age range is the existing Kennedy Nautilus Center (in the
Creamery Building at 570 Higuera Street) which would relocate
into the Court Street Center project. The proposed facility would
offer a full range of cardio-vascular training equipment ( i .e. ,
aerobics classes and exercise machines) , a lap pool, five
racquetball courts, and a number of "amenity areas" (e.g. , small
cafe restaurant, wide-screen T.V. lounge and clothing/equipment
sales) . The facility would be specifically oriented toward down-
town workers, who are expected to comprise half to three-quarters
of the projected 2,000-person membership. The existing Kennedy
facility currently has about 25% of the market share of a County
contract for employee health club memberships, and by virtue of
its location at the Court Street location would seek to substan-
tially increase that share.
Hours of operation would be from very early in the morning
( i .e. , 5:30 or 6:00 AM) to late evening ( i .e. , 11:00 PM) . Atten-
dance peaks would be accommodated in the mornings, noon time, and
early evenings, corresponding to typical working schedules.
Membership prices would be approximately $500 per year, and while
more expensive than most other available fitness centers now
located in San Luis Obispo, this price is reportedly in line with
comparable full-service facilities in Santa Barbara.
6 I -22
Kevin Kennedy now operates the only "chain" of health club
facilities in the San Luis Obispo area, with other facilities in
Atascadero and Arroyo Grande. He has been in the business for
about 10 years since graduating from Cal Poly. Although we have
not studied his existing facilities, it appears that he has the
type of business-specific and management experience we cited in
our previous memorandum as essential prerequisites for a success-
ful venture in the Court Street Center project. Although the
Court Street project would be larger than any of his existing
facilities (San Luis Obispo is 4,000 sq. ft. , Atascadero is
15,000 sq. ft. and Arroyo Grande is 16,000 sq. ft. ) , the Court
Street project will feature a similar mix of uses and amenities
as his other centers. It is also significant that Kennedy's par-
ticipation in the project is more than just that of a tenant. He
will be a limited partner in the project and will make a substan-
tial six-figure capital contribution.
We continue to believe that the proposed health club can
be an important component of the Court Street Center project, and
we conclude that the developer has identified an operator who
appears to have the business acumen and capital resources neces-
sary to make it successful. We continue to have a few concerns
about how the health club will be architecturally and structur-
ally integrated into the project, as we noted in our previous
memorandum,) but these concerns will probably be resolved as the
project design proceeds to the next level of detail.
iThese concerns were proper noise and vibration insulation of the
adjacent office space, and the structural column implications of
supporting the lap pool above the office space below.
1-23
The Movie Theater Use
The concept of a movie theater (or "cinema") in the Court
Street Center project clearly has appeal as a generator of
people, activity and, potentially, the multiplier effect of
moviegoers making additional purchases on their way to or from
the theater. Our conversations with movie theater industry offi-
cials and knowledgeable businesspeople in San Luis Obispo suggest
that there is probably plenty of market support for additional
cinema facilities in the area given .the student population and
large leisure-seeking residential population. As the largest city
in the County, San Luis Obispo is a "first run release zone" and
therefore already attracts all of the popular movies that are re-
leased in major metropolitan markets.
Among existing cinemas, two of the downtown 4theaters, the
Freemont (1035 Monterey Street) and the Rainbow Theater (across
from the Court Street site) , are older single screen theaters.
The Madonna Plaza Theater, Mission Cinemas, and the particularly
popular Festival Cinemas in nearby Arroyo Grande all feature
multiple screens (i .e. , 3, 3 , and 10, respectively) . Among the
cinemas in the downtown area, the Rainbow tends toward "art" and
specialty films, with the Freemont and Mission Cinemas running
the most recent commercial films.
In general, movie patrons make single-purpose trips to the
cinema. Restaurants may see some benefit from these patrons, but
they are unlikely to be of much benefit to retail stores, consid-
ering that peak attendance hours are weekend evenings ( i .e. , 7-9
PM) .
Although the above discussion would seem to make the pros-
pect of a cinema in the Court Street Center project somewhat
attractive, the construction requirements raise questions about
whether accommodating a cinema on this site compromises other
objectives for the project. The construction considerations
8 �_ ZLJ
include the location of a cinema within the building, the amount
of space needed to accommodate multiple screens and their ceiling
heights, and parking requirements.
To be competitive with existing cinemas, particularly
those located outside downtown, a cinema at the Court Street
location would probably need to have at least five screens, and
therefore needs about 20,000 square feet of space. Depending upon
the physical layout, this would require most to a substantial
portion of the ground floor. As such, it could displace a sig-
nificant amount of streetfront commercial space and could negate
some of the City's pedestrian-oriented urban design objectives
for the downtown.
In addition, a multi-screen cinema requires a ceiling
height of about a 25 feet, and no interior columns. These con-
straints would have the effect, as demonstrated in the devel-
oper's pro forma for this project alternative, of reducing the
overall size of the Court Street project. Also, a cinema would
take up a disproportionate amount of space and yield lower rent
per square foot of leasable area than other potential commercial
tenants. Finally, the City's parking standards (i .e. , one space
per four seats) would require about 325 parking spaces, assuming
a 5-screen cinema of about 1,300 seats, and therefore adds sub-
stantially to the cost of either on-site subterranean parking or
in-lieu fees.
Housina
The concept of encouraging people to live and work in a
downtown area, and thereby reduce automobile-related problems
(e.g. , pollution and roadway congestion) , while simultaneously
creating a more active downtown during non-business hours, par-
ticularly at night, is a concept that many cities, particularly
large cities, are struggling to develop. A few San Luis Obispo
decision makers apparently view the Court Street Center project
9 1- ZS
as a possible vehicle for stimulating a similar phenomenon in
their city. Whether downtown housing can be successfully devel-
oped in San Luis Obispo depends, like any other housing develop-
ment project, first on whether there is a willing group of resi-
dents interested in such housing, and second, whether the rentsl
to be charged sufficiently offset the costs of construction to
make such a venture attractive to a developer.2
Our discussions with local realtors, developers, lenders
.and others indicates mixed opinions about whether there would be
any interest in market rate apartments for the Court Street loca-
tion. on the one hand, some see market support in a growing
number of young professionals who work in the downtown area, but
for whom the cost and maintenance burden of a traditional single
family home are prohibitive. Others believe this very same phe-
nomenon to be far more characteristic of larger cities than is
s
the case in San Luis Obispo, notwithstanding the City's growth
rate and tendency toward more downtown-centered employment. This
contrarian position also holds that, unlike some larger cities,
San Luis Obispo features a number of high quality residential
areas very close to downtown that possess a residential ambience
that no downtown housing can ever hope to match.
When asked about subsidized housing, whether for families
or seniors, most commentators agreed that there was sufficient
demand. In fact, one of the only buildings that can currently be
considered "downtown housing" is the 66-unit Anderson Hotel
senior citizen housing immediately adjacent to the Court Street
iwe note here again, for the reasons stated at the outset of this
memorandum, that condominiums for this site are probably out of
the question if the City prefers to lease the land.
2It should be re-emphasized here that this market assessment is
necessarily based on secondary. though very well-placed informa-
tion sources. The only way to definitively answer questions about
market support and economic viability of a housing component for
the Court Street project is to conduct a thorough feasibility
study.
10 t- Zl�
Center site. According to the manager of that facility, the
Anderson consistently runs at 100% occupancy. Other observers
noted that this is so precisely because demand for these Fed-
erally subsidizedl units far outstrips the supply. As a further
indicator of demand for lower priced housing, the City's Housing
Element2 indicates that about 40% of the City's renter households
were paying 35% or more of their income for housing costs in
1980, well above the level deemed appropriate at that time.
All commentators agreed on one point: building either
market rate or subsidized housing at the Court Street site, or at
any other downtown location, is probably not a viable economic
proposition given the relatively high cost of land and construc-
tion. In the case of market rate units, commentators stated,
rents would have to be well over $1,000 per month and therefore
too closely approach the buy-versus-rent threshold for most
households in that income range. Since there is virtually no
remaining subsidy source for affordable housing, they observe,
this category of downtown housing is also probably not a viable
proposition.3
IThe Anderson was converted from a hotel to a subsidized senior
housing project under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's so-called "221(d)" program, named for a particular
section of the authorizing legislation. Under this program,
tenants pay no more than 25% of their monthly income in rent,
while the Federal government pays the difference between fair
market rent (currently $415 for a studio and $504 for a one-
bedroom unit, including utilities) and the amount of the tenant's
contribution toward rent. This program is no longer available for
new projects.
2Housinc Element of the General Plan , Planning Commission Recom-
mendations, (undated) , p.22.
3In fact, there are at least two -possible options available.
Senior housing can still be developed through the Federal Section
202/8 program, which has been used at least once in San Luis
Obispo in the Judson Terrace project. This program operates
similarly to the 221(d) program used at the Anderson Hotel, but
requires tenants to pay a maximum of 30% of income, with the
balance of fair market rent paid by the Federal government.
Construction is financed with 9.25%, 40-year mortgages. However,
Section 202/8 projects can only be developed by a non-profit
sponsor like the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority's Edna-Isley
11 J�
REVIEW OF INTERWEST'S REVISED PRO FORMAS
This section of the memorandum presents our comments on
the revised pro formas prepared by the developer for 10 alterna-
tive conceptualizations of the Court Street Center project.4
After several cross-cutting comments, we describe each scenario
as we understand it, and what we think the numbers say about that
alternative project concept, including where we think the numbers
would tell a somewhat different story if some problems we see in
the pro formas were to be corrected.
The 10 project alternatives can be grouped as follows:
Office/Retail Concepts
There are three variations presented --
* Alternative #1: The developer's preferred alter-
native consisting of ground floor and second floor retail and
restaurant, and two floors of office space arranged around an
atrium, with a health club facility on the fifth floor.
Housing Corporation. These funds are in very short supply, and
competition among eligible communities is fierce, according to
housing specialists we contacted. The Low Income Housing Tax
Credit enacted as part of the Federal 1986 Tax Reform Act may be
another vehicle to finance affordable housing in the City, but
according to the Executive Director of the City's Housing Au-
thority, this new financing tool has yet to be applied in San
Luis Obispo.
4This review is based on the package sent to us by Interwest dated
April 14, 1988 . The transmittal letter indicates that we would be
receiving a supplementary narrative description of the preferred
alternative, together with its pros and cons from the developer's
perspective, but we have not yet received this additional item.
12 1,0J J
* Alternative #2: This variation on the preferred
alternative replaces the health club with a fifth floor devoted
to additional office space.
* Alternative #3: This second variation on the
preferred concept replaces the fifth floor health club facility
with 36 "inn" guest rooms.
Cinema/Department Store Concerts
There are also three variations on this concept pre-
sented --
Alternative #4: The first of these variations
includes about half the retail space as in the preferred alterna-
tive, a 28,000 square foot cinema ( i .e. , probably sufficient for
7 screens) , and a restaurant area about three times the size of�
the preferred alternative (presumably this area includes several
small eating places) . No office or other uses are provided, and
the total floor area of the project is about one-third smaller
than the preferred alternative.
* Alternative #5: A second variation features a
single junior department store of about 34,000 square feet in
place of the multi-tenant retail profile of the first and second
floors in the preferred alternative. On top of this single tenant
would be (we surmise from the information provided) three floors
of office space. This alternative features no restaurant.
* Alternative #6: A final variation in this group-
ing presents a department store of about 100,000 square feet as
the sole building tenant.
13
Hotel Concepts
Two variations are presented --
* Alternative #7: The first variation in this
group is a 138-room hotel with its own restaurant banquet/confer-
ence facilities, retail stores on the ground floor and a small
amount of office space ( i .e. , 6,500 square feet) . This was the
concept analyzed for the developer by Laventhol & Horwath, and
rejected by the developer on the grounds that the concept was not
economically viable.
* Alternative #8: A second variation on this
alternative is a smaller overall hotel project than the above
alternative. It includes no banquet/conference facilities, no
hotel health club, somewhat less retail space on the ground
floor, and about one-third of the "public" area used in the above
alternative.
Residential Concepts
Two variations are also presented for this concept --
* Alternative #9 : One residential variation fea-
tures a mixed use commercial-market rate apartment project. This
is similar to the preferred alternative with respect to the first
through fourth floors ( i .e. , retail, restaurant and office) , but
features 23 apartments renting for $900 per month on the fifth
floor.
* Alternative #10: A second residential variation
features what appears to be several floors of subsidized housing
(42 units) on top of ground floor retail.
14 1 --So
_3o
Cross-Cutting Issues
In our March 30th memorandum, we raised a number of ques-
tions about the pro forma for the developer's preferred alterna-
tive, and in a subsequent meeting with City staff and the devel-
oper, we raised additional questions about the first draft of the
pro formas prepared for the alternative concepts. In response to
these questions, the developer has clarified several assumptions,
and corrected several calculation errors. In addition, we have
conducted additional research about local lease rates and lease
terms which are critical to the income projections. Before turn-
ing to the individual pro formas, we will recap what we now
understand about some of the key assumptions that apply to all
alternatives, and note where we still have differences with, or
perhaps just have misunderstandings about, the developer's as-
sumptions. These comments have been organized to follow the same
organization we used in our March 30th memorandum, and are not
ordered by their relative significance as issues.
Floor Areas
During our April 4th meeting with the developer, we were
advised that all floor areas used in the pro formas were the
correct net leaseable areas despite any apparent discrepancies
with the figures listed in the developer's brochure, which we
noted in our March 30th memorandum.
Estimated Development Costs
The developer has also clarified that the estimated con-
struction costs used in the pro formas include demolition, grad-
ing, specialty construction items (e.g. , fountains and special
paving) and an allowance for tenant improvements. In several
cases the per square foot costs assumed in the latest pro formas
are slightly higher than the previous pro forma. In addition, all
of the new pro formas now feature an allowance of $140,000 for
15 �� 31
"site improvements. " The developer clarified that the high con-
struction cost assumed for certain uses, particularly the restau-
rant and food and beverage spaces in the case of the hotel alter-
natives, accounts for full tenant improvements which the devel-
oper believes will be needed to attract a quality tenant.
The developer has also clarified that the costs for vari-
ous typical consultants (e.g. , site survey, soil testing and
construction inspection) , although not listed separately in the
construction cost estimate, have been accounted for in the "con-
sultant" cost category or the construction cost line items. The
same is apparently true with respect to various City fees (e.g. ,
building permit and utility connection charges) . We note that the
line item for architectural and engineering fees is now a more
reasonable 5% versus 7% used in the previous pro formas.
With the exception of holding rent during construction,
which the developer has assumed will be an item of negotiation,
all of the typical financing costs we asked about previously have
apparently been accounted for in the developer's estimates. The
new pro formas now show a separate line item for financing costs.
Also, the lease commission rate has been reduced over the assump-
tion used in the previous pro forma, but it is not always clear
what base this cost is being applied to in several of the alter-
native pro formas, nor that it is necessarily appropriate in some
of the pro formas (e.g. , the cinema alternative) . We also note
that the return of partnership investment ($450,000) that was
shown as a development cost in the previous pro forma does not
appear in any of the revised pro formas. If this was an over-
sight, all estimates of debt service payments are understated,
and after-debt/before lease payment cash flow may be overstated.
The discrepancies we noted previously with respect to in lieu
parking fees have also been addressed in some of the latest pro
formas, but as we will point out below, these fees may still be
miscalculated in a few cases.
16 � -32-
Rents
During our April 4th meeting with the developer, it was
clarified that all rental rates used in the pro formas are gross
rents. Further discussions with several San Luis Obispo realtors
indicate that the gross office and commercial rates used in the
developer's pro formas are probably achieveable in 1991. Also,
the parking rates have now been changed to reflect an annual
increase, although we doubt that the market will absorb 6% per
year increases in monthly and hourly parking rates.
Annual Rent Escalation
our interviews with local realtors confirmed our previous
concern about the rent escalation assumption used in the pro
formas. Most realtors we contacted tend to use an annual adjust-
ment tied to the Consumer Price Index. Thus, we continue to
believe a rent escalation assumption of 4% per year is much more
realistic than 6% which continues to be used in the developer's
latest pro formas. This assumption has the effect of overstating
revenues.
Operating Costs
It appears that our previous concerns about fixed charges
(e.g. , how insurance costs were calculated) have now been re-
solved. The developer has also clarified that in fact the project
can be financed with 100% debt.
Lease Payments to the City
The new pro formas still show a lease payment to the City
being paid after debt service. We continue to believe that the
lease payment should be considered a fixed charge before debt
service to protect the City's interest. The specifics of this
arrangement, including the percentage, are perhaps best left to
17 /- 33
- 33
more detailed negotiations when holding rent, participation in
refinancing and sale, and other payment matters will be dis-
cussed.
Alternative #1: The Preferred Retail /Office/Health Club Alterna—
tive
This alternative clearly presents one of the best finan-
cial returns to the developer and among the largest and earliest
lease payments to the City.1
Our count of required parking spaces suggests that the
assumption of in lieu fees may be low by about $120,000 ( i .e. , 30
spaces) . If true, this would add about 10$ more development cost
to be amortized in annual debt payments.
Alternative #2: The Preferred Alternative Minus the Health Club
By replacing the health club with additional office space,
the economics of the project improve slightly for the developer,
but it yields a slightly lower return to the City. This appears
to be an artifact of the lease payment being made after, rather
than before, debt service. In this alternative, the development
cost being financed is higher than for the first alternative, yet
the cash flow from the alternative is about the same, and there-
fore the City's annual lease payments are lower.
1We would observe, however, that while the cumulative lease pay-
ment to the City over 10 years ( i .e. , 5788,972) approaches the
1985 appraised value of the land, the City would do much better
financially if it sold the land at the 1985 appraised value and
deposited in an interest bearing account for the same 10 year
period. This outcome raises the importance of further discussions
with the developer about the form of City revenue from the pro-
ject.
18 le��
In this alternative, unlike the preferred alternative, the
leasing commission cost appears to have also been applied to the
restaurant floor area: we are unclear whether the approach in
this alternative, or the preferred alternative ( i .e. , not charg-
ing it against the restaurant space) is what the developer has in
mind.
Alternative #3 : Retail/Office /Inn
By replacing the health club with 36 "inn" rooms, this
alternative drives up construction costs and results in lower
cash flow from operations. The gross income from the inn rooms,
before subtracting expenses is about equal to the ne_t health club
revenue. This $300,000 annual reduction in cash flow coupled with
higher annual debt to amortize the higher development cost re-
sults in losses for the first few years of operation. This yields
the lowest return to both the developer and the City among the
three alternatives in the first group.
Here again, the lease commission charge in the development
cost estimate seems to include the restaurant floor area, and the
in lieu parking fee may be understated by about $80,000 ( i .e. , 20
spaces) .
Alternative #4: Cinema/Retail
In this alternative, the developer estimates that the
physical constraints imposed by a cinema tenant results in an
overall building size of about 61,000 square feet, or about
one-third less than any of the other alternatives. Further, the
retail area is half that assumed in the previous alternatives,
with the balance assigned to the cinema. The cinema is assumed to
yield just over two-thirds the net revenue per square foot as the
retail space ( i .e. , $12 per square foot net annually versus $17) .
Further, the construction cost of the cinema is assumed to be
more than twice the cost of retail space. Thus, the cinema has
19
1- 35
the effect of depressing gross revenues to about half what they
are estimated to be for the above alternatives, while development
costs (and hence debt service) are 85$-87$ of the much higher
revenue-producing retail/office alternatives.
The lease commission fee in the development cost estimate
seems to have been charged inappropriately against both the
cinema space and the retail space. This has the effect of over-
stating the development cost by about $126,000. On the other
hand, in lieu fees for parking may have been grossly understated.
Assuming an average of 12 square feet per seat, the cinema mod-
eled in this pro forma could accommodate 2,333 seats, requiring
as many as 583 parking spaces.l When parking for the retail and
restaurant uses is added, and the 140 on-site spaces subtracted
from the total, we count a balance of 626 spaces to be funded by
in lieu fees, or about $2.5 million, compared to $920,000 assumed
in the developer's pro forma. This only serves to make the eco-
nomic viability of this alternative even more grim (i .e. , even
deeper losses than shown in the cash flow projection) .
Alternative #5: Junior Department Store
In this alternative, the junior department store is esti-
mated to pay less than ..half (44%) the rent that could be charged,
on average, to smaller commercial tenants occupying the same
amount of space in the preferred alternative. In addition, office
space rents have been reduced from $24 per square foot to $21.60
beginning in the first year.2 These assumptions have the effect
of reducing gross income by about 15% over that in the preferred
1City of . San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060.
2We are uncertain of the justification for introducing this change
in the standard assumptions, but the developer may be of the
opinion that offices above a junior department store cannot
command the same rents as would be the case for offices over
multiple commercial tenants. The appropriateness of this assump-
tion would seem to depend on the specific identity of the junior
department store.
20 I-3(o
alternative. In addition, the construction cost for the junior
department store is estimated to be over one-third (38%) higher
than for smaller retail spaces, making the total construction
cost for this alternative about $360,000 more than for the pre-
ferred alternative.
In the presentation of this alternative, we would question
the appropriateness of the lease commission cost being applied to
the junior department store as well as the office space. Also,
beginning with this alternative, the developer introduces a new
wrinkle into the parking assumptions -- i .e. , that a number of
spaces will be provided at an off-site location at a cost of
$14,000 per space in addition to in lieu fees for other spaces.
We are unclear what the developer may have in mind here, or why
this off-site option does not also apply to each of the previous
alternatives. Eliminating this option from consideration in order
to compare the parking cost of this alternative with the others,
we estimate the in lieu fee would be about $664,000, or about 44%
of the total parking cost stated in the development cost esti-
mate. Also, we note that the income projection assumes that all
140 on-site spaces would be short-term use spaces. We would argue
that some portion of these spaces should be assumed to be re-
served spaces for office tenants.
Alternative #6: Department Store
Here the entire Court Street Center project would be
leased by a department store for the same relatively low rate as
assumed above for the junior department store. Total gross reve-
nues would be lower than for the previous alternative, and con-
struction costs about comparable, thus leaving even less net cash
flow to amortize the required annual debt payment. The devel-
oper's cash flow projection shows losses (and hence no payment to
the City for the lease) in every year of the 10 year projection
period.
21
The development cost estimate for this alternative appears
to be somewhat inflated, however. First, a lease commission
charge is applied to the entire building even though this alter-
native involves a 1002 tenant. Second, the parking cost estimate
seems out of line with the previous alternatives. our estimate
suggests that if 140 of the 322 required spaces (i .e. , 204 by
City requirement plus the existing 118 spaces) are provided on
site, the in lieu fee for the balance of the spaces would amount
to $728,000 rather than the $3.3 million parking cost assumed in
the development cost estimate. Although an adjustment in this
direction would reduce annual debt service, the alternative still
would not compare very favorably with the first few alternatives.
Alternative #7: Conference Hotel
Although there appears to be a typing error affecting the
food and beverage income calculation for 1995 , and hence the
estimate of 10-year project cash flow, the picture presented here
illustrates the concerns raised by the developer previously.
Namely, that the cash flow of the project is insufficient to
offset the debt burden imposed by construction costs. The numbers
indicate that even though gross revenues for this alternative are
about $1.6 million higher than for the preferred retail/office
alternative, net cash flow available to retire debt is only about
one-third of that in Alternative #1. The hotel spaces all re-
quire much higher construction costs than comparable amounts of
retail or office spaces,l driving the construction estimate to
the highest among the 10 alternatives ( i .e. , 150% of the devel-
---------------
lIt shoud also be noted that the space program for this alterna-
tive as presented in the development cost estimate totals about
168,000 square feet, and is thus about 80% bigger than the pre-
ferred alternative retail/office project.
22 � -3 0
oper's preferred alternative) . Even allowing for what appears to
be an exaggerated parking cost,l the project simply does not make
economic sense.
Alternative #8: Hotel Less Banquet/Conference Facilities
This alternative is about 45,000 square feet smaller than
the above alternative, but features basically the same problem of
a disparity between cash flow and debt burden.
Alternative #9: Market Rate Apartments
Although we believe there may be a number of calculation
errors and questionable assumptions2 in this pro forma, it too
illustrates the problem of insufficient cash flow to offset
the construction cost debt burden.
1The City requirements would total 313 spaces less 140 on-site,
for an in lieu fee of $692,000 compared to the developer's esti-
mate of about $1.4 million.
2For example, the $900 rent figure was probably intended to be a
monthly amount, which should have been multiplied by 12 months to
yield an annual gross income figure. In addition, we believe the
occupancy build-up assumption is unreasonably slow for so few
units. A conservative estimate would be 50% occupancy in the
first year, 75% in the second year and 91% thereafter. Also,
current data for apartment building expenses suggest that operat-
ing costs would be unlikely to exceed 40% of gross revenue. This
is consistent with the assumption used in the next alternative,
but not used in the market rate apartment alternative. Thus,
revenue from market rate apartments is probably much higher than
shown in this pro forma, but is probably still insufficient to
offset the debt service required to finance the development cost.
23 O
Alternative #10: Affordable Housina
Some of the same problems noted above with respect to
calculation errors and assumptions apply to this alternative as
well. However, even after correcting for these problems, the
conclusion reached above for market rate apartments also applies
to this alternative.
24 � - yv
APPENDIX A
FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS COMMERCIAL USES
In the course of recent discussions about the Court Street
Center project with the Planning Commission and City Council,
questions have been raised about the desirability of a "large
anchor tenant" for the project, and even some expressed interest
in attracting a department store or junior department store to
Court Street. To help inform that discussion, we present the
following table of space requirements for typical categories of
commercial tenants frequently found in U.S. regional shopping
centers.l While these figures are derived from national averages,
they should provide a context for further discussion. As the
table shows, a department store would probably need to occupy the
entire Court Street project as now proposed.2 In addition, it
would be extremely rare today for a department store or a junior
department store to locate as a free-standing store outside of a
mall-like development project.
1The figures in this table are for median floor areas as re-
ported in the Urban Land Institute's Dollars and Cents of
Shoppino Centers . IM, pp.86-113.
2Considering more local California department store examples,
Bullock's stores range from 138,000-336,000 sq. ft. , Saks Fifth
Avenue from 120,000-150,000 sq. ft. , and Robinson's from 140 ,000-
234 ,000 sq. ft. Nordstrom's and Neiman-Marcus are typically in
the 125,000 sq. ft. range. The smallest of the department stores
are usually I. Magnin and Bullock's Wilshire, both in the
85,000-100 ,000 sq. ft. range.
25 �+
Tenant Catecory Median Gross Leasable Area
( in square feet)
Department Store 93 ,600*
Jr. Department Store 23 ,475**
Variety Store 209000
Discount Department Store 72,900
Showroom/Catalog Store 24,800
Ladies Specialty Clothing 21,375
Ladies Ready-to-Wear 3,600
Children's Wear 2,983
Menswear 3,000
Ladies Shoes 1,774
Athletic Footware 2,136
Furniture 3,148
Bath Shop 1,731
Contemporary Home Accessories 2,530
Radio, Video, Stereo 2,925
Record and Tapes 2,400
Gourmet Cookware 2,000
Computer/Calculator (Retail) 1,775
Sporting Goods (General) 5,298
Cameras 1,125
Toys 3 ,600
Luggage and Leathers 2,089
Cards and Gifts 2,667
Books and Stationery 3,125
Jewelry 1,250
Super Drug Store 13,145
Fabric Shop 4 ,125
Pet Shop 2,000
26 � _ � �
Cleaners and Dyers 1,800
Travel Agent 750
Film Processing Store 944
Bank 2,145
* This is the median size for department stores located in a
regional center where the department store leases its space from
the center. For centers in which the department store owns the
land on which its store is located, the median size is 153,000
sq. ft.
** In community shopping centers, where a junior department store
rather than a department store is typically the anchor tenant,
the median size store is 45,684.
27 �_ y2
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLES OF OTHER CALIFORNIA PUBLIC GROUND LEASE PROTECTS
Following are examples of projects similar to the Court
Street Center in that they involve the long-term lease of surplus
publicly owned land for commercial development. The examples
include leases by counties, cities, redevelopment agencies and
port authorities. In recent years, school districts have also
been active lessors of surplus public land.
Los Angeles County
LA County, in previous years as well as under its new
Asset Management Program, has considerable experience leasing
surplus land for commercial and industrial development, including
industrial development on a 150-acre parcel in Newhall (90
years) , an industrial park on Long Beach Hospital land (66
years) , a new office building in the Los Angeles civic center
area (66 years) , an office building at ist and Broadway (85-99
years) , the new Marina Del Rey lease (81 years) , and the Marina
Plaza Hotel (60 years) . Lease payment terms vary considerably,
but the Lease Administrator, who previously worked on the LA/CRA
lease for Bunker Hill (see below) , indicated that he prefers to
use an escalation formula based on the economic performance of
the project (e.g. , percentage increase in net cash flow) rather
than CPI, which has no relationship to land value.
28
Orange County
Orange County's new Asset Management Program, which was
developed by Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, generally writes 15-30
year leases, although there is some developer pressure to con-
sider longer terms. The basic approach to lease payment adjust-
ments is on the basis of an appraisal every 10-15 years, with CPI
escalations in between.
San Dieao
San Diego has adopted an aggressive posture to asset
management in recent years, including ground leases for develop-
ment of three projects: a Sheraton Hotel in the Torrey Pines area
(55 year lease) , a Hyatt Hotel in Mission Bay (50 year lease) ,
and a commercial office building (55 year lease) . The lease
payment for the two hotels is based on percentages from various
income categories (e.g. , rooms, food, beverage) against a mini-
mum. The office building lease payment is adjusted every 3 years
based on the CPI, and on the basis of an appraisal every 10
years.
Long Beach
Long Beach recently leased a site at its municipal airport to
Kilroy Industries for a 650 ,000 s.f. office/R&D development
project. The lease is for 50 years. The lease payment is to be
adjusted on the basis of an appraisal every five years, beginning
at the end of year 10 , and the payment is to be 104 of the ap-
praised land value.
29 �— q1
City of Redondo Beach
A hotel and restaurant are leased for up to 66 years, with
lease payments based on the greater of a fixed rent or percent-
ages of room, beverage and retail sales. Base and percentage rent
are fixed for 20 years and then reappraised every five years
beginning with the 21st year.
Riverside
Riverside recently entered into a 50-year lease for devel-
opment of a 100,000 s.f. shopping center anchored by a home
improvement center. Lease payments are to be adjusted by the CPI,
but with a 6% cap, beginning at the end of the third year, and
adjusted by appraisal every 10 years beginning at the end of year
10.
Bakersfield
There has been one lease here involving a hotel/convention
center. The term is 30 years plus two 10-year options and one
5-year option (total of 55 years) . The lease payment is adjusted
by the CPI every 5 years beginning in the sixth year, and on the
basis of an appraisal at the end of the initial 30-year base
term.
Santa Monica
Santa Monica is currently negotiating a long-term lease
with Reliance Development Group for a 1.4 million square foot
office park and movie studio project on 37.5 surplus acres at
Santa Monica Airport. The lease will involve annual payments
according to an escalation schedule plus participation in any
sale or refinancing of leasehold interest.l Several other public
1Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler is a member of the developer's
technical team in this case.
30 I� -1
ground leases are pending, including a small luxury hotel on a
State-owned parcel at Santa Monica Beach and an aquarium to be
located on public land adjacent to Santa Monica Pier. In addi-
tion, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District is in the
process of evaluating disposition options for various surplus
properties, including joint-occupancy leases, like one it entered
Into a few years ago involving three separate parcels.l
Mountain View
This city has leased public land for a 300-room conference
center. The lease term is 55 years plus two 10-year options. The
lease payment is adjusted by the CPI annually, and on the basis
of an appraisal every ten years (beginning at the end of year
10) , and at the time each of the two options are exercised.
�Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles
Although CRA/LA rarely ground leases land (as opposed to
purchase and re-sale) , its 99-year Bunker Hill project ground
lease is frequently cited as the state-of-the-art in terms of
periodic adjustments in lease payments based on the economic
performance of the project over time. CRA/LA staff is currently
acting as a consultant to the City of LA for its first direct
ground lease project for a commercial office building.
Pasadena Community Development Commission
This redevelopment agency has entered into several ground
lease arrangements, with the typical term being 30 years plus two
15-year options.
1In this case, HR&A is a consultant to the School District.
31
Fresno Redevelopment Agency
This agency has entered into a ground lease for a Holiday
Inn in the downtown area. The term is for 30 years with an
option to purchase.
Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Fran-
cisco
A Marriott Hotel project involving a 60-year lease with
two 15-year options has been developed here. Rent is fixed, but
there is a participation formula designed to keep the return to
the Agency current.
Port of Oakland
Example public ground lease projects undertaken by this
agency include a 12-story, 270,000 s.f. office building (66
years) , a 50,000 s.f. office building (50 years) , and the Jack
London Square tourist commercial project (66 years) . This agency
has written leases using many different CPI-based lease payment
adjustment formulas, but like many others contacted, tends to use
10% of appraised land value as a benchmark.
Port of San Diego
Examples include the Intercontinental Hotel (66 years) and
the Seaport village tourist commercial project (40 years) . The
hotel rent is based on percentages of various income categories
against a base that is scheduled for the first seven years, and
fixed for years 8-25. Base rent is to be renegotiated in the 25th
year, and every 5 years thereafter, but base rent must be at
least 75% of the annual average rents collected over the previous
32 I� � O
three years. The Seaport village project lease payment is also a
percentage, but against a base that is fixed for the first 20
years. Base rent is - then adjusted at the end of the 20th year,
and every 5 years thereafter to 75% of rents paid during the
previous three years.
33 �� • ,
1�uT Z Gam.
A4:n1 14. 1W P.O. Box 1763
Son Luis Obispo,CA 93406
805/543-8316
Hamilton, Rabinovitz and Alschuler, Inc.
3345 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 407
Los Angeles, California RECEIVED
9910
Attention: Paul J. Silvern, APR 191988
Director of Economic Studies cgy,,San Luis Ott=
cwfnw ty Oveww"M
Subject: Court Street Center
San Luis Obispo, California
As we discussed, we are forwarding copies of our revised Cash Flow
Projections for the alternate scenarios which were prepared for the Court
Street Center Project at the City's request. We have updated the infor-
mation provided in the original scenarios per your recommendations,
and as required by additional research and market analysis provid@d
by our Consultants. We have also provided a tenth scenario which
consists of the substitution of the fifth floor Health Club Facility with a small
Inn.
It is the developer's intent to proceed with the first four floors of the
building as atrium Retail/Office with the upper floor consisting of the
Health Club facility, or in the alternate, Office or the small Inn. These are
the development alternatives preferred by the development- team.
The other scenarios were prepared at the City's request and serve
merely as comparisons of alternatives which were rejected as being in
nonconformance with the RFQ.
We are in the process of preparing a detailed narrative for the preferred
scenario and will be forwarding that to you within the next few days. The
narrative will include commentary on the positive and negative aspects
of the scenario as the development team views them.
As I mentioned to you on the telephone, besides the goals and
objectives expressed in the RFQ, it has been the developer's intent to
provide a project which did not require any financial investment by the
City above and beyond the normal support provided to any project. It
has been our intent to propose a project which provided for a significant
increase in retail sales volumes, and not merely a relocation of existing
volumes, through a retailing plan that succeeds in identifying businesses
that compliment, rather than duplicate or cause the relocation of, the
existing mix of downtown retail activity.
t
l SU
At this point, the developer is in a quandary as to how to proceed, since
in our opinion, which you appear to concur with, our proposal complies
with many of the goals, objectives and policies articulated in the City's
RFQ. As you have noted, there are some project features which yet
need to be detailed to determine full project compliance. Furthermore,
as you noted in your report prepared for the Planning Commission,
neither the RFQ, nor subsequent City direction to the developers,
indicated a specific preference for a particular mix of uses in the project,
and the developers have determined the mix that is the most economi-
cally feasible for the project. It is our opinion that it is the City's
responsibility to address the preferred scenario or identify where our
assessment is faulty and how our assessment might lead to a different
conclusion if these faults were corrected. As mentioned in your report, 'In
general you believe that the proposed mix of tenants is consistent with
the City's RFQ and if properly marketed holds the potential for creating a
vibrant enterprise. The scale of the retail office and restaurant spaces
and their distribution within the building seem appropriate for attracting
quality tenants.' It is our concurrence that the project as proposed holds
the potential for fulfilling the goals and objectives expressed in the City's
RFQ.
We would like to further clarify some of the points raised in your report to
the City by providing additional clarification of the developer's intent
and assumptions.
We would like to further clarify the issue of the dual use of Court Street as
an attractive pedestrian path as well as necessary service alley. The
intent here is to restrict service usage to operational hours when there
would not be a conflict between the pedestrian and the service user.
The site plan does not include extension of the two subterranean levels
underneath Court Street due to the existence of a major public utility in
that portion of that street, as well as the geotechnical report which
recommends retaining a buffer between the proposed structure and
the existing buildings. Similarly, subterranean parking does not extend
into the Higuera. Osos or Monterey Street rights of way due to the creek
culvert, storm drain and utility conflicts which would be costly to relocate
or reconstruct. The utilities,the City culvert and flood protection issues are
discussed in the Administrative Draft of the Environmental Impact Report
and will be addressed as design constraints to the project.
The comments expressed in the 'Building Program' are consistent with
our understanding of the Project. In response to specific concerns
regarding the number of retail entrances along Monterey, Osos, and
Higuera, it is our design intent to have a number of entrances from each
streetfront. These entrances are not shown at this stage of the process
2
I-Sl
since they are dependent upon the requirements of the actual tenants.
The existing streetfront character of the project is proposed to be
consistent with the existing downtown shopping experience.
The 'Art Gallery' is not deemed as a commercial venture but rather as a
public service being provided by the San Luis Obispo Arts Council oe
other alternatives. These groups are enthusiastic about this area being
dedicated to their use. The purpose of this use is to provide an addi-
tional draw to increase the viability and attractiveness of Court Street as
a pedestrian space.
In response to the questions raised in the 'Financial Feasibility Section',
the following should clarify the remaining items.
The square footages indicated in the Cash Flow Projections ore
the net leasable square footages and are calculated as such in
the Construction Costs. Service areas and common areas are
calculated separately for purposes of construction cost estimating.
The expression of the gross building area would include the net
leasable areas dedicated to the specific use as well as the
service and the corrfmon areas.
The Construction Costs include the demolition and grading of the
site, specialty items including the ground floor water feature,
custom streetlights and custom paving, and a Tenant Improve-
ment Allowance in most cases of a standard shell plus twelve
dollars per square foot. In order to attract tenants for some of the
scenarios, the build-out cost for some users includes full tenant
improvements. - The various public improvements such as traffic
signals, synchronization and utility relocations or upgrades have
not been included due to our inability to identify those costs at this
time, but are perceived as relatively minor contingency costs.
The Consultant costs including site survey, soil testing, construction
Inspection, and the various City permits have either already been
paid or have been included in the Construction Costs of the
building. The Construction Management fee was included for
purposes of on-site management of the project, including
scheduling and construction management services. The
construction figures include a contingency factor.
Financing costs, including appraisal fee, title insurance, lender's
inspecting architect's fees have been included under the
category of Financing Costs. The Liability and Builder's Risk Insur-
ance is included as an integral part of the Construction Costs. The
pre-opening and lease up expenses have generally been
included as a portion of the Marketing and Planning item under
3
I- SZ
Consultant Costs. These expenses will have to be budgeted in
detail after we have concurrence on the format of the project.
Real Estate taxes and holding rents have not been addressed at
this point, since those are matters that will be subject to the financial
lease negotiations with the City.
Regarding the prior discrepancy in the in lieu parking fees and the
relative parking figures shown in the Cash How Projections, the
discrepancy existed due to a change of parking requirements by
the City subsequent to preparation of the Cash How Projection.
The scenarios have been updated to meet existing parking
requirements and will have to be verified by the City if the process
proceeds and detailed drawings are produced.
In the Cash Flow Projections, the net leasable area is the square
footage indicated and not gross floor area. There may be some
minor reduction due to additional curtain walls, but we are confi-
dent that the areas indicated will equal the net leasable areas.
The rent assumptions as we discussed are projected at $2.00 gross,
in line with the existing 1987 rents for the area which range in the
area from $1.60 to $1.80 triple net. Given a C.P.I. adjustment three
years subsequent, we believe the projections to be realistic on the
conservative side.
The annual rent escalation assumption of six percent per year is
standard for the San Luis Obispo market where C.P.I. increases are
pegged to a minimum of four percent and maximum of eight
percent, with six percent as the standard nonvariable C.P.I.
adjustment for the area.
For comparative purposes, the Retail Costs and Expenses remain
constant through the Cash Row Projections. There is no reduction in
the percentages for the single user scenarios. Since these
scenarios require a significant buy down in the lease rate,
therefore reducing the revenues, the costs as an expression of
percent of revenues remains constant.
In a philosophical bent, I would like to discuss the section dealing with the
City's financial return on the project. It seems evident from your discussion
in the analysis that it was your understanding, and was your direction,that
the City should not depend upon providing financial support for the
project and in fact, should be looking for a fair return based on the value
of their contribution of the land to the project. Additionally,you state that it
is your opinion a return on the City land that is entirely contingent upon the
profitability of the project is not a prudent risk and you suggest securing
the lease payments. In the some regard, is it not also true that the City
should shy away from taking a substantial risk by guarantying to subsidize
a
1- 53
any shortfall in the project if a use required such a subsidy? We think this
item needs to be clarified, and verified, as to your specific recommen-
dation regarding the desirability/feasibility of significant public investment
in a project which would compete with the private sector.
We look forward to working with you on this project and remain excited
about this development opportunity in the City of San Luis Obispo, and
look forward to your input and commentary on the project.
Sincerely,
/L
Marshall E. Ochylski,
Chief Executive Officer
MEO/nb
cc: Jeff Hook
Dillingham Corporation
Rob Strong
Bartko,Welsh,Tarrant & Miller
5
1- sy
court street ends
Son Lutm OIUPO. CaMOnda
RetaLUOMlee/Roercatleeal FacillWIlarkIng
Prayed Naumpdom 1901 1992 1992 1094
mmauni percent amount percent mount percent amount percent
IUaMi C00
Nd UmtaOU 20,!83 26,5s5 28355 29303
OmMel PUMUOo 100.00: 100.00% tOQ.00% 100.001:.
1p
Tawd Rwd 517.40 11544 $1935 $2022
Road Seedlo
Nd lamer 19.264 17.264 33.04 57364
o40lpa%T Frre.er+o• 90.00% 0a00% 95.90% 0so0%
Us"Ago $24.00 =44 36.07 52030
Ofte Sedmo
Not Lrn01e 22.651 32651 32.633 72651
Ommancr PWO~ 9.5.00% 95.00% 9500% 9500%
T4nad Ram $24.00 FSM $28.07 S"
R4aaut d SUMNICS
Not LesUbb 3,829 1929 2.829 28x0
Oralpar%T
100.0011. 95.90% 95.00% 05.00%
00MOMM wmeae S17.40 $1%.44 $loss 520.72
Paaeq SUMIUM
W7Nm Paelspe
73.00% 90.00% 20m% 00.001E
SImn T.lml Spaor 127127 127 127
SOSB $0.60
54Npa17Rm :0.50.50 20'54 54 54
/IerwlYYad1
t.aq Tom Spmm t7 /7 :56.141s".55
r6A� 350.00sssoo
Cash Fie• prolmalsom
HO M1 CW%W a plea
Toed Rwnm S4Q.231 f489,06s S519a3 Ssso,s25
Rani Re.aues
TwisM RM1b 910,502 6761.613 se3216o 5007309
OMo R.wmrawo
Twod Ras 5744,072 5750.674 5375,00•: 5096,154
ROVAMN Rawer 060
Twwd l6ls 566,623 567A99 s71,15 S75.7e1
Pump RwMmw•
Paeaq Few !130361 5157920 :!88200 $7W.492
TOMIGmeaRaamwe IZO14447 52108.071 52505.717 12370!60
R.IMI COW ane Erpw4r
Raw llnemcewd opamec9 Evwe
AdmMhOaSm 00 Cid sw.9m 7.50% $37,121 730% SW312 730% $97.70 7.50%
mares" 521,555 100% =a" 100% S253® 3.00% 527A90 100%
520.740 4.00% 530,465 4.00% 334,0964.00% 576.132 4.00%
Errp►Cm $4]710 543697 6.00'% 251120 6.00% 534197 6.00%
pmpal7 Opwaloll wd t4mYsner 514 339 30% 136.1 S2.% 154. 2030% 150.1 . .So%
GM Flow Ian Reed lbs SO" 2371309 70.50% 5603.462 70.0% 5677,467 7030% $716.115 70.50%
FAme Ceageo.Rmplmed d Feed
lee•4 DOOM 6mwb,mad blear
Ter••.
Omom Cam cad Fjvmlww
once to dw&umo Opw•6n9 Exawe•e .
AOmeYdr•1dw W Crnwal ma.80 7.50% :30.131 7.511% 292700 730% :66.482 7.30%
20.761 4.00% 571317 4.00% $33.440 4.00% 58.446 4.00%
Eow07 CAN" 2N 642 6.00% 347 510 6.00% 570160 6.Om6 537160 6.00%
"!Open/Op•wdoe aw WYaenas
5170308 2230% 5178,018 1730% $146399 1730% slss.on 1 .30%
CMtaowewn OtaomOWa2Mea4w $612e27 Q50% Sa0.656 8230% SM."S 52-SM :731.077 0250%
Feed ce•r0•e•RmpUunwm d Fced
4eatk DOW SOMle•.ad 1rm0aw
Tao•%
u.al4d
7991 7000 1097 1999 1999 2000 2001
amount percent amount percent amount percent amount Percent amount percent amount percent amount percent
28.705 26.763 261345 24545 28AO 20.345 20.363
100.00% 100.00% 109.00% 10200% 1W.00% 100.00% 100.00%
521.07 52320 $24.68 521,/6 177.73 129.40 531.16
33.204 31294 33204 332" 37284 17.264 17.204
03.00% 95.00% 0100% 05.00% 01001L 1,5.00% 07.00%
17039 53212 634.04 s36.00 13025 54035 $120e
32.073 32.633 32673 3;633 32.476 32.611 32633
03,00% 01001L 9100% 05.00% 07.00% 90.00% 45.006
13030 632.12 174.04 S" 53625 34035 $a9s
3.629 3.929 3,820 7.429 %829 3.620 aez9
95J00% 95.00% Gi006 95.90% 45AM 03.90% 95.00%
smA7 $21M 324.66 076.16 327.73 320.40 (31.16
100.00% 100.00% 10000% 100.00% 100.00% 100AM 10000%
127 1D 127 127 127 127 127
10.61 10.67 50.71 $0.75 $0.60 $0.64 $0.90
54 54 54 54 54 54 34
17 17 13 13 1s 13 17
$65.12 (66.01 370.Gt $75.18 170.60 $84.47 $6054
SSUAW 1614.569 $MGM !6413.903 !736.726 17841.030 3627.7a5
1957.497 s4.014.296 $7,071452 11 140.362 $1.208A5 $1241}73 61.330213
SM.324 5907.663 11.98.424 11.116.730 11.183.675 $1.257.027 $1,304,446 0
179.004 584.607 580.791 545,167 f147O,4177 $106.930 6113.540
_ $234 957 1240 054 s293 006 s27p 456 S SM 1914.426 4!17201
SZ715a24 62,674243 193050.976 53233.904 "an.= 17,630.775 92.451.738
!71.812 750% $76.120 7.30% $80.657 7.50% !67.5241 7.50% MGM 7.50% S041W 7.50% $101,456 770%
$24733 3-O0% $39.48 1004 $3;275 1W% !34271 100% S3U$4 100% LM.440 7.00% $0.746 3.00%
SM290 4.00% (40.507 4.00% 543.0 3 4.00% 043,615 4.006 $44352 4.00% 151219 4.00% 84.720 4.00%
8740 6.00% 560406 6.07% 56480 6.00% 96642) B.W% f 378 63006 fT6 asD 6.007L 104 403 6.006
!196245 So+L .aQ 29.70% .34c 29.50% s 20.50% 4.45 2039% 59+1. a 29.50%
11761202 79.30% sue.974 79.30% SSSS.297 7930% 1994604 70.70% 3961,000 7030% 61.016.660 7050% $1.079.780 79.70%
$70.449 730% $74.676 739% $79.157 7.30% 07.0416 7.90% sM.947 7.50% sm,-n 750% $00.0.74 7347%
537373 4.00% 199.en 4.006 !47.277 4.90% 54.750 4.90% $47.495 4.00% 150261 4.90% 151296 4.90116
ssa ase B00% zso rn 6.905 569 325 a 00% 56714 a cox $71 nz 6.99% t7s 422 s.ov% 570 9 7 6.00%
Stu3ez 17.60% f1742u 1730% $1..No 17.60% $101741 1730% 5207}7D 17]01. 5219.940 11•I% !737.179 77.30%
$774.942 62.30% SM.430 4230% $670.72! 02.50% $002066 8250% 307&367 62.30% 61.037A47 5230% 61.000270 a130%
41 uta
1991 1992 1993 1994
amount pelcont as nt payment amount P9raant amount parmmnt
P+MO C=M and Eft
pw"UKUMA O Cpamtb9 EwP .
pmpwq opwada aw llmkftnl� 3100000 71.54% 9106000 67.179L 3112360 59.705 S119102 30.7011.
CmhFatamPanmmq Opamme•Bdwm 539,351 20.36% 331.020 32651E 373,610 4070% 360.290 40.30%
FhWCtm9aa,ROW-M"O'Fb"
Aaan14 OW Sanba,WO InOo
Tarr
CaahFatant Tcwopwmmm6abm 51.733,01 54.94% 31.665.012 64.63% 8017..60 ".ae% 52153,489 54.m%
Fhtl CMn2m.PAPNOan"d Fb"
AMO&Dam SOMM and boom
Tape.
F1ao Cb2%"
p9pp411Y Tmaaa 5107,140 1.1054. $107,140 mo% 6/07,149 1.10% 5107,1.0 1.10%
In.naw 576435 3.69% 563327 366% orlon a.e0% s99wo a.e9%
165,5" 4.ao% 3193 6 4.9v% 190.+ 4.90% sxw,640 4.90%
Cao Famam ToodOpamlws 80k m S1.3W.g" 75.93% 51.674,939 76.17% S1.M.03 7661% $1,951.80 7689%
Rope= :of raw A=sm Dew 6anb
W4 W m Tas
RowwwAmd Fad AmM 520642 1.00% Stl 961 200% f7i B72 3.00% 176154 3.00%
Pl0(a040 Cash Fa tdnNCpamOM 51.347,773 7495% S1.tWX5 74.17% $1,701,422 7161% 31,675,658 71a8%
BMam Om01 trwrba me0 mwlaTamp .
EwYmalaa CM !12411,087
Dap Pmllnwm 11 7730" 517/3094 31 375094 S1,375,004
Ir worm ROM 1090%
30 War MbMybn Podad
Cion Flo,A1W Oa01 Ba1wa!3313
$172,139 S255.M Me= Ss99.562
Law Paymamu _
4 pwum 9.00% $75492 522975 634049 545051
c.an Fa Atw La40m
S7SS.6" S23230S 5353,378 S4SS.311
Caen Fa to Pan(W(10 Ywa) 58.766358
auk"Sam(Yw 10)
8,400 yaLw 334,877,786
C4 AVA a."%
Dam 11mOSVION $12441,067
TL tom 31,743.em
754 Sar Pmano S20,G W12
41446
I 51
logs togs 1097 1005 lose 3000 2001
m"id percent amwnt peroont amount percent amount percent moult percent oamurlt percent emount percent
SMOGS 5373% $1331n 317a% 5141933 5373% $170783 51.71% $130983 5.73% $107046 5.73% 5170085 53.73%
Stt14700 05379L Sll!k 4 !827% SUZ140 4$M% $120.473 90,27% $137.24] dews, su3.46 4627% S13430s 40.27%
SZ3WW4 8101% $Z446.81S 85.01% !2,207.621 0101% SZ740x40 65.01% SZO14,103 85.01% 17.0o804s 0.101% S=4,a67 0101%
sto7.140 1.101L $107.140 1.10% $107.140 1.10% 6107.140 1.10% 9107.140 1.10% $107.149 1.10% $107.140 1.10%
r fez a5v% :,aim 3eox $ns WB leo% $7a eW leo% s17o 2ss leo% $ueoel 180% $1469$6 3.80%
o,2a2 450% t T32 s2ao61 4. saoal W ,4u 4, s24syo 4.90% u33.213 4.90%
SZ007.062 7730% :2,2!0.290 77.40% 32a70.S70 77.70% $2.519.108 7750$. SZWC778 7$.08% SZ94a ou 7626% $3.020,872 78.43%
M.460 3.00% swag 300% SPI.Sae 700% 507020 300% S1aZ841 100% 11100,011 100% 5113.52 3.00%
SZ010,375 7430% SZuy913 74.40% 32.75,008 74.70% SZ4ZZ175 74.90% SZ373.W7 73.00% $2734,313 7320% !2.903.]20 7142%
$1373004 51.373001 $1373004 $1773,004 $1373004 51,373,004 51,375,094
p.�
$941.428 SMO 3903.0,4 31.047.013 51.798.6491 $1.359.709 51.510x15
$57729 360.1 SBt]4 $04238 S107,996 S122.374 $137,720
X700 $600.652 SBZLM 3072646 S1.000p47 61,227,3914 $1.792.503
All u48
►-s�
Conamalo0 Gats _ SF Alu $I SF Told
UNCI 1Paa1a PM" Oz375 t2e10 S1.3217x
spaitsum 16.50 0x00 $1,42010
R1w 33,214 $54.00 61,7962$6
FaaAioeves $ 3,171 5111,00 $451.310
(Mae 32 33 moo $1,762112
WAdOdbOY6KAN Il."S $3100 Y16324o
CaanmeMr 25.335 ssa00 $1.3141$$
BY tgvwAmwo0140100
163,441
Tam
C4neAW COO
AIa10AeLVWEn1P0 $ S447.042 .
Ga05$Nm00 MII%m of S.Oa% $W.042
3.5011 S�12�,02$�
54,207.373
TOW
Fba=W
Fr.KA4COM1sOli S172.21S
Low eol�nul I aFoot 1.10% S1m.476
Cammwme LOW Imr.r 10.50% $1.063.024
PwnsarA LowF/wa 1.00% S101.4"
S/comm"Olam .sws.F. $201.537
V�m 00 1254 $4.15579000
011251236
011441,017
Tam Cm
�+_gee
' court S~ Caller
San WY O01spo. Callww"
fRota11/Otticemarklny 1991 1092 1113 1994
Prolene Soump0ons
amount paroaM amount Percent amount percent amount ptrreaM
Reu3 Sumaks
WllaasaOls 33.264 17.2&1 19.264 33,64
Owlpanq PMneeope 90.00% 00.00% 95.00% 0.5.005.
Taimm Ram $24.00 32144 536.97 52631
Odee Someone
Nam Lanuble 60.242 60.242 60.242 60.242
OCMUPSWY PercMmm0e 95.00% 9100% 93.00% 05.00%
TwWO Rom 324.00 52144 526.97 726.38
Resta0ram SWe0ne
Not Lens" 3.629 3.670 3.629 3.329
Ov000ngm Pero~ 100.00% 03.00% 95.00% 91008
TMsm Ram $17.40 510.44 51933 $20.72
Pam"Sumnb
IARAtea PwoNdw 7100% 80.00% 00.00% 90.00%
Shod Than Spon 100 100 100 100
He*Rio $0.30 3057 50.56 50.
11%selWssa 54 34
54 34
LogT. 8Pp 4o a 43 40
�ym s5o.ao =00336.15 fS93s
Casa Ft0% ProleeliSM
Rad Fa m
Tenant Ramo $716.507 3761.613 5952.160 5003280
Onb Revenues
Them Rant 31,373,5/8 31.44'S,OQD 57,543,261 $1.635.381
Reaauram Revemas MM
Tenant Rams 568.623 367.089 $71,113 575,381
Pan,"Rweenm4e
Panting Fen 3123300 5130411 3766243 3176.723
TOYS Goes Re+Mur 52215.320 52156.052 52.561.602 52715,3114
Raza C4em and Expense
Rasa Undow clad Operaump Expanses
Aditdo lra Med OMsral 533,388 7.30% $57.121 7.59% 30,912 730% $67.747 7.50%
11Neeno 521.515 100% 572,848 3.00% 525,585 100% 527.000 100%
Ewen fame 578.740 4.00% 530.465 4.00% 334.083 4.00% 536.122 4.00%
Pmapr7 LOemWa and LAaM noe 543110 600% Sag: 6.00% 551,130 6.00% 5111.197 6.00%
S1Q,295 20.30% 3136,131 7030% 1174,693 2030% 3165,174 20.30%
Calm Fes tom Rad CbMaer 841mn 5571.200 79.30% S605.462 79.50% SSn.a67 79.So% 5716.113 70.50%
Faced dugiM•Flaneesm a Fmm
Assets,Oem SMODS.and In0zns
Tear.
Omne Cms and Expenses
OMw Ll dbaCmrd Opwaen9 Expenses
Amnealrative and Gorwal 3103.014 7.30% 3109195 730% $113.746 7-40% $122.601 7.50%
Ermsr97 4m 554,941 4.00% 1511=7 4.00% 561.751 4.00% 563.475 4.00%
Energy Opsrrsm see aoYmeeenm f32471 8.00% 537358 6.00% 502507 6.000. "a153
301E a0 t 30% 34oA 3 Mr.
C IM Flow lore Otms OPO&& a 80 04 $1,133.152 5250% 51,201 141 8230% $1,273210 82.508. 51,340,602 525016
Feed Cengr,R piscurmmal of Fead
Assets.Dae Shane.and IMxms
Taxa
_ I- �U
190[ 1906 1907 1999 1699 2000 2001
amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent
3],266 31.294 33284 33,26433.M4 3]3[4 bO 95AM OSAM
95.50% 95.00% . $4Os sage
$30.30 =12 04.01
SMLOO 60.242 60242
60,242 60342 60342 60,242 69242
�� 05.00% 93.00%
93.00% 0.5.00,E 95.00% 05.00% 10
576.25 $ 35 Mae
730.30 73212 534.01 576.09
],88 5.98 3.68 3,020 9,820
3.920 3.820 0.5.091E 05.005. 95.00% 95.00% 9SA0% OSAO%
OS00% f24Id 52418 $a.7 S29AO $31.16
521.97 $238 .
10100% 100.00%
IMAM 10009% 70100% 100.09% 100.09%
100
100 100 100 100 S0.p $p[�6 50.90
$0.6] 50.67 �7S4 34 54 54
54 54 SA
40 40 40 40 40 40
40 27118 S76.00764.57 18034
761.12 5.66.91 5.70.20
5937,"7 s1,014,93s s1,075.832
$1,140.382 61,208,803 $1.251.319 $1.159313
$1,731.034 $1698,076 57,9",361 72,06336.7 5.2.
189.17 7232038 S2,450,761
$84,6ge 389.781 85,167 7700,671 7106,070
5713.7" a
57,901
$207 737 7220004
f7A 203 5247197 SM 08 5777750 72944,3
72.6ge.072 $7.073,017 73237.308 S3.452.841 53.660.012 53.8".613 $4.112.790
$101.3615 730%
$71.512 730% 77.18 7.50% 790.6873.00% S34.211 109% 774284 100'% $78,440 1091E $40,746 3.0916
178.723 7.00% 5]0.4" 100% 513.273
S38200 4A0% 510397 4.00% 547.017 1.00% 543.813 44.09% M352 4.09% 531333 4.00% 634220 4.00%
737 Y9 6.00% f 6 6.09% 564 530 668 4
.00% 72] 6.09% 38 8.00% 779 880 839% $91 40$ 6.00%
W 80
$196293 20.39% $206.062$206.06220.30% 20.30%1720.3" 1273.77,
20.39% 12N,eae 2030% $262.67 2059% S276,434 20.w%
5761202 7.594 11806,874 7.50% 7075.20 79.50% 5008.604 70.30% $061.000 730% $1.018.660 79.50% 51.07.790 70.50%
5,70.533 750% $,373!6 7.591E $/46,19 7.70% 3154.905 7.59% 3164.156 7.70% $174,040 7.50% $184,492 730%
760.361 4.001E 777.323 4.001E (77.03$
4.001E 782.611 4.00% 70367 4.00% 702.827 4.00% $08.700 4.00%
$701042 6.00% 5710215 600% Sligo= 6.00% f77J 016 14 M $1]1]31 16.0% $1232 16.500'1%E $147358 1 5R
45G
17.W% 1. 1 .5.9% 13011. $>61.
f1.50,37 6230% $1314413 8230% (1.607.]08 6-30% $17=.642 8259% (1.806.07282_-a% 71,074,436 8250% 52.=0.]00 82.50%
ulnae
tell 1002 1097 1994
account percent amount percent amount percent amount percent
Pm"Cans and Expenses
Pal&q t/nlwbAw Operarh9 Expenses
pmpelq MI and 1YYAtralae 0100000 9110% $108000 78.0% 01123609750% $119.102 07.5011
Carl FbwOaa Paaaq Opmaome Brae 322300 18.90% Sn4ll 2797% =&Me 32.41% 257.121 22411A
F3e0Caagee.p4psmamA Fhad
Aeeeo,OWN&Wdbk and Irtcorla
Tame.
Caen Flow can TOtr 1)QeMWO brae $1,70/,2.4 90.00% f1.907,124 80.91% 32,075,670 81.03% 12200= 01.00%
Fa.d Chargee.Rspteemas Of Pae*
Ames.!lea 8aebe.and Irowra
Tues
Food CMgee
Plopwq Tawe 910.760 1.10% $107.700 1.10% $107.780 1.10% $107.780 1.10%
alaRaaa fM fel 3.60% 389564 3.eo11 00734 3.60% 3103183 3.817%
101,952 4.90% 19.104 2.90% S2W,171 4.00% 11710.934 4917%
Casa Fbw*=TealOpemsrs Betere 31.88223, 72.33% 01,709.790 7234% $1.27dAM 7302% f1.92o962 72.28%
ttapbmnam of FbWAeeeo.Deet Sa1be
and 100ena Tame
Aspboomeas at Ftmd Assets 022153 1.*17% S47.139 2.00% $79.251 2.00% se1.462 2.00%
plcMtrd Carr Fbwaan AOQpemtbas 01,780.120 71.32% 01.687,651 7034% 111,707,71$ 7002% $1.007.804 70.28%
Bebw Dow Sorb aa*IndmuTam
Erelmed Car St2734=
Om1 payment 21 407.300 31 407 300 S1,407,500 S1.407.500
Irdewr Rase 10-90%
30YearAVORM bPaled
�wc'srt Fbw Alar O84 Babe!Yee $172.680 5255.151 f"'m 0500.304
TT lease Pe/nrnb
P Mn 9,00% $15541 1122064 334.759 _ SAS.027
�T Cafe FbrAyleam $19,139 SMI 88 3231456 $455177
Cees flow to Pm)8M(10 You) 98.600.331
&A*4 bas(Year 10)
elraar9 VOA $35.418.229
Cot Cao 2.33%
040 PAPOWraa 1112.734 !
5%OYpoamoa Core $1,770,916
NO Sebe Proceeds 320,013.140
a 14 ad
I - �C
1996 1991 1997 190& 1990 - 2000 2001
mmount percent spewnt percent amount percent aawM percent amount peraaas anirunt percent amount percent
$128,246 60.93% $137972 90.97% S141ew 60.33% 1130363 60.9]% 5750391 60.69% 216999 60.87% $170095 60.644
SS7.39 30.17% 569,162 , 30.17% 501,79 30.17% 709.63$ ]0.17%. $102644 30.17% 5104902 29.1716 $113,]]1 70.17%
x2+5 oaa 51.16% SZ444.147 91.1911 52643.617 01.19% 52802447 61.16% S2070-00 61.161E 33./46.879 81.te% 13.377.750
$107.769 1.101E $107.760 1.10% $107.760
1.10% 5107,760y --1.1-
0% 2707,760 1.10% 5107,760 1.10% $107,760 1.10%
$110165 3.609 6116771 660% x127791 sea% 613170e i. $
20s�so iox 51095 W 1 ,00 4.90 .
.974 4.906 2Z7434 4. =,.SW x.99% s73e.9
74.12% $260:1674 7419% 97.077.719 74.74'r.
52.133.0'5473.43% $2260.623 7:66% 3;$12267 74.00% SZ563.460 7424% $2.723.744
$727772
Sam ].00% 692100 100% 5977$ 7.001E $107565 ].00% 5100800 3.00% $116399 10016
..2% SZmR�9 71.5916 22950.7.7 7,.7.%
SZOASAU 70.64% S2.m.43S 70.99% %Z214,545 71.09% SZ450.994 71.254 $2617.93 71
$1407 so9
SI 407 500 S7 407 500 S,407 500 Sl 407 500 Sl 407 500 31.407.500
s769.031
5907.015 :1.032364 51.206,443 S7]60.7.6 S1.34Ze47
� SS7 64 569294
S81634 $04715 5708 390 S123277 519636
s5e2970 $709,639 sers,sn s957,670
:1.097.667 $1,246.469 3,.49.991
cononnyjc; Gob SO Am II.SF Total,
.. y pyo 8277! 518.00 31,871.730.
Awa"" 8.1,764 3•X(10 $1:706=6,
Feed8wrs0s swvft 8,020 311600 3431A1u --
1710oe 80.242 53400 33.237A88
Imediia vssrvlM- 11.443 =00 -5363140.
'canjgj klk 73.331 17400 31:988,000. '` •' .
SM lnplawnwda _ .$140000-
196.46o------ a 4
emansm cod Tar .
gyMe 3.00% ".m
CMAV L onL"na w 5.aox 3MOBB1
1,q 6ayplo�aYp 15M $714907
1.214.624
FYuney Tar
Fbwc q Com - laos $133.175
C9n9uc301119r1 FWs L110W 3102116 .
CasCugbn Leri liaiba 10.3tilt S1.0=43 .. .
Pim i6ft Lo>o Fre .1.oRfa Smile
Lewy(aldol et 84-94A.F. 3420,7F7
Vat"In Lieu Fw 163 64,000 SMA00 ..
S2. 434-
Tom Cad _ 31;7312/2
4 .
A1433
Court to O G14W /T )
San WY OOYpe, GMomY c..�
R*taIVOHIee7lnntParflnp 1991 1992 1991 1994
"act Aea1RnP1IoM amount Percent amount percent ""pe Person, amount Percent
IM 57dlallo
30 3B 36 36
Nmwcl Rocem 61.00% $7.00% 71AM
67.00% 9.320
OmrpddF Pacentape 7.420. ",073 e804 w 675.91
Reese OaOM Pl $63.75 f87.5O S71.W
Aasmpe Rohn Rale
Reef SY9OIce 33264
31.261 11205
n4l X000% 90.00% 05.004 05.00%
jp"cy
Portage 324.00 SZL44 $26.97 eM V
Taaad Red
price SYtWIv
651 128Y1 12.611
14d Leaas0m � 3ZOM
05A0% 05AM
peleenipe 524.00 xMjy,44M 328.97 57e3e
Tenaft Rem
Radaummt Setm9ce 3x20 ]• 1.8293.8201•� pSAp% 95.00%
ONcal�Prcenlpe 1007.40 $1144 3119.53 $20.72
Terms Poet $17..0
75.0016 80.00% 90.00%
U1I7atlan Peroertepe 104
1a to 1a
Stem Tem$Spws $0.50 31933 50.56 $0.60
"awry PAM 54 54 54 54
HKOWIMMIL
36
7e 39tong Tenn space" SSO.w moo 556.18 $50.55
foam,Rab
Crag Sal, I'MISCtbM
M RM1eMe
Rome $477,473 0530% 3741.051 982 56
0% 30,612 06.0016 5709,736 98.00%
3117,009 160% s1e.055 120% x21.020 72016 =612 7.20%
Telephone, S4500 0.90% 05 314 0.90% S5 255 0.50% Its 001 0.80%
OOfer Income(NO) SA00.074 IOD.00% 200 100.00% .05 10000
. % IS
]01 020%
Raw pw�mmwws 31718.5095791.613 $x32,160 $007280
Tama Remo
$74..012 s7seb74 6636.991 saes,tsb
Tama ane
Restaurant R4eencas Past
Tema Renin
sMAZI $67,080 $71.113 1673,191
Poefy Raemee
P.rrw F...
611712 s1.t11e sls9soD S170670
s2ose,z2D 32.256.634.634 s2su3/2 s2717fi,9ea
Taw Gain Reaeatas
IM Gado ant Emaeas
ststrs at.ov% $1727x1 3t.9v% nm,t63 12.7016 616.966 31.90%
Rmas $,1146 a9.totr. 616105 69.717% s1QU 99.70% -4M7
7.M5 x9.79%
T44"pleme .40% .070 .40% 6x4 ,1 V .40%
s1®,46o 31.69% lee, e
rM ole.Gp+"m"o fnoafe
3111,314 66.71% 1373211 6831% SM.967 gest% $490,725 66.51%
IM Ut10as1mue0 Operating Edea
Sv.467 11.50% sse.m 1o.4a% 31x2404 930% ss6.4as G00%
Annssmo?d was Gemerm 111,09" 6.40% 219.100 6.40% $4204, 620% $47224 6.40%
Naaeen0 $u,49e 11.90% $44377 7.90% 546,639 7.10% $40,437 6.70%
Base aau9onem Fee SM400 3.10% 52504 4.00% (27399 420% $29313 4.00%
EneM Gent 623000 320% $26 Ste 4.70% 3T75e0 420% 520315 4.00%
p"44"7 Owasso ad"bl'Aamanas rota .f0% $191, 1 .00% 1.10% .10%
Gun Fbmfam inn Opbadae Bbme $146.024 29.21% $187.400 32.31% $230.604 33.11% 5268.626 76.41%
Filed Grw9es,PAghbo was o1 Foos
Meet,DOA eadce.and Income
Teas
a at
1 W V
7996 1996 1997 1996 1099 2000 2001
amount portent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount portant amount percent amount percent
36 as x 38 36 36 36
74.00% 74.00%: 74.00% 74.00% 74009. 74.00% 74AM
0.724 9.724 0.724 0.724 0.724 9.724 0.724
SWAS 695.31 600.43 305.96 $101.61 11107.70 $114.17
11264 33,264 32261 337.264 33,264 3%264 33.264
95.00% 9100% 05.0% 95.00% 95A0% 00.00% 95.00%
330]0 112.12 $34M $36.09 $38.23 $4035 $42.96
32.617 32.833 32.633 32935 3283 3263] 32931
9100% 25.00% 8100% 9400% 95.90% 95.00% 95.00%
63030 $3212 334.04 Ilam S3L25 1140.s $4x98
3.629 9.929 3.829 3.929 3.920
95..000% 9e.w 95.00%% gam% 95.90% 95.00% 9x90%
321.97 52729 24.60 $2616 $27.73 !29.40 $31.16
100.00% 100.00% 1110.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
104 lot 104 104 104 104 104
$0.63 50.67 3071 $0.75 $0.80 30.04 $0.90
54 54 54 54 54 54 54
76 36 26 311 36 36 x
$63.12 566.01 $70.21 $75.16 1179.6o 564.47 369.54
3762.364 96.00% 0029.530 o6.omc 5679.311 06.00% =32070 96.90% $87.904 06.00% $1.047273 96.00% s1.110.110 96.00%
wo �� a •3 33 � w $1,h0s79e,216303 10329%o ox $l.teoao.0rnto o0 $So7no a
w $6oia WS o so% $i767 a.a16 .00a6o0% i o%
0100 % 111,1cw
0015.191 100.00% Sa6 .103 100.00% souow 100.00% 3670.906 100
100.00%
:957.407 6,.014.036 61A74832 s7,14a.382 $120.803 $1.281733 111758213
SM.324 6005.63 s,A5SA24 31.110.750 111.183.073 31,87.77 111.332449
670.904 =64.690 1164m 001,197 11100.677 $104930 $113.346
3711 611 $714 304 %:w 786 t w 002 $767154 S7a1164 5700173
$2973673 $3Am.030 =1294.072 81.482070 S].69DA94 33.012.434 $4,147201
1260.644 27.0016 $264.61! 31.90% 6200.Sm 31.00% 3207.130 31.00% $14170 31 A0% SSMA80 31AM $354125 31.00%
673]oo e9.7a% 374 too $9.70% 330107 a9.7a% sn ew 647016 32954, 69.70% ttt 3 x9.70% 13 toe 69.7ox
32 3.043 1149% 80.126 3149% 3149% 1 49% 11 11.49%
4
9% 1 AO%
1112.14$ $.St% 5574.677 6651% Soogl9 66.31% 11644707 6&31% 5661449 6851% 3723.116 6851% SM047 $.51%
$71.737 SAM $76.047. 6.60% 580.604 8.00% 365.440 ae0% 500.566 8.606 $4000 e.w% $101.760 0.60%
252172 6.40% 51173 6.40% 08.621 6.4016 662138 6.40% $65,868 6.40% $0.019 6.40% $74.007 6.40%
$52987 63016 116.767 65016 $39.337 0.50% $63.100 &50% $4505 6.3016 870.900 &50% $75.164 6.50%
$31.792 3.90% 311.700 3.00% M3.722 3.90% 217.865 190% 640.197 &am 342Y5 10016 97.006 3.00%
13100 100% 231700 300% 21574 $.0016 S37as1 +n 339017 07% 342543 1� 345000 3.�
.0.461 Sox . lo m •0
1177,663 37.01% 11310766 37.01% 6110.02 37.01% 830.290 37.01% $3t10.M7 37.01% 1143.6011 37.01% $477.920 37.01%
V1 4188
1991 1992 1991 _ 1994
amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent
RsW Cam and Elpdnr
Retai wasedmd Opmasnp Etpemr
Adffd*. Bea emdCwarN 170,999 7.50% 47,121 7.SO% 363.912 7301E $0.747 7.50%
I'Mow q 121}1!' 100% 12264 2.00% 323,563 3d0% 327.009 100%
EMW Cab 326,740 �4.00% 320.465 4.00% $24.006 4.001E . 736,132 4.00%
property Operation and eYernm,oe. 541110 8.00% S45607 6.00% 75711 6A0% 334197 8.00!1.
lam x0.00% 156.111 20907E 1 4,693 x090% 100.314 20.50%
Case Flow coal Add Opedlbm 84a0 1371.200 79.50% 78&1.462 79.50% 4677.467 79-SM 1714173 79.50%
Feed Cenpr.Replammot d Rod
Amada DM6 Sar%eR W4IrorM
Team
Ona Com and Emptne
Oelr UMONDmed Opaodeq Emero+
ApdelW NMO mm Cewd SM.Ml 790% 330.151 7.50% 162700 73011. $=.462 7.50%
Em,q►Code 320.781 42ex 371.047 4.00% 39,440 420% 334446 4.00%
Fm1peM 00e1adoa and aWeaemp SM B42 8.00% 347120 600% 350160 8'009' 160 . 17906
130,206 1 .Mos $136,018 190% 146799 1 •1% 11'z{',
Cmo Fl04rbw011177CPwmdm BM M 3613.027 8230% 1630.658 6230% 7660.606 6230% $731.077 6250%
FOa0Cmo9e%RepYoKnM d Foo
Aero,Dem Se1%be1 end e000nr
Tana
Pw" Can and Eason"
Pei"udabutwow Openmo EzPeera4
plapartl Operarcn and wnwurs
Coo Flow man pais"Owammm flop1s 3x3.712 20.45% 316.138 23.42% 237,140 3171% 160368 73.71%
Feed CN,Oea,pePmeem of Feed
ArMa Dem Sar%ee.and InmoM
Tani
Cyn Flow Lan TCW Opararr 964040 $1.42].]03 6&16% 71.542.763 66.37% 11,726AM 9.64% 11,&1,1,769 68.49%
F8W Char9n.ReplepnMdd Fbed
A1meM,Dem Senbe.mad mpMM
Tames.
Fbedcasvm
plopr„Taw 7100.756 1.10% 3109,758 1.1076 11106,758 1.10% 1100.730 1.1077.
179,352 3.80% sa1752 120'% 305311 3Ao% 1102,663 160%
IlWrano 15000 1.90% 63642 1.001E 38769 1.00% 17370 1.00%
FREE prrw tD4,1t0 5.90% 7,1 5.90% 1.860 3AO% 1. 100%
CymF4emam Tdml Opnamm B6lo,e 11)19,24 38.117% $1.341.613 50.43% $1.114.142 6072% 11.811,768 60.37%
p me m nown of FbeOAeenr.Oral SWIM
and mdOmM Tow
pepbmmem d Fined Anda 121872 1-00-L !4s 133 200% 375 436 300% 781770 _3.00%
P, pumc Cam Fleeces A6 Ope1m04M 11.208.409 17.87% 11796,4110 37.43% $1.436.708 5772% $1.312.357 57.33%
esims Dem Smlb enc moan Taw
EMm,e00 COO $17,737717
Oa psyn,era $1407,W5 ft 407 8x5 $1 407 On sl 407 827
ImarW Res 70. 7L
30 YWet AMOMOb,1 pared
• :�Jb.e.M1 FlOar After Dora eewe law
(:199.423) (5111,345) 770,680 f/M 731
L. pere.rr
peso, 9.00%
m m $2.779 7,30211
($799.47]) (3111.345) $=.lot (131.706
.;;N. CynFbOAa.L.
cash F100 m Paled00 Yem! $4.316,101
&Awq sale(VWmr 10)
Srmaq 77aaM 32976/1389
C0Rin 8.33%
DW RAPBpr,a 372737777 j 1 N
7%Detonate"Cam 4,!63.429 -
MM 6tlr pl0rem 311067.9$2 c
Se
1906 7096 1007 1006 1000 2000 2001
amount percent Amount percent amount percent amount percent .mount percent amount percent amount percent
571,812 7304 $76.120 79076 500.687 730% Sg%= 790% 304060 7.50% 508.100 73011 $101.068 730%
329.725 7.00% 390.448 100% 532.275 6600% $34,11 100% 534280 100% 37440 100166 $44746 3.00%
SW200 0.00% Saxy 0.00% $47.033 4.00% $45.615 4.00% 304332 0.00% S51233 0.00% SS4.38 4.00%
357 MO 600% 360 806 0.00% Set 570 6.2416 565 423 6.00x. 0.00766 377{860 6.00% 781 403 6.00%
5106265 2030% 5208.062 20' % 1220.346 20.3071. 521a,� 30% 4.80.71 W- 7L 2030% B W 20.5$2%
576%= 70.50% $606.674 70.50% S86S.2.7 79.90% 5900.804 70.50% 3961.000 7030% SIAMOB0 70]0% 51.074780 79.50%
570.40 7301. 374.676 790% 574157 7.50% 11MOC8 730% 508.247 730% SO4= 790% 500.0.14 730%
f37N7 4.0x. sn su 4.00% $42217 4.00% 544,790 4.00% 247435 4.00% 370201 4.110% 353.298 4.00%
359 6.00% 500741 0.00% 327 1{.00% 367125 6.00766 (71137 6.00% 575422 0.00% 779247 6.00%
164,382 1 .a0% 111/4245 1 .50% 31x.600 f .50% 103,9 1 .304 130% %woo 1 300. 1 17.50%
S774p42 825016 5621.430 8250% 3870.723 8250% 5022966 a230% 3070.347 a290% $1,037.247 112.30% $1.004270 8250%
6126248 5666% alit aY, a66e% ►141 ON,
383.364 40,34% $90.483 40.34% $05.015 4094x. $101.660 40.34% $107.770 40.34% 311409 4034% $121.000 40.34%
$2.007.078 68.31% 32127.263 68.51% s2?30.630 65.51% 32.365.600 611.31% 22326.840 68.51% $2.680.571 6031% 52.641.403 68.51%
5100.758 1.10% 5709.756 1.10% 3100,755 1.10% $100.758 1.10% 3104758 1.10% 5709.758 1.10% St09.758 1.10%
$111.007 3.8016 $117.743 180% 3124.820 180% 5132310 189% $140.238 330% 3146.673 3.80% 5157,594 3.80%
ss 152 1.0O% 38641 1.00% :0170 1.00% S07o9 1.00% $10202 1.00% 110000 1.oa% 11174 1007x.
100% 1 5.9016 a3,t 88 5.90% 395 5.0076 5268 1 $.00% sZ t 564 5.90%
$1.774.071 60.60% 51.887101 60.00% 52006,012 61.(!0% 32133.012 6129% SUM.1 61.4616 5Z.411230 61.06 325$2480 61.79%
S67,706 300% S22,971 300% =@.so 300% S10440 309% S110,730 700% 5117,374 3.0044. $124,416 300%
111.686.363 57.60% $1.794.130 57.8046 57,908.= 58.00% 52029.480 5821% 52137.600 58.46% S2.2UW SB.36 52438.073 58.70%
51407825 %1407827 $1407025 61407625 51407677 S107_105 51407.625
-yj $276.517 3396x07 swo0.s= 5621.625 $744078 smfi mt $1.030.240
$25068 534767 34504 515946 767408 570743 S027a
529.460 11231.377 3411.400 5565.670 3692400 $606288 !907.528
.:I.at
I W V
comamethn Ceeb SF Ane $19F TOW
lr'terword Pew ezm ma0 $1.$21.750
aOW =00 51.871.700
Im Zm fxoo S1.7okm
A" 3,820 slfaoo "31.810
Fon69e,eMP SON" 32,60 SN.m $1,762.152
omm 11,445 snoo 5368.240
mochallwausembe 23.335 MOO 51,368,000
Cemme Alm $140000
Sao lmpd,em m t61, et ,1 .028
Taut
Com+Oee Car .
5.00%
$455,001
5.00% $455,001
Conseumm Wflow 3.50% $321 7
Ua&Adn iPVeNq ft, ,004
Tom
FV60CW
1 S0% S156A36
FYmeyq Cm 1.00% $104.171
Camamm►eel Fr 10.50% sl.00%702
Co - .1 laen erne 1.00% $iQ4.171
pomuram lam Fw S4.WS.F. $313767
P
Co .000 3s48.0m
PNeqn.nmm 137 $4In LIM Fr 13320,155
$12,737,-17
TGW Coe
u+uee
G10t street GrOar � #
San lum ep
001e, GIOanW
IletawEntartatn4a401t Comptea7Paralnp 1991 1992 1993 1994
project AaeumPOem amount percent amount percent amount percent amount Percent
FIaW S9m91ts
Mal Leasable 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000
7.0070 170010
Oar7M1%T � 90.00% 1.00%
Twmd Rr1 324.00 325.44 328.07 $28.78
M0•iv Tbw140
Not Less" 29.000 20.000 29.000 28.000
CoaNm%T Pam moo 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% IMAM
TomaRom 51200 $1272 313.1 S14.20
Raaaurrl 5'ttlstls
10.730 10.730 10.750 10,700
OomspNo L� 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Tons"RAatNa P40amte9e $17.40 57044 $1935 520.72
Tea
Pam"stoomm
umzmom PNONd a 75.00% 80.00% 00.00% 90.0070
6Mn Tarn Spcas . 53
Haub 11" 50.50 5030 13 fly 113
Ma wwar 54 54 54 54
Tram Spee 2! 1 25 23
iv.ao
monmq Rom moof5E18 S50.55
Cent Flow Prolectbm
RW Rar40ama
Tamm RM1a
5287.200 5380372 $417.507 5461.6.18
0bna The"Newe•as Ow
Temw R401b
$.=;.000 3176.160 3277.110 54p0,181
Re9auam Fereans(Nag
Taloa PAM $107.050 5108377 5210.169 5222780
Pa"N940a1aa
Pamap Few
$132,343 S14908 5170 a43 $780 730
Tom Gnaa Re9e.u0a
(1.0=503 31.003,307 51.201.630 SI=740
Nos Coal was Eape or
now l nowwax e0 Cp9rawv E)qw-
A4ivte71ftmrs Was Camrtl 327.b40 7.50% 329.192 7.50% $70683 730% =&.an 7.50%
7440ar1q 511.018 100% $11.80 4.00% f1740852D 2
00% 17444606 4.00%
Err07 Cosa 514.4 4.aox $1$,560 _ _
Plepen►CParaam rO aYeneae^oe 8032 800% $253$'1 800% $0.279 2030% 7W.t.16 20.50%
3 3 6 .s0'% 0. 2030%
Com Fine ban Noe W9reIal"I S2W.024 79.50% 5309.459 79]0% 3348=8 7050% 5]67,002 79 sm
Food COa1pr,Repbsnam of Food
Aeaaa.Ila 640000.ar mmne
Taxes.
P40aay cam ant E>9emw
Pameq tpaadea0 Caarae'0 Expenra
propw/Opowm7and 0yNOWNIOo $100000 7s 59% $108000 70.4% 1,193 6207% 5119102 12.97%
Cash Five bom Pamaq'I Brae 372.345 2444% 543.636 20.19% $68.110.1 3703% 370.048 37.03%
Fbad C17a1peo NPea1e'a a Fbr
Agra,tea SOMMI.enc'no*m&
Tarr.
$847,310 S2.%-% 517.511 93 01% 31,000.011 8322% 11,060.011 83.22%
Caen Flo.ban Tam OPeaaao Oeivn
Food CWupr.R4olm mem at Far
Aeaea,DOW 64mb,see ivmra
Tear.
FWOGn9ae
F now,Texas 302.057 1.10% 592057 1.10% 592057 7.10% 590.037 1.10%
177v407oe 939 850 380% $41 S46 280% $45663 300% 492 12.2 m%
S130.915 4.90% 133. A. 1 1 4.
Casa Five som Tom Operen7ns seivre 5718,404 70.06% 5773,008 70.70% 7862391 71.79% fW0,552 72.19%
AnDmow119e4 a Fina Aee09.De01 SerAm
ono imome rase
4'34 EB
/- 7G
1006 1006 1007 166$ 1000 2600 2001
amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent aatount percent amount percent
000 17.E 00
17.0 17.000 17.000 17.000 17.000
05.00%
055..000. 95.00% 95.00% 96.00% 25.00% 0330%
S30.300 53212 314.saaa 176.00 smb $4035 112.09
ze,00o 25,000 2e.000 00000 28.000 MGM 28.000
100001% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.007. 100.00%
$70.13 52927 Sgt A0
$15.13 576.06 517.02 $16.01
10.7so 10.7so 10.750 10.7so
10.750 10.750 10.750 /00.00% 100.00% 100.00%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
S21.D7
0029 $24.60 326.16 m.n 520.48 S31.16
100.00% 100.00%
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% i0a00%
ns
lls 115 113 mlt00s 501ts SO.90
50 .63 50.67 5671 $0.73
S4 54 s1 54 54 54
s4
25
zs 25 25 27 23 25
S63.12 ssc.91 s70.93
S75.18 $70.60 384.47 SB9.54
5480.156
l518.606 5549,618 $502,007 $617.776 S6a1,642 5604.133
$424102
340.4 5176.6% 5505.220 ss35,533 $W.665 5601725
5236.148 5250.316 S765.aa1 5201.234 3200.120 5316,017 5334.070
sza m
5236147 S250312 3265 337 $281250 7206 127 5116 013
$1.772.451 $1.454.766
51,5404000S7.631.611 31.732690 516 4
56.640 $1,9 ,610
536.700 730% 370.002 7.50% S41.276 7.50% $43.711 7.50% 516.315 7.50% 540.113 7.50% 532060 730%
314.650 7.00% S15-561 100% 516.405 l0L S17-4o" �.�% 17114.00%533 3.00% SSM124 100% �� 4.�_
319373 4.001% 510.748 4.00% 521.001 C14 ON _
520360 6.00% 337122 600%
152900 1 12.Y-13 Oa 20.30% 116,4 2030% .243 2030%S37 W7 60M 239 201 6.00% iI42.207 20.50%
100.714 .501% 3106X!7
$300.002 79.50% 3472364 79.50% 5477,105 79.508 5463,332 70.30% 5491.132 79-50% $520.590 70.50% 1551,035 79.50%
S126244 56.67% 5133 873 5667% $141832 560% 5750363 5667% 3152345 6667% $169 04 56 a7% $17908S S667%
596.520 43.33% 57004321 43.33% 1106.460 43.33% 5114,969 43.37 5121.066 43.33% 5120.174 4337% $136.026 43.37%
51.145.090 $7.49% S7.211.643 85.49% S1367.= 8149'% S1.364.m 6349%, $146.650 93.49% $1.515.459 65.49% 57.023.466 9149%
502.657 1.10% $004037 1.101% $02.057 1.10% 302,057 1.10% 592057 1.10% 192.037 1.10% 502.057 1.10%
552 li7 a$o%
ONO
262 3 80% 3511 so 3 80% 362113 380% 565 942 360% Soo 793 `80% S73� 1.0Wr
0+%
14 10 4. 14
..90% SMU 4. S154!1-72 4.90% 1157,e ..00% 161
344
S1.001.680 7206% 11.067.304 73.39% S1.136.966 73 72% $1.210.601 7406% 51,206.760 74 39% $1.371.600 74.68% 57.450.429 74 96%
W 4.6a
/-a-
' .__ 1991 1992 199! 199a
YOIOY11l. P�fa�nl gj1i0Ytt1 Paroonl Oatoual PafoOM imoYnl pa Rant
.fid irbW Awab 110449 '1.00% VIA" 400% 199019_ 9.00%-----539.414 7.00%
- - 8%
ptgs`C Cadt Ple�v gam AOOpatalaua 5709.179 60.017S4.M2. 69.701E 78283a2 60.78% 7901.310 69.19%
Sd=6aa1 Sowbi sine tnicix w Taiw -.._
Edhrra eod Stn:pls nd
Dint PirlrC 91466564 _._.51406501 514069x- ._ _ 97706101-
ldatad Rda 10394
-- 961'aai Affiwt ltia PWad.
-�Cub flora AfW Offal e.wOtnw (750C,7i6') (51sLa61l (57891641 (sazs;i511
L~Pi�nrnte
RAM 9.09x' _ ._--_- -SO- --- --- -- ---IID -- --
Co9f'NWAXWLew ` - - (s5ao.azbl --- P43a.M1) (7790167)
eaa pw to pmlm(t0 Yav) (S1.911,OM .
8aW19 Sala('(w 101
&dyq van 717{.!10.019,
Cq Rs
Gdl Ra0a71w� 710.0111770 .
R OIpw"Cam 781a 911
Md Saw Ptov.m. 15.oQ,795
i
1996 1994
1997 1909 Me 2000 2001
amount percent amount percent amount percent sm"at percent anoYns percent amount percent amount percent
$41174 3.004 S-43.6" 1004 54!287 1OD% 549034 3.00% $319x1 3.00% $33099 3.004 sss 407 3.00%
SM We 69.9a% 31.021.660 70.36% 51,000.603 70.72% $1.161" 71.09% $/.239.790 71]6% $1.316.510 71.60% 51.401.024 71.96%
S1,206.5w :1296 sW
51206504 s1 SO4 5t 2099W 51206304 s1206SO4
__�X45997) f$le2.aas1 R
715.90) ($44.01) $30.276 s110A06 S194,320
so >o SO
s0 ny 59 901 517 307
�� (5243.997) p1a2.9431 ($11$.900)
(54,41! sz7s51 3109,70e sln.ou
1- 73
�. SF 1inj ftSF.
.PeAYq Qm '72600 ;f1,621,7J0 .
I/Ode � 26060 312600 33.760.000. ._
ROW" - 17.000 3.1100 7013,000 -
FOo69ewe0eServ_b 16750 $I-Moo31,203,900_
Cainai tie. airs 371003260,570
6M 160mA m-ft _.51 0000- -
-722030'- .368.000
Co11dAUN Gr .. _ Taal ..
And1a01NEn8Ye,edq 5.00% 7378.440
AS �
M .IN% .0'
Caisl bl,MalmoF^'ra. 3.00'6 3773.440-
-- 311021.788. .
TOW
.FY,M,M _
FloYmNCf m 1.30E
C,4v- i+lain FeM 1.001E '783.008 .
ConiUYCOa,login 111ei� 1_0.501. 3002012
Pealmort LamFaw 1.004 787.008.320 .
k H.l25.F. 2,700
pepiY,01n WY File 270 ',H.000_ 5020,002_
- - -'77.373,182
Taatl Cay 710,077,770
i
1
courtCOMM
San We Obw, CaOorNe JL/
X01 D PI@m1i11 ROfafORle@IP@k1t70 7991 7995 1995 7996�@ati A6wmpWe
amount P@K@M 6mw411 P@Isanl ■mOY@I Paf1aP1 amount P@f1@nl
RMY stadium
NM L"Sob 36,000 31.000 104.000 0% 100.°0%
34.000
OOMMNW7 PWMAU" 100.00% 100.00%
Term"ROM 510.80 $11.63 512.15 172941
OMm Stadium
tIM Vemm 60.242 60,242 60.262 60$12
oo0f0mT PM0o o" 03.00% 93.00% 03.00% 03.00%
Taom Rom $21.60 =90 $21.27 523.75
PM49q son"
lAftwon Pafuw� 73.00% 00.00% 90.00% 00.00%
30x1 Term Spca 140 163 $036 $0.60
{101110 Rom
$0.30° 5033 51
11au1al1Faa8 S/ s+ S/
350.0011s�oo
tons T.7n spam$ ° ° 1341.19 559.3
Coos Flaw P1oldelb m
Rattl Rwoema
TMul6 ROMs 538.200 S.w= 1+123041 SA37,7/1
O0b/7wanlma
TMa4 Ram sl=s.118 $1.310.376 $1.386.036 11,472,20.1
Pa**q RwM@m6
PM@41p Fees $167120 5166667 5196769 7210603
Tom Gams Rwmmmo $1.750.7416 51.666231 $2.000.711 52.120,330
ROY$Dae am FmodLeo
PAW L4NMMbM@0 OPWOOM EBww@@
Ad4Ylmnea 00 Cion" SU.540 7.30% $20.102 7.30% $70.911 730% 172,001 7.30%
18Mood'9 $11.016 7.00% 117,677 7.00% 572770 3.00% 117,120 7.00%
Energy Cam MAX" 6.00% SfS}69 1.00% 576907 4.00% S17,401 6.00%
Pf00oe7Opramla..01YYa@..a7fee 322072 6.00% S2$73a 6.00% f2a 733 6.00% f262/D 6.00%
.2 6 .7P7. .30% ?60 30% Sw,617 2030+1.
Coo Flow Dom AMM CINVIONIM 5dm S207.924 70.30% 770°.430 7030% $=.08 70.50% 1347.616 79.30%
Fbod Choaps.RmYwlwnt or Food
AMGW DICK 600 and llmlw
Tomo.
0190@ Coe&no ESPrwa .
Oeb Lkowb fmO Cprep EAp@aa
Adw**M7dkv w Commit 502712 7.50% SOey3 7.50% $101,172
4 v16.320 1 .304.
:hS' ' 7
Easily Cue Si.M7 6.00% S52475 1.00% S31?6 00% �� .
0%
/ 7 1* B.
1P1ao@7�,�r a a.Os
Can Flaw film OfOM OPMaOm Brom :1.019.0.17 87.50% S1.°61p27 823018 51.713.6410 8.50% 3121/,ax 62.50%
Fbod Cen9oa R@Otouwfru M FbaO
AoomM Dom 6ombo,NO bwonw
Teem.
<ua
199i 1996 1007 lose 1090 2000 2001
amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent
70.000 21.000 34.000 91.000 34.000 10.000 24.000
100.0016 100.00% 183.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
71163 $14.45 $1572 516.24 $17.21 57623 51014
60.242 60.242 60.242 60.242 60.242 60.242 60.242
95.00% 05.00% 00.00% 95.00% 05.00% 95.00% OS00%
0717 228.91 :39.61 =.4e $34.43 536.40 s39.65
100.00% 19o.a0% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%100.00% 100.00%
140 140 140 140 140 140 140
$0.63 50.67 50.71 50.75 $0.90 $0.04 $0.90
54 54 54 54 54 54 54
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
=12 Ss6.o1 $79.93 MIS $70.69 se4.47 $89.54
s483383 5401,306 5570,9m 3512.133 SSK261 5620177 5657,309
11.560.671 :1.654,280 51.737.50 S1.558,736 61.970.261 52083,476 52.213.795
5779 eb SNS 354 S313,287_ 3732061 $352009
$2.711365 52.408.707 52351.219 S2.706.423 52.668.809 53.04 0,837 53.713703
LS4,760 7305 536.6SS 7.50% 130.066 7.50% $41.410 7.50% 563,845 7.50% $46,32e 7.50% $0.320 730%
$11.907 3.00% $14.742 3.00% SIS.Cs 3.00% 516.564 3.00% Sl7.SY 3.00% S1o.811 3.00% 519.729 3.00%
$15343 4.00% $10,656 4.00% 520.615 4.00% sd.M 4.00% $27,410 4.00% 224.815 4.00% 5267& 4.00%
527 815 6.00% 520 444 9.000. 671,29 600% i1t 128 6.00% $1.S 116 6.00% 117 9.00% 530 458 6.00%
:9:.604 x+00,;3636 29.sn6�a�m So% %:143 m.s9% 119.9 2o�a+6 1�7 s9% l^ia t 2o.59% .
5365347 70.50% $300.680 79.50% 5414.183 70.50% SM.946 70.30% $463283 7930% 5404.100 70.50% 5$701 79.50%
1117.047 730% 5124.070 7-0% :151.3+4 7.50% $130.40 7.50% $147.770 7.30% s159.636 7.50% 3164.034 730%
$Q423 4.00+4 S641,+71 4.00% 570.+41 4.83% $74.340 400% 1176.810 4.00% $112-M 4.00% 5x351 4.00%
s9 q c.o9% so9zss 9.ao% $1os211 $a7+c :771:74 coox :+142+6 a.00% :!4399 6.00% 5132827 6.006
],160 130% u q 1 -o% 1 .50% f .5016 1 30% .461 130% .412 I .Sa%
$1.297320 9250% 51764,772 82.50% 1+.446.650 !12.50% Sl=.457 8230% 11.60.465 62-0% $1.722.983 6230% 51,838772 92.50%
1901 1992 1995 1999
amount pemem 4mpunt peme9t amount Peloenl aw"ni poment
PaYYp Omb atl Evensm
Pak9q undoubdW Opma"E70paM
Pyr Opordon ad Mwnwns O $100.000 6782% $106000 63 W% 5712 360 3633% $110.102 $6.17%
Cm0 Fba OOm Pak"Opwame tleble 547,420 3117% S6D.695 39.41% $98.209 4147% 591.591 4147%
Fbd Cte19m.Fleptam0em of Fbd
ASwM DW Swvb.aed Inw"
Taa .
Cam Fbw ftm Tatal Opemewm 9610e 51.359,181 77.93% $1,951,149 77.761E $1,360.304 78.00% 51.633.022 78.00%
FLm COalpm,geyamnws d Fbmd
Ataola.OM Sanba.W4 Uo"
Tum.
Feed CnaM9m
perry Ta 5111,001 1.10% 5111,001 1.10% 5111,001 1.104 $111,001 1.10%
Inaaalm Sm 33o a.9D% 5'70916 19os 676012 .1% T11.
Bo 673 390%
51 .620 4.90% 5192.009 4.90% 5107,102 9.90% 1 1.664
Oast Fbw fpm TOW Opkmom Batas 51101,360 67.99% $1,260.141. 69.00% S7,373.M 69.67A $1.462,739 69.961E
R,pmWem d Ftmd Aa9m4 DW0 Sar1m
i as 9nw�r Ta+m
.P pbmneel d Fb"MMM S17.500 1.00% &27325 2.00% s80 M109 3.00% SU 610 300%
pmMdod Cab Fbw Dae A0 Ope®we S1.164.0522 66.40% S13a1,816 66.00% 51.313,192 8169% $1.799.690 8199%
Bdae Dam 6av1m wo IPA M Tam
EmkMed God 513.701,00
044 paWnaffl 31 924402 $1 524 902 $1 S24402 Sl.-4.402
Ifftwom Pb 10.30%
30 Y4a Amammbn Pwbd
��CaW Fbw Apw 049!8400 Leena R.780.1S0) ($292.396) (5211310) (5123.753)
Lwee PaY�
FlMWnMI ` 9.00% SD SO SO so
Ceak Fbw AMM Learn (1'160-30) 0=556) (W1310) ($125,753)
Cavil Fbwte PmOd(10 Yew) 51,188,643
su"Sae(Y4 10)
Bu%a0 Year Sn.312305
Cap Ase 0.33%
DW PAPOV em S13.701P39
Y%Dbpmabe COM St 313 610
fel saw ppm S113D4.657
woo
,009
Igoe 147 loom 1999 2000 2001
esouM percent 8058844 Percent uwM pereenl enw9M percent 81118844 pe1ro4n1 a1nOYM percent 458944 p4re9n
S126246 so 88% $13703 50.69% f11182 50.80% 3150363 so.8e% 51S93" 5086% 316e948 50.80% $179065 $0.96%
$121.905 40.12% $120219 12.12% :128,071 4&12% $145.191 40.12% $14-1 812% SM 136 4am SMA4 49.12%
51,777.972 70146 51.894.631 76.24% 51,907.720 76246 3x.117,504 78.24% 52.244.640 7924% =379=8 7814% 32=066 78.24%
5111.091 1.10% 5111,001 1.10% 5111.001 1.1016 $111.001 1.10% 3111.001 1.10% $111.001 1.106 S1I%m
5480% sot sat leo% (07 022 190% 5103 eu 2.80% 3100015 180% 1113 338 190% ft 180 a sm
S107.440 4.90% 1 4901E 112 1.90% 0.217,011 1.00% los 4.00% 848 1.
11,360.544 69.53% $1,682020 60.82% 51]8&617 70.0016 31.902.630 70.21% 52.094}44 7037% 72152.982 70.79% S228830o 71.00%
568171 3.00% Sn261 2.00% 376507 1m% $91122 3.00% See 064 3.00% Sol 100% soe7m 2.00%
51.312.261 6&376 S1,609.766 669716 $1.713.020 67.02% 57.022.468 67.24% 51.908.400 6737% 52.061.434 67.79% 52101.607 66.00%
S, .844 S1 524 402 S1524402 31 524 402 $1 524 402 sl 52.409 SI 32.492
(5110411 su.066 :188,618 5206.064 a 14•g7e "".•" '""
S0 S7683 316 076 S26826 527 267 s48 235 SW 066
(512.041) 777.661 5171,642 $271.220 1776.811 $488.717 5607.338
0.115220.
Ce11aa14611aa Coate SF Ma e 7 SF Total
LwbwKWAFa"w CZ375 moo s1.421.7W
AWW Ga0alte w um 34.000 SMOG %2,350AW
00b 60.242 WW %3.233.068
modlenwalfservin 11.445 33200 s36e.240
CAmmA4m 25.335 Woo %1.36eAW
5140 000
6U e>o� 1 �se.148
Taal
caws ODOR
ArdWAMMem* -N 5.00% S464,057
rORaamglPtaaoaq 3.00% %323.
cAmm d m Manmp mwd 5.004 3464 osT
31.255405
TOW
FMUNM
FYrnaap coo 1.50%corAmucoft 3130440
Low fees 1.00% 11105-Us
Colroacbo I lean lawn 10.3oR f1,10B$8
p,momd Loan Fess 1.404 3105345
54.305.F. 3424,0110
O •
p,"To 0o pada n %74.000 s1.=W0
Paauq la Lim Fess tie %4.OW 347!.000
$3.2374406
:13.701.030
Taal Cm
�.•uee
Court Street Center /J(/_/✓
son Lain O9upe. Cameo""
Fun Wm CoPrinant 9tmretParmtn9 1991 ,092 109a 10114
P70jec1 Aeaulmpitmmm amount percent amount Percent amount percent moment Percent
PAW Stttllb
1�A00 102,000 102,000 102.000
Oc llama 108.005 100.0071. tOLL0O% 100.005
Teeo a ard d PAM Pamrttape $8.40 38.00 $9.44 $10.00
a
Pa1M9 SWlmlb
Uwzxdm Palo~ 75.00% 80.00% 90.00% 90.00%
Shat Tam,SPa .
Rin $O50 SO 50.1♦0 140 740
53 50.36 30.60
�ialYWm11 % 54 y $4
0 0
Lan Turn Spamee 350.00 SS10p 536.18 SS9.55
law"Rom
Casa Flow, P1ejemtbee
ROM PAVW�
Teeem Raltb
585p,81Ip 3908208 f962,700 51.090,463
P""PAVWANG
5747 420 5766 6!] 3196 760 S210695
Posen Fa
:1.004.220 x7,07•.801 $7.167X70 S1221.158
Teal am"fiaxaarea
pA,d C®aee Emamea
Rates U",m,, mee Oparmn Exuamem .
361.260 7.50% 566,116 7.50% 57220,7 7-54% 276.3757.50%
Admm,lYn0xa and Csar,aral 3x.701 3.00% 527246 3.00% 526.861 3.00% 530.614 3.00%
Markeern234.272 4.00% 536.726 4.00% 736.500 4.00% E10,819 4.00%
Enag7 CAN" 3414.272
408 6.00% S54 442 6.0071. $57762 6.00% 361 220 6.00%
P,c0en,�a�am Us~�� it .W .SO% ftB6.t8J 2030% 1197,334 20`0% 57D9.1 20.50%
Caen F10�0em flame QertlN,m Bm4ae 2682,1% 79.50% 5722.025 7030% 5765,347 7930% SBI 1.268 70.50%
Fetid GtmVea.p,pa,m,mdFbwd
A♦ota,Dom Saab.and Income
Taxol
Parhav Com and Emanaw
Pehan UnioYnm,e Opmmte,0 EsDerN+
$119 202 %.37%
Pmped7 Operator, le„
mW I4aa, anca
3108 000 67.67% 3106 000 63 59% 5112 360 %33%
Cash Ffar earn Ph*"OParmaN Belem 547,420 32.17% 260.60,73641% $116.•00 43.47% 202.504 43.47%
Food CINNee.Fmptummat at Finad
Asset.Dam SarMm.am Ieemna
Taaae.
Own Ftoeream real C)POINVAN asters 117711,570 72.13% 3782,708 72.02% 5931,754 7333% 3902M 73.32%
Fbd Chargee.PAPNMnere of Faso
Aaem,Dem Seneca and Mmm s
Taxes.
Fined Cma,pea
P,OPuO Tmaee 2120,710 1.10% 5110,7!9 1.10% 5110,769 1.1Ox 2110,709 310%
PMP9 0a 132160 3!0% 340 l4G ]90% 544/]0 7.lO% f467M 7!O%
f,S.95D 4.00% Ch1. ♦.90% 154. ♦ $157.573 4.
CaM Flm�tmm TeW Opeamere Bamo 5379.6$ 57.72% 3Q1.o73 %.71% S908A31 60.00% 5745,269 60.24%
nepumnNm of FtaWArm.Debt 6reb
and emom a Taxes
4,4°.E
/_ ?0
toes 1006 1007 1000 loge 2000 2001
mount Percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent
102.000 102.000 10,2000 104.000 102.°00 102.000 102.000
la9ao%
700.0016 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.001E 100.000.
310.60 :1124 $11.92 51263 ~17.90 51..19 11115,04
100.0016
790.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.°0% 100.00% 100.00%
149
140 140 140 140 140 140
1663 30.67 $0.7170.711 70.80 SCAM $0.9054 54
94 54 s. 94 M
0 0 a ° ° 0
f6112
° 766.91 570.61 $75.18 $79.69 SMA7 5093.
51,001,600 71.146.502 111,277.787 :7,285.310 51.965.609 31467}46 111.534 396
7288152 s263 942 S27804 sm 594 S313,257 S222 094 S232,000
s,.320.W
S1.46401 $1363,x4 71.878.696 51.779.690 117.68.407
s61127 7.50% $65.994 7.50% $91.154 7.70% 796.629 7.5M 11192421 7.50% $108.566 7.50% 7715.960 7.50%
s92.e51 3.00% S34.306 4.00% 3W4e.4e1I6 :09% $5.� 4.00% S�54.62 4.00% �.9M 4.00% 5567.7 6 ::000%
w,2se 4.ov% 64~.x4
764 001 6.00% S68 796 6.00% 1172 927 6.00% 577 299 6.00% 1181 D37 6.00% $66 839 6.00% S92.064
5221.747 2°.30% SM%l ZO.50% 7249.734 20.50% 5264.108 20.50% 5279.950 20.70% 5296: . 20.50% $71.,552 29.50%
78x,946 79.50% Sol I 1 70.50% SM 233 79.50% SM124,207 70.30% 71,0~5.650 7930% 51.150,799 7050% 51.219.947 79.50%
S126248 So 8s% 11,33622 39.66% S141,832 30.611% 5150 363 50.60% MGM 50.68% 11168 9411 50.86% $179.065 50 ea%
5121.965 49.12% $129.219 49.12% $,98.972 40.12% 5745,19, 40.12% $111.902 40.12% 11163.136 49.12% 11172.924 49.12%
=01.80 n.63% 67.040.759 7187% $1.102" 77.82% s/.16°.7P7 7.7.63E 111230.561 77.63% 111,33,035 73.8716 S1,99Z771 73 63%
11110,789 1.10% slia.89 1.10% 5710,789 1.10% $110,780 1.10% 11110.789 1.10% ~110.789 1.10% $110.789 1.10%
SSS74 380% US xs 300% 26 780 :.9m No 7 3s0% 1..50 :.00% fs.41155 38900%%
1
UM3 *.90%
161.3m 4. 164.355 4. 16.500
sm= 61.70% $876,404 62.17% gogs.o 6 BZ62% 59911.421 63.04% 57.064.074 63.47% $1.117}20 91st% 11111°298 64.16%
�- gI
7991 1992 t9s1
ioa
amajok. percint amount poraant iwouapiroent amount pireinl
paploardd F9os0Aaaam _CH 496-=2.00%-._.f3a9M 3.00%_ _a693f--3.007L.
PmoClva Cam,flovlem.AUCpWm&" s160.sM 36.72x SUp"f. 59.719 . SMO 57DOR 57W,2fa Sv.s.s _ .s
Dom owts;w� Time
Eauea,O Cad. f15.727.717
Pa7nra (1739261 fT738361' - --__f1739291.
Ofa _
Ine�w1 Rof. i0•�
b YamMao,ICrbn 9Wb0
._::aa Row Mur DWiaaolia (31,169,777) lfi.ize.ias) K1.m6.ai�)
laar Pa7a1M.b
19 -- so - —30._ ___so
��Cwft Ro.a9mL*M0
�- (!7,164777) 1s�a?e.7ast (s1,076,574) lsi,o3o.0071
C.w Ra.10 pmW llo r:.q (50,965.7641
&retro van su a94mz
canow- 0.339L
Dap Rapelrea3 313.727717
.3%DUPMA On Cana .----sco.507 .
Nal so" (S570.206). .
0
1 1997 1f96 1999 .000 2001
996 1f96
amount percent amount percent amount percent amount Percent amount paraent eleamM Percent amount percent
sum 3.00% 542269 Sam SWAM S.a9% 1M7316300% 330267 3.00% 9f9 2.00% 536392 S.00%
5790Bb 36.70% 9654.115 39.17% 5690.609 36.627E 5990.903 60.04% $1.014.607 60.43% 51.06 131 60.61% 61,152,706 61.16%
31 776 361 31 736 761 $1738361 21 776 361 31,738,361 31 776!61 S1 739 361
(PS7.731) (S904.246) (3647,551) (5M7.45% (378.734)
30 SO so
30 30 f0 SD
(s957,731) (Soo4.zM
(3947.SS1) (SMAS) (378.734) (3639 70) (5564.655)
/43
,I
cor0mi1rntlon Como BF Ann t.r BF Total. .
tt37s sxeao i;i,sii,nn
���Pn�O. 102000 37900, .l7.QC.0_00 •. .. ,
C.Y IOp10Y0nrn0 164.373—.—._. •'0 1.. 30
TOW
AROOMiwEnpYw��^0 9005 $46% 1.
1305, $324,311
5:007. ' S463,5f3"-- _
CoeFeeClO�Mau0M�w6 –S1.251.636'
TOM,
FMrJtl
.FYMndgCOVA1.501L' $157.652
.Camm toFw �1.0016 S1Mp4
Lam Irmm" 10•MII� '.f1.f01.061
ciiju,cdonF.—mm tom F.a 1:00+ s>ospi,
,tYMnO S.4SOF.F. S!SO.OnO _ ..
200 'S14000 32,600,000
P&*" 116 34,000 -5172.000.
P�dYq In Llnu_Fwn __35 2W 231
$15,727,717
TOM COM
1
Ce11R SVM Comw
Sm U-W Obl C613a7d6 K� _
RetoYConlwwwo FmNIhRwWON1e47PoA1n9 �' //
PAJew %SWA106 6 1111 1012 1117 1116
6weunt pwoml 6009733 pwoent wemtlf pwo4ml meouM pwwnl
Mewl tiwi36a
Nmtbwd Rear 176 170 138 138
oat Pwmxbw 57.00% al AM 67AM 71.00%
Roam Omped 29711 70.726 3a.7" 73.761
Avwspl RomlAm 36930 Sn30 5=25 3897$
Rall 51 6=
Note"Aml. 22.000 22.000 22.090 22.000
Om9wc7 Pwmwe9e 90.00% 90.00% 95.00% 95.00%
Twr Rw6 524.00 US." 52697 826311
060 SOW=
Na Lewdde 6300 6300 6580 6.500
O1MPNKV Paw mg 95.00% 95.00% 95.0096 95.00%
Twn Rot 821,00 325.44 32697 32x38
po"Sf1Ce8ts
ll Pwa,6g1 75.00% 80.00% 90.00% 90.00%
Lica Tmm Sp611w 66 80 80 95
NSM RM $030 3037 8036 $0.60
11ma61"A st 54 54 54
Lwq Tam 30199 74 74 74 74
956.10 5393$
541+6.1 Ram wo.00 357.00
Cmh Flew Pte0albnn
Now R1am,we
Rm+s 31.995.406 69.00% 32,781342 6660% 32.600313 67.40% !7309.702 68.60%
Foed eaww6pe S740.715 25.60+. =12.W5 26.70% S1,150A83 27.60% Sl332.910 26.70%
T4sp,ar S104,100 160% S113.021 3.40% 3137,559 130% S151.CL4 7.70%
Ccdww DgpW�Fyn 526027 0.90% $31341 0.90% W7516 0.90% 332377 0.982%
Oow J+ (Ne0 126027 090% 337347 000% 37]347 0.80% 177.510__ 0.00%
32,691,695 im.6ml 37,171.106 180.10% 51,169416 180.00% 31,899.517 180.10%
R1si iLvwws
7en=d Rens 5475200 5500.712 SSmim $507,414
065 Pmw
Twmd Rmw S548390 5157,092 slresla 3176.509
Po"Rw1sw1
p-lo, Few S102 796 3116 270 5136 ws S146921
TOW fww6 Pw $7,618.061 SA346332 15.077,135 55.613,790
Now Cam 006 ExP m
Rema s63s3a 51.60% 3695.790 29.60% 3232.969 MAO% 5732.053 25.30%
Fad wd 01w1rg4 s m.4" 95A0% 5787JO4 U]O% S695,4m 70.10% 1066516 78.90%
Tdlpl,er Sm 395 00.79% 5102 006 9530% S1 u sae 00.30% S1a W7 61.10%
$3."!99! 49.3 1 4 • .1a% 1.0091 am%
Naw crew 0)wmq U�w 51.47051/ sols% 61 JM.436 $4.61% $,401,790 SOAM 32.766.360 56.95%
NoW Undmb,eed Opwam Eaw,1w .
6,d fwnwd 7=A" 1130% 3261,095 10A0% 8396.000 9.50% $422.329 9.00%
1 0 S195.061 640% 3272,157 640% mo977o 6.40% M.32l C7
Br f46„4pnwm Fw Su7.37p gam 3274393 7.9001 $M.956
Enwg7 C� 9147.407 5.10% $159.05 4.60% 317$.073 430% $107.762 4.00%
Ptmwry 30wsm+wd flinmm,a 5103 379 S.xo% SIM 1u 4 3175 073 4.2075 5307 70:
s,,onAmo a aox 5!,300!07 a4.ov% 91906,900 31.40% s1,4+2,u7
Cwf Pe fan Now Opw+bsBlba 532Y.616 13.78 $775361 20.61% al.185310 20.44% $1317.= 26.85%
Fund Ch%Vw.Rlpwe d Fad
Awes,Dda Sr .and k m
Taus.
Rwd CAs wd Ewm
Rme Udms+md Cywwq E4ew4l
Adllw:www ad GwaM 394660 730% S37.770 730% 51296 7.30% "1.600 750%
►w
$ulse soox $15.111 3.00% $16.900 i os m.6�97 4.000%
Ems tsa 579.006 4.00% 520.1" 4.00% sa3w
P"W,,4w . Md 54.nN,1ma see 572 66071 300273 s oox "S M 600% us 615 6.00%
iWAt 30% 1=361 335379 laA o sox
Cws Fe foo R.si Cpwafms Be" x77,781 793001 UWAN 7130% 5d16.f60 7030% 5474.9« 7030%
Fmd dm,pw,R.pew,wd d Fad
A.SSW DW Swim,oW Iwww
Tun.
4141"
/ �J
u66 uw 7001 law uw 2000 toot
76309771 preens 0300771 pereent 4nnoawl peraenl 01004007 peroeet 4700917 percent 00004x,7 pero.nt 016304,771 pereent
tY In 138 136 tae 136
116
71.00% 14.00% 14.01% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00%
37274 77214 07$71 112 5 17271 37271 77214
S0425 $0.25 1325,00 $tun 1478.06 $125a3 $113.79
22.000 22.000 22.000 MON 22.000
22.000 x2.000 25.00% 95.00% 25.00% 05.00% 95.00%
00
95. % 06.00% � � y sax 342.25
f30= 33L12
6,300 aim 6-300 6,300 3-300 6.300 6.500
25.00% 05.00% 25.00% 05.00% 25.00%
25.00% 05.00% �� 3x.00 S" 14ox $42.25
300.30 332.7:
100.00% ,m.ar% 100.00%
100.0% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
66 66 m 66
6,e 66 Ge
10.67 0077 $0.73 1000 seen 25.25
$.13 S4 $4 16, 14 ss
54 54
74 N 74 74 N 74
74 $75.18 370.66 S84.47 sum
Ne.a 377.25
33.511.059 95.66% S3.723.930 60.10% 33.947266 31254 sa.,et.105 00.604. $4.435.152 cam% $4.701261 1360% 64.661.337 GS-SM
6384848484 2630.00% 111.36.309 26.50% 11324.820 26.50% 31.616.509 25.'40% $1.713238 2150% 31.816.025 26.50% $,.925.050 261.4%
1163.874 120% $173.707 320% 11184,129 320% $195.177 320% 3208.016 320% $218307 320% 327x.450 32M
144001 0.05% $.Sass 0.90% 351725 0.90% 04.079 0.9m 148-137 0.00% 597.673 0.90% $63.379 0.90%
140.966 0 a 63.27 O.sm 146,077 o.a0% 146794 000% 151722 0.60% 614825 CAM N3lu o.6a%
$5.121.072 27x3.SM-23.x8-337 ,00.00% 23.754.037 100.00% sso99279 100.00% 2.6,.63216 /00.002 36,653,150 700.00% 37264,339 100.00~
sm3m $671254 $7,1.529 $754221 $700,474 11317.443 son"
3107.066
312&= 3x10225 $3x2630 11276201 3250,084 3x1+.404
s,noa 3,13.71 3194420 Smoot 3218459 %77,507 $349 461
311,.470 $6,481210 SeAmto $7217.4$3 s7.7M" sataLsm 36,671.423
304.791 24.0% 30272% 24.00% 3252JM 24.00% i1.641A42 34.00% 61.114267 24.25% $1.170.614 24.00% 31240.251 24.90%
Yerrae66 7140% 31.127.763 70.40% 37.125A3e 7aa% $1267,166 7140% SI.3W17 7140% 3t AI7At0 78.40% 31.563270 Mam
$m om 25.002 s+as 105 m m% $ham do 00% $759 742 m 00% 3125 570 25.002 3173641 $705 ae7 u x%
4rrr4er % 763.063 .0.417 1.421 $2461.1 0 AGA%% 11.060 1.42% 66.
sao654 see% 1477.60 aeo% 1406,356 m s�73 !AM 25664."0 6SAM% SSWI772 SAM S63OLM13 aaaws
$727.740 6.40% 33474N SAO% 2.761256 630% 1443AN 630% SWJHS2 690%
$132A70 630% W52Aa 690% 3374,012 6511% 1306,413 630% 7470240 _ WWWO 3.0^
2.100722 390% $211705 3.00% $224407 39M 077672 1.00% >CL'12 Y 1.90% f02 n 300% $x25 30 2.90%
11,11.716 70.50% $1,661,7184 2930% 31,007641 19.50% s1.701287 2990% 1.257241 29-'q*
320x7,079 233v% 32742,925 20.50%
08484846400 -2025.74% 31.62x m 30.06% 31.730.964 30.01% s1ANA'a 30.08% 61.7184.631 30.0% 32.061.606 30.00% MISS.= 30.00%
$47.494 730% 00.344 730% 141-395 750% N6,367 790% SKM 790% 591.370 730% $67272 730%
$18-906 3.00% $30.130 11.10% 3x1,1.6 a.00% 322.6x7 3.00% $31.979 4.00% MARS
4.o� � 4.0001%
t21.3m 4.00% s26em 4.0% $3em1 4.013% 130.166 4.ao% 131,079 1.00% 131.668
07905 600% $40275 600%7 .6 147607 600% $45153 600% $4790 6.00% 230147 a 44 Mo 20.,
1129.816 20.50% 10 20 1184!.061 10.5016 14
11 .615 50% 16.1,690 30.50% OUR
2301.440 70.--V% 3173647 7030% 1365.60 7930% N6am6 70.50% 367138 79.50% 3673,717 79.so% $714.140 79'40%
u,uN
1111 1992 toss
'NAM"t paroant mount paraant .mom paroaat so4sant paroanl
Cts Cam 1.M Ewms
O9ka un&w4Y0 CpardY9 Eap-
A dnkr99t9 rd Gaaard s11.115 ?M% $11.782 7.01E $12.489 7]916 317Z 8 7.%%
Emu Car $5.929 4.90% $5291 4A0% $6.691 4.60% $7.060 4.00%
p�6 � se 1102 $00x 39976 1.00% f0 601 1.00% 310 sol 6.60%
CpWXd=-d iso 1 ]076 $27,991 1 ]ox 341 1 59x $70.ta9 1
e..YFl0a9rno6sgprdlaaaDat9a $122266 8439% $130.®1 8254% $127377 9250% 5196.620 62]0%
Said CIr9K FISOMPOMMIS d Flrd
Nmad.Dao Sra14 ant Y10ar
Tana.
Pow Com rd Eapasaa
PaNY,9 UrAwbmd OpraW19 EpasmS
P+9prM QarMen.td 9t:rarhs $,40000 0758% 5108444 9120x. $112760 9107% 5719102 81.07%
Caa6FYr9aapr"90PrafrrBNda SL7M 2.77% 310.00 se0% 526295 MOM 327Oto 1&03%
Raid C g,,.p pk,,,T d d Frd
Nada,Dad Sanas,rd Yams
T9saa.
Cr6 Flea YmTdd Oprisa 9.aa SMAaS 29.99,6 51235]3$ 20m% 3/.707.197 31.68% ST.00220 35.97%
Fsad Chas,PgAmo sta d Fard
Naha,Did 3ws.1.M Wh m
Taama.
Find Chr9s
Ptoprq Tasty $137,$91 1.10% 1!$7]61 t.1o% 5137361 1.10% $157391 t.lo%
137 $137.+99 2.90% 5161.927 2.60% 5191.911 2.09,6 3213.7411 2.60%
FF&E Flr.a 229919 1.00% 560424 2.00% 5135052 7.0ox f1W 776 7.00%
5722. .W% $796.978 &00% N 4, 90+6 37.666
CsYFla9raT4d OPrai G4iw. 3571.979 15.07% WCAG6 20.91% %1=147 2627% SIAM.= 26]5%
Rmpa mamem d Fled Nsd,Dad Sara:$
and 1m Tara
Rapmoaaaaa4 d FN
uad auta 376 161 1.00% S®424 7.00% S125052 700% 2190 778 7.00%
Prgamd Gash Flea Own N OPa SSW297 14.23% 5797.671 1670% 31,198.005 22.79% 31.349,697 24.05%
Daiwa Oda Sarais and,nopnr T4s
Eniatrmd C9a1 519.996.95.7
Daft Palmad 3200 704 S2 099 704 S2090 7M 17 099 7d
bnraa Am 1050x.
20 Year d9m9airl Prmd
u_ ••Fla.Mrt Dad Daiwa Lama. (31359.909) (St 702.037) (5961.610) (5749.861)
lam pay-ta
RaYn 9.00x.
m m m 30
Case Floaepro mespoNarl asa...esa
&Aft We(Nor 10)
add"xaYr 529.616.902
rants a•ry
Data PapormId 318.901.067
5%Disosran Com S1 991.795
wt Sraa Papaw Y.+]+,,v
uuhd
loos 1006 1967 lots Igoe 2000 7601
4116aa44t parOOnt swo0nt pero.4lt 64 ~t pMOM% 60104611 per~1 Sm"ne p"O"t 4460644t p4a l 4477 t psra.nt
514.032 7301E S14,874 7366. 113.767 7-SA)% $14713 730% 517.716 7-SM S14779 730% 514996 730%
57.484 1.007E 57.933 4.00% 39409 4A0% 54914 4.00% WAO 4A0% $10.015 4.09% $10.619 4.0011.
f11226 6.00% 171900 6.00% 172613 6.00% $13770 mA 1730% 1.1.776 165011 $1502 130% SEM 16.E
572,42 374.70 1 • % 356.769 1730% $36.997
S151337 6230% S163.616 0230% 5173.435 52.50% $135.841 62.30% 3184.672 6239% $=GAN 124.4% 1216.9611 62.50%
5/262.6 72.96% 517762] 72.96% 61416.4 72.041. 5130387 72.06% S1S07BS 71.06% sles"s 72.00% $179063 72.96%
544792 27.046 $49.600 27.04% 572.376 27.01% 915.771 27.01% 359.074 27.04% 1626111 27.01% 3168.376 27.01%
/416.444 -166384% SLMBSO 30.72% 9242.641 36.71% S267S.M 36.72% S2JO4A79 76.72% 17,001306 38.72% 17.161.776 36.72%
3157361 1.10% 5157381 1.10% 1137361 1.10% 5757381 1.10% $137367 1.10% 5157301 1.10% 51573111 1e0%
5754976 2A0% 5246" 7.60% 6261.066 7AO% 5276,735 3.60% $294336 3.60% 1510.017 3.60% 5320300 3.60%
513362 300% $54263 1.004. 357340 100% 560007 100% 364652 1.60% 166332 1.00% 577643 1.00%
S474160 4 0% 5454,55 m% -34)*'00 .90% 3.07.306 SAM 153m 3.90% 177.359 .9v% 467 3190%
...41.//./16 .1697.62% $1.991.605 26.61% 52044451 26.70% 52174693 20.02% 67.716,870 70.04% 52.467,437 70.16% 52.624.060 70.26%
$157632 3.00% $162650 300% 5172627 300% 9162976 7.00% 5193257 3.00% $203595 3.004. 5217030 7.00%
��11uwn1. -1696.14% $1.738.843 27.14% 11.677.,810 27.27% $1.006.715 27.40% $2.124.912 77.57% 52361.062 27.64% 52.407020 27.73%
uov97w uo997w $200704 520007" $2099704 92o90704 S2M704
(3510.650) (5223.674) (S107.970) $23308 5162156 5707.321
35
>o so so 22269 5,.304 527.639
P1a fie
Cwavoctla0 CON$ SF baa $I SF Tolal
Ir6rvdAW Fr�O
67.$759 $4.519.7!5
065
HOW PAM 61.553w $4 mw0
� 9.555 $54.00 $Mo5
Cedweas FaaSti Aaddwokn 5A55 $7100 3857.550
Fad srww 9.LM $142.00 $1.156,005
Fwd 9.55 $54.9.5 t1.186,000
0" X0.505 $54.55 049.000
C$6
29.55 $54.00 $135.005
11.45e
Memo11.555 575.55 3:.335.500
PiftA1aa
$
$4,hwmdr«�Al 73.555 9.255 vea�
Simhlgol.n+aa4t3}25y4s
TOW
CrrA1$Cad
$676773
MdAKKww Awn-4 yy5n $/73,34
rwko&opr""'S 9.505 $67$777
Calm . 16ra�nwa 31.65%9
TOW
Faaed
Fowa"Cem 1540% Q30Z72
ae��F. 1.55$ $111.915
ea11e1.mm Lam km� 11son $+.673.517
pr�ars La Fa Loon 151}+3
m p3WS64 $$17!730
lamgCa
a $14,9.05 $656.555
Pa" 736 $4.500 6n.000
Vrsiq rW lFa44 $3.65.450
316AWSM
Tod Cad
W14/98
' Cmwl 2tr4w1 C. tw
sm 14419 G41146n16 SGT 9
No7405tr6Ntro„t R4t6V7Pw" toll lost lass toss
pOH %6omw4ptiong mart pwamt mwnl pr,rnl mw,d pw6 l wwnt pww"t
NOW 674f%ia
mwdwd Rom0 176 tit 130 131
cmagumv Pwm ftot 57.00% 61.00% 47.001E 71.00%
A., OmiP4d 71.711 30.726 17.748 35.767
Au4eup4 Row"Rr4 SM}o $77.50 =323 90673
ROW fidi46m
77200 17304
p47l4wWN 90� 0p0�67.00% 0A0%
Ompur.7 P4,on64p4 627.00 67326 =60 05.01 .
T41�a 74819
pw"6,4015=
Udbxbm PwOPOP 75.00% mA0% 90.00% 90.00%
43 43 4a
6700"Alm 5049043
mai mss SOSO
Nwl7 R4r 34 S4 54 57
HOW~
97
LD%T
7 p .
97 190. FUM 350.00 �m mals as .
246 Flow Projewon6
NOW Ro4mao4
Rmn■ 27.00.406 69Ao% O=242 66.60% 32.6"315 47,6% 030.709 ea40%
Food A B4+w694 =40.375 25.60% $012.925 2630% 31.150.423 27.60% 67292.910 26.70%
T I pl1 3104.108 3.60% a114}%O am% $237}99 2.30% $150.183 ata%
Codw. C4pmmri 0440 626.027 0.90% 171241 0.00% 637}16 0.90% $42377 0.90%
oslr 6�w 1009 aA 627 OR s113a, 090% 693 Su 0.90% $373" 02
O1691,6a0 190.ao% 0!71.190 /90.00% 14.160,.79 100.00% 14,692347 10000%
gtti R4..waw
Tw,wd Rwd4
6775.060 SNOW 170}52 6"6.685
P4q R4.4nw4
P F.r 366070 3100540 31+000 V27000
Tad am*R4wnw4 0307.924 0.01430 14.673.677 25=0.=
N4w1 Cas 4"d E404mr
Fk" 36a6}at 31.90% s6O,790 26,00% 9752.40 26.00% W2.00 26}0%
Fam wd 1...4p SWAM 23.40% Os7A4 @&.am mo4am 70.10% 1069346 7600%
Timet- 62330 90.70% 190667 9030% 6174566 6.1]0% 6121791 61.10%
1,41,7M 69.77% 1 i ai 1% 1,6 6.024 40.16% 1,912 409
NW Gm cpwWq 166"00 S1�A}l1 50.65% 20.623,461 54.GO% 2a4W323 50,04% 0.770.106 5OAM
H"V"6a0Md Cpwan Epww44
Adnonkiwafte mdCWnNW 0036/ 1130% 00.005 70.40% 009.00 93M s42732a 100%
W�q 6765.017 660% *=.157 640% SM770 sae% Om32a 640%
Bme WOPWAN Fee 057370 6.90% 074335 7.00% 006.61 7.10% Oupt 670%
Fa0 Caw 9147A1T 3.10% 2159,675 4.60% $175.71 436% 00.709 4.00%
peprM(y.wle,w/4.,wrr nSoaA stO,M 6.70% H73 073 420% %
370702 4.00
11.072.23 a7.+o%5.]011 a,1103079,304.623 a+.4p+. r.•1¢ 70.+0%
W Row ftm Nwt 4>w, 044'• SWAt$ 13.73% 9719=3 20.00% 21.10}1a Ze, % $1.677.706 21B.OME
Fmd C11war.R4d4oww d Fra
Am44 DM SWWMK ad b" M
Tm4.
Raw Cao%and E1pmr
Rrd 161A1palmad Rw"E1pww•4
Adm mW 324367 790% O.O" 7.50% $24 } 6.
016 70 $70.01 73
4,d Crmd 0%
W�q 90.79: 600% stays io0% $2730 100% f163347 4.OM
E"wa7 Cm 213.023 4.00% $13.783 6.00% $15.422 _
P,Wwy�4a 400 l,",4,w„a $10 505 6 oa% $20 675 s 00% m t27 2asoA% �w 601 690%
,6.1 6 .640
Cie Rw pw„ROM CPW y 641'4 as4439 7030% 073.245 7990% 00314 7930% sm.903 70 im
Fiwd Gmva PIO a .w d Fmd
Am4m 0490 Swr1o4.wd 690"00
T4 .
.1666
toss 1996 1997 1N& logo 1000 2901
MOW1 PM9M1 MOWI pwfe l MOW1 pw~t MMMT PMO4414 MOW1 pMOM11 MMM1 pMOM1 MOW1 pereeet
139 139 136 135 136 130 136
74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.00% 74.09% 71.001E
37.274 37274 37274 37274 37374 37.274 37274
30425 SOOM $105.90 $11225 2110.90 $126.13 213170
17200 17290 17200 17200 17200 17200 172M
56.50% 90.50% 90.oM 15.09% 05.99% 90.OM MOM
12631 $2L19 3x0.79 33136 33.1.47 315.49 '$37.61
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
43 43 43 43 43 43 i3
0.13 19.57 30.71 30.75 30eD 306, 30.90
64 M S4 34 54 54 54
07 O7 97 07 97 97 97
90.12 $66.91 370.0 175.10 37VAO $84.47 SM34
11}13.056 6499% 54723.139 6160% sk"7XIM G&W% 14,184,100 69.90% $4.415.112 6LOOlE 14.791.261 66.49% $4,941.317 66.90%
$1,757.0M 2019% $1,34300 363016 $4324,879 263016 SIAM" 26.10% s1.7132ae 26.59% 31.614090 26.50% $1.923.0510 76.50%
310.574 329% 3173.707 320% 6184.129 329% 31/4177 320% S2040M 329% =19.301 320% S=450 320%
344000 9,90% $44853 0.99% 351.766 0.904L 354.804 0.999 04167 OAM 261,679 CAM 365.379 0.90%
$48990 0.99% $43477 aaox $46032 080% $45704 o.eo% 35175 9.202 EN aso% :sells 064%
35,121.017 190.90% 35.424.U7 190.00% 35.714.037 100.09% $4050279 100.502 14465236 100.00% $6:651130 190.002 37364.339 .190.002
3433200 5450.190 $464751 3511,956 SU6.913 LS79M $614511
$149664 f1se676 3165197 11782M Sias M SM325 $2773+
15.703.973 34548212 56.404.964 366793317 37201.115 97.611203 :4091106
s574,751 24.99% SWUM 34.90% 2902670 34.90% 31.641642 24.90% $1.1845$$ NAM 31.170.04 24.90% 31340.651 24.99%
$1.090.054 79.4a% $1.13.711 73.40% 31.196.430 1740% $4257,786 7540% $1243317 79AM 31.423610 74499 $1,109239 75.40%
$131090 90.099 $376085 m.oa+c 147390 90.90% $1$610 m00% $185$90 90.001. $17$131 00 !a 90.002
13069.904 40.52% 3X190.090 40.+x% $2323632 4042% $2.4 .i 0 Y..M $2.611060 4004x% $2,s9,a4s 40, 514657 40..x%
$1657284 so.se% 91x"2" 5035% $X424403 543&% i1L4.109 3036% 13.90$12 50-M% M.0612as so-%a% $4228382 39.33%
$50.454 seg% $477,094 Leo% 1346335 seg% S134737 Leo% 15"", &60% "non ae9% :630257 seg%
3377.740 GAO% 3347.44 ane% 3358x58 449% 13902$9 644% $911775 QA0% "XSM a40% 3464.948 6.40%
132ZS70 &39% 11.51x2 630% 1374.012 650% 3354451 Lao% $920240 63ME 3445.436 $50% $47•X102 639%
319475 3.99% 1x1/,705 329% 905407 30% SwAn 390% sari" &AM 9287273 3990E 3,90209 SAM
f19477x 390% 1x11706 799% !2x4407 390% Sal&7! 709% Sax,tY _3.111% 1267273 32 SM.300 190%
$1310.716 29.101E f7.m1239 2930% 91097.481 29.509 3/,79626 x9.• % $1007241 7930% 3$021679 29�ME 12.1Q 39 i0%
31349352 30.0016 31631065 30.0&% $1.174964 30.00% 31,0461.2 30.00% 17044,911 3D.OM 13061000 3o.os4 $2.165,30 NAM
351490 733% 04.440 730% 134506 73016 354.077 739% $41.010 739% $41Am 730% $44096 75M
312.004 3.00% $11776 3.00% su.Mo 3AM $15.470 3.00% 114457 109% 317202 350% 374435 3.00%
$172x5 4.00% sla35e 4.00% sloAn 460% 9x0.845 4.09% 121677 4.09% a11ap 409% $2430 4.00%
$7$002 e00% $272$2 so&% $29290 600% $30057 600% 11x212 ao9% 2347M a.ao% 236671 600%
Mom P. 384.136 6 % 394 M 2030% if 1 30.74% (112.11 20.• % 114844 it .9 70.301E
f3M,790 71.79% 066.00 7939% $704967 7930% $410,185 79.50% s4u.795 79.99% "MOM 70.50% 3484537 71.5016
4/11/84
I- � 1
7
Uft 1f$x 1113 1990
meets pereent mellnl pw~i m~q pmeent meewd PO10OM
P"ft Ces od EmPwt
PW1q UMOtWddl7PwdkVE* +
PQM opmad 1101d 6W1aMd1Y 5100000 11205% 5706000 105A2% S1123W 07.71% 1110.102 03.7M
CwkPw*dPwwr4ck 10I BNae (511.071) -12AS% P5.451) Sex% 57.061 621% VA17 620%
Fad COn6a PAoww wad FOW
Ago^DNS Sinefa.ml Bann
Te
1.36 Fs Sed TOW Opwaim Belpe ""0 m 1051% 5066,707 2520% SIAGGA60 12.00% $1.60D.611 37.31%
Fad wfa•F oomwrwdd Fad
Amb.Deet 8nv1a.a0�n
Tur.
Rx d D woo
p�1117Tee10 S175A10 1.10% $125,010 1.10% S12S.M0 1.10% $125.010 1.10%
$175A26 &W% $10sim x.60% 517707 &ao% 3706677 3.ae%
FiaE petnw3260 t.ao% s6o lxe x.00% s12S 051 a.00% S1007)6 3.00%
6xaoau07i7wa50 600% ab% M66?63 1.00%
Ca6F *mT0ld Dpnetad Bebe S30= 11.67% 56MM IGA1% SIAM= 72.1% 612x5244 23.03%
RWWwrwM d Fad Aaeq DNA 5n
eed bma Ta
aptmlad dFrd Ael� 533060 100% SMA20 7.00% S125,052 3.00% 1700.7/6 3.00%
PmpMdCah Pb 6p ASCpeldlpn 533/470 10.03% SM.760 10.M% 500.017 2021% 31.001472 20.74%
Bebe odd SA ad Oma Tme
6dnmd Cal 1NA06706
oem Pe7ne10 31 644 731 S1,646,731 S1 US 731 s1 6"731
bred Am 1030'7.
30 Yew A11v@a00 Perird
----�C"h Foe Abr DdABebe ter 31.315-x56) a1A73.51M (9700.71M) piSa2250)
L a P,ad.
a1 0.00% ss >o m
^Bb COM Fee 11 N*d(10 Ten) (5.7.66Z70)
BW&Q$de(Yen 10)
A -- .V ho SMAW,317
Copm 61*%
omplpffv a SUAa.706
5%c6peejepn Cem st 100 366
5101 5d"Pnlaede 17.716244
•1066
I r
t 664 11N ,../ 1666 U66 ---a 2921
0444041 peweM ane4et pwe t meets percent me t .042444751 meant pff9 t me t percent mw4et percent
$126246 6434% $13432 6434% 5741652 at 2m $15630 6634% 1115030 84.34% $166.046 64.34% _$170.061 64.34%
$23.447 15.66% 1124.04 1a.em Sze" 15.41% $27.975 15.66% 820.601 15.61% 01.377 19.46x. sum 15.6911
$1.006.307 33.46% S2.02Z.001 33.46% 62144375 3.46% ZL272.232 33.46% $x.400.306 33.46% Sx513,aee 33.46% S2.7o7JM 33.46%.
$125.210 1.10% $125.210 1.10% SM910 1.10% sysou 1.10% $125.010 1.10% 11121010 1.10% 3125.910 1.10%
3216.751' aeon MOMS. 3.49% S243MI 360% 5254154 340% 5273.643 3eo% 11290.062 Se0% 5307.465 340%
sw a>z 3.0044 ss4 zm 1400% 757 s4o 1.00% teo vo' I.00x $444544 1400% sax 1.90% S72 GO IAM
75$,x61 so% 820 sox S4xas0x sox .ox aso% 11+64 .0044 aso% 5506.01 .0044
$1512105 24.76% 31.612.052 26.66% 51.717344 21.7044 $1.07.a75 21.91% 111.045.103 27.01% 52960.30 75.11% 52321,080 27.20%
1110432 SAM S162e50 3.00% 51728221 3.00% 5162976 3.0044 11121957 3oox smsoa 3.00% $x17750 3.00%
51x54472 32.08% 21.450.102 23.01% $1.144.60 24.10% $1.444.807 2+31% 111.751.146 24.32% 61,663,766 24.42% $1.0611$0 24.51%
$1646731 51646731 $1646751 61646731 51646731 $1646731 51646731
tS3642s01 tslas.sm (SIMOS61 01.041 5194.414 $217.037 Sv441e
so so so so $0.397 $10}821 $30376
41466
I-93
1
Cansim"boii.Cwtn $F:4M {I9F Told.:
.. 'Uwid Flo dPmYYq 67373 '$no {1.511.7$0
lmlfese _ 61,W3 (7100. {1319,093
"DW Am kisras011 4979 04" 094300
Fa09f7i+b 11.90 $142JW f1A39A•70
17,200 Swum f079A09
tiiaf..._. '
Itia011CIb - 7309 0130 i135,000..
PMlOAm _20310, 07199 $MAN
►10 M7 17.900 Sam f$90A00
Sb 'fNQ000
199,00
CanvWas CCFU TOW ..
S.00% SMX7
ism 3372.(22
r wed+ SM16 S532317-
Fwd Tam.
�Ca4>e _ 150% $11172$1 .
Calelnmon lm F.a 03011.' St2GA76 _ .
i0301r: ftZe1776
P�naiiie UnFw fA0% f120A36 .
f4.s .F. $77 ,400
PONLei9 05i1 $14,000 571.000
Peh�q' M Lieu Fw4 119 74.000 - $173.000
33.613.101' .
TaA CaY 3NA0$,709 .
F11 B9
court Street Center
San Wr OOIaPa. Gl9omr
Re1altlON1aerLYaury AperamenaParkIng
Project Aewmp0ons 1901 1092 1095 1096
amount percent amount percent exeunt percent unould percent
Apntrtrnr
16maadt IND 22 23 23 23
Olmpal57 Padenage 17.00% 23.00% 52.09% 70.00%
ToOyry poly 5900.00 1951.09 31.01126 $1.071.01
Rates SaOrla
No Leaner 731266 33261 33.266 77266
sampan►pomanavo 99.99%. 90.00% 95.00% 95.99%
Toram Rem 126.00 32161 126.97 0030
Was Salrtlo
Not Lea»tlr 32.617 72677 32.633 72.613
Ocm arwp pacon1a96 05.00% 95.00% 95.091. 9400%
Tota Neal 526.00 325.44 326.97 321138
peanumm Sta atb
No Leaamb S.a71 1029 7.820 7.029
0sprpatb7 petpnage 100.006 95.00% 05.00% 05.00%
Tonin Rax - $17.60 51644 Mm 520.72
Pamft Statistics
y,Apa01a Paprnge 75.00% 80.00% 90.00% 90.00%
Slim Term Spowee 117 117 117 117
Nha y,par $0.50 50.57 $0.56 80.60
pbanipyook 511 SA 51 56
Lop Tan" nn 27 27 27 23
Mwq R6 359.00 35300 556.16 35935
Cash Flats Projections
Aparawd Reamer Ma0
Tarts Ron 33.519 $7,650 512.091 $17258
%era peeraM
Torre porn $718,502 5761,617 1652.160 3903280
Mae Ra
Tory poor 5761,032 37M,676 SM.005 5856.151
peaauam pwaame(Nag
Tory Root1 396.03 567,080 $71.115 575,7at
Pahap Rewama .
PW"FOM 5111551 5151 am 5150969 $100971
Tota0e7M Re.ear 51.590.603 51.70x.968 51.050219 51.90793
RPW Ger am Eq wasso
A&A t81daONM Operating E+pmtw
A6maaQaOM am GWMM 551,960 7.50% 557,121 7.50% 761.012 739% 567,767 7.59%
mokawo MASS 100% S2L3Q 3.00% $25,363 5.00% 327.000 100%
Envy 006 721.710 1.09% 330.1113 1.hp% cm ose 1.00% 536.122 6.00%
proponF l70enaa ooc nrlre.o. f13 170 6.001E 315697 509% 331 13D 6.007E fll 197 a 00%
11 156.131 30% 1 1,M3 30% 145.1 6 20.50%
Grt Five can PAW Oprabs 6raae $5712= 79.50% 5606,182 7030% $677.667 70.50% 1710.115 79.50%
Fein O7rgM.Ryrartrta d Feed
Aanq 011 S6rota.and Ittaar
Tales.
Oma tiOb and Exmnrw
0580,taaoft"d OOeraI ElpeoeM
AdMMWGUVOM end OrAnd SWAM 730% 350.151 7.50% Sq7= 730% 5611.10 7.50%
El-"G6 524.761 6.00% $31.517 6.00% 523.660 6.00% 533446 Cam
Pmpsny OperaaM atd Make aemr 116642 6.00% L7>20 x.00% 370160 8.00% 337160 6.00%
$130.206 17.50% 3135,018 13916 3110200 1730% 31ss,977 17.500.
Gln Fbo 0000 OIaM OPWWWr Boon 0613.677 0150% Sa70.p6 82.50% 3669,696 8230% 5731,077 92.So%
FSM Cl apM.Rapranrm of Fees
Assets,OVA Serobs.and Ittmrr
Tem
1 1•aE
/-ISO SO
lots lose 1997 tots loft 1000 7001
amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent amount percent
23 23 23 23 23 23 23
01.00% 01.00% 01.07% 61.60% 61.0716 61.00% 9ta7%
6117677 $1.201.40 $1.276.67 31=27 $1.434.46 31,32037 $1.611.76
33.264 33.264 33.264 33.264 33.264 33.264 37.264
95.00% 03.07% 03.07% 95.00% 05.07% 03.00% 03.00%
370.30 $7212 Mat $38.00 $2.27 M0M 14295
32.635 32.6n 32631 32.637 32.633 32.913 32633
95.00% 95.00% 95.07% 95.07% 95.00% 95.77% 95.00%
170.30 $31.12 Mad x36.06 63615 $4033 $6296
3.820 3.a29 7.88 2029 3.020 3029 3.670
03.07% 95.0016 05.00% 95.00% 95.07% 63.00% 95.07%
221.07 $2170 $74.69 528.16 $27.73 M40 331.16
100.07% 100.07% 100.07% 10000% 100.07% 100.00% 100.00%
117 117 117 117 117 117 117
$0.67 s0.67 30.71 s0.75 $0.80 60.84 S0.O
74 54 54 M $4
54 23 23 23 23 M 27 23
$63.12 56691 700.93 273.16 $70.69 $84.47 $49.54
$277a1 M.M $26.721 (29.324 $30.027 231.$25 $37,734
$037.487 s1014.0m %1,075.022 $1.140.362 21.200,805 s1791yV 61.358713
5079.324 $995.661 31.035.424 $1.116.750 $1.165.670 $1757.027 $1,032.40
s70.0a $66.600 sa6.781 $95.167 11100.477 %111;,950 $117.746
=4007 tag 295 $252 595 2267 746 S283813 $700 442 $318M
%2145300 $2774.122 i2410.570 $23»764 $270ea14 SZ@71.9a $7.047789
371812 737% $76,120 7.50% $%0.687 7.50% $85.520 7.57% $90.61% 7-%M M.lm 7.50% $101.966 737%
$29.723 30o% 33%449 3.00% $32275 300% $34.211 307% s3a2a 190% 234.440 300% $0.746 3.00%00%
138700 407% sww 4.07% 95.033 4.00% $45.815 4.00% SA= 4.00% $51737 4.00% 134=
%574ao s.o0% foo aw 3.07% $64350 6.00% $68423 Sam 329 e.0a% 379 efo 2olr% wl 3 6.50%
,0679$ So% 062 ams .sts So% 4 20.0% 4. p16
$701702 79.501, $806p74 70.50% $955767 79.57% $005.604 79.57% $661.000 79.7% $1.954.695 70$74 31.070.700 79.57%
370.46 7•0% $74.679 7.5016 :79,157 7.7% $63.000 7.50% N&Odl 730% $642" 7.57% :00.004 730%
x37.5774.00% 979927 4.07% U2 17 4.07% 54.750 4.00% $47.435 4.00% 950.261 4.00106 %9708 4.00%
$36.250 9 ao% :50741 s.o0% 395 m 90016 $6712$ 4.00% $71151 647% $7$421 17sm6 �Cm 0i7 li sm
s1M]62 17x0% $1747%5 17.57% $iME 17.7% $100.781 17.57% $20,52.0 1730% 3219.980
$n4.042 4250.. se2+!70 %250% $470.725 %2.57% sw2aw 8230% SOM347 47.30% 51.077A47 4230% $1.095770 $2.50%
411-'ae
7993 199= 1094 1994
amount percent amount percent amount Percent ateoonl Percent
Pa&"Cod and Expaeaaa
Paaeq 18ds7E1aad CPsm"E737CINa
PmPs67 Dyata0a1 and Makfisnanea S100000 7468% $106,000 7020% $112360 6x4C% 5119107 6240%
Csl Flsraam Pat"CPKS"m Baba 333,351 2112% 30).002 2020% SW,709 77.604 371.772 37ACM,
Fbwch,0aa,Ft pavnra of Pere
Aaaaa,Date sanb.ane 1axe11a
Tama
Cara Fbraan TGWOPN§dwa Balae !1266.779 60.37% 31,375.000 60.51% 51,516.061 60.74% S1,61a.604 80.76%
Pere orlon.FWpMowwM a Pere
Anna Date Saab,am 7manm
Taxes.
Flied Clrgea
P70pr4 Tama $114,147 1.10% $114,147 1.10% $114,147 1.10% $114,10 1.10%
Isvana 3®765 7.606 361 W1 3.80% 571152 9.60% 575908 180%
51 4,0.12 3779,088 4.90% 3165,399 4.00% =-:: 420%
Cal Fter9am tam OPaseare.da $1.113,797 69.63% 51796.871 70.00% $7,332,482 70.86% SIAM" 71.29%
gdranra a FemAnea Date Srlrb
arae aasar Tale
RapbaNn"dFaod Assam 315,903 100% W4179 x00% 156410 3.00% SS0227 100%
Pmp1f10 Cal Flaw Ban ANCpameoaS S1.0W.601 68.63% 31,162.647 68.03% 31.274073 6726% $1,484,672 6628%
Belaa Date 6aMea ene income Taus
ESONVea CAN $13.176221
Om P@pMd $1456348 11456348 $1456348 31,456,348
mrea 113 1090%
30 Year AernOaWa Perme
Cal Fbr Air Oete 6alsm te++e (3168.s47) 8293,70e) (5780375) 897.726)
Lear Pa7nrrs
plus 9.00% m S9 $0 50
Cal Fbr Aber Maas (3158.547) et20.1,706) (2180275) (392,726)
Cal RM to Pmpe(10 Year) f7,446,463
Buaaq Sam(Year 10) .
yW 325.748,463
Co RON 6.33%
0461gsPa141rr 513,176=
3%ONPWWn Cam S1.297.423
mr Same PmOaaS $17,264,819
:n u6A
logs logo toga logo ton 3000 3001
*,,punt percent am,,nl percent @m@*nt percent saou*t percent amount percent @Mount percent smunt percent
$138 36187E !133623 56.10% S141,8!2 5618% 3130363 56.16% $150365 36.16% $164046 56.16% f1700a3 W11%
sgS.W 43.84% $104,473 4168 $110.741 41go% $117.305 46a4% $134.430 43.64% $131AG4 43.84% $130.60 43.8m
31.735.100 51.03% $1.642.693 $1.01% 31.933.234 01.03% 32.070.449 61.00% 32.194,676 al Ain 32.336,356 81.03% S2.463,g78 81.03.
!111,147 1.10% S1K147 1.1016 $114.147 1.10% $114,147 1.10% $114.147 1.10% $114.147 1.30% s114.147 1.10%
$51 s3s 320% SBB 417 18016 So1600 1@016 7W 496 18016 St 824 1ao% 3100090 ].ea% S113645 190%
t0, 4 3300.764 4.80% 3205.49 4.90% 7245 4.80% $31 . 1 4.03% 46 4.90% 3229,703 4.00%
S1.342717 MGM $7.642.125 7221% $1.747.705 7740% $1.850.204 72.76% $7,077,60 73.01% $2.103.110 7123% $2.236.146 73.48%
$64,382 3.00% SIMIAM 100% $72.317 3.00% 376 an 100% $61255 3.00% 306131 3.00% 501 290 3.006
$1476455 65.91% 311'73.005 6021% $1.677.1® 60.40% $1.7a2.540 60.76% $1.805.110 70.016 32.019.979 7029% !714.547 70.46%
ft 476 345 S7 456 348 S7 456 348 31 456 3Y 31 456 346 $1,456.3" S7 456 348
�sa.007 $117.557 1218.84D $726.200 S440,002 1760.633 $668.400
ft 981 310 seal S196a Q0 358 S30,600 S50457 S61,965
$106.977 $190.145 s296.642 s40a402 $510.175 s626.s14
- SF An. f I SF TOW
c.npluelle. e..1. CLM S2soo s1.6si.7w .
L%dwy,anl.POW4 27.600 smoo szom.670
Howls" SUN Moo s1.796M6
p. 3-om Sne.00 54315.10
W
F.pyg.we0.S@rAW 32.633 Moo 31.76;162
cow 11.40 Moo S36U40
m"Upaus.me. 23.193 3x00 S'XA-C o
tamymAM S140aoo
ss.l 106.400 .s .003
Tool
COn,A m Coo 5.09% SOS.=
AfddNlW 55.00% $4 25 1 .
C"Wwabn►vnnow 3.50% S=los
6 —2u 5.w
TOW
Fl—,. 1.50% s163.046
3106.60.
Fa'mn0«4 0.W%1.00% S1.141.310
�ucw La F.O. - 11.30% 5106.600 .
(.RWAN L w F 1o1.14w WS.F..00% S206A37
L'oom.14 n1 74.SOI 122
0'p 1a s4.000 3406 000
PN.q In Ll.0 Food ��=
513,17627
Tow CAM
I
a
nowtDeMMSm
Sm t4W Odbroa tylrMtd.
•tf07ddblo RN IVP•.t1s0
Pro�eN Aoniteple test 7007 tiff tees
817400tH Pendent awn+ pmoent ttmWM Pm6ent mwM twwM
MWA"Sada
Nae.d Utef 42 42 42 42
omowwr PWO d6fo 7000+4 00.00% aSAM 95.00%
Taal Ra steam s07M $93697 SMUG
PAW SLmbgks
Ret L MMR. 17200 17.200 17.200 17200
O,mqwKw Pana•a• 90.00% 00.00% 95.00% 00.00%
TeM+d Red 917.40 $ta44 MOM $29-72 .
Pdttla$SdmeO
ILOasm Paou•9• 75.005 00.00% 90L0% 00.00%
shwaaa SP•••• 85 6't m 93
Itt14p R7. mx 0093 SO." 00.99
11awAYoe'. 5,1 54 sr st
LOMTa spd 56 55 35 55
Matdd7 Rue $50.00 moo MIS a935
CMB Ftan Projwod n
Ra.np R.r.iao
Tend Reis $+4.774 $+4700 Q1,026 922260
Reoe7 Resod
Tan Rena Qm.M2 $285.513 33+9.437 sa7e.02s
PaayRmaof
Pa.q F« $114 755 5120 164 3+54 692 2167 295
Tad Gr .Rmaoe $104351 s133.4m staSx 9524206
HwA"Cos and EAPDm
WWA"uttdtuatuss opw"m Ev- f
aom otd Goo" $+.000 11x% 31.954 10.40% $1007 9.50% $2.006 000%
euny 0046 940% $1203 640% SI.MG 440% 9+.26 440%
Mwk."a•1taa. $1215 690% $1.405 7.90% Slim 7.10% $+.493 470%
91707.90 C® 5793 5.10% SM4 060% sm 4.20% 3092 4.00%
P16Pmgr Cyaion of Mdoaa%o $766 -sm - f693 4.70% $669 sm 4,"%
,Yl a 36069 .00% x.602 1.40% 34799 70.10%
Cme RM tan Rsa+9 Q4 wt salve 00290 62.90% $12.403 66.00% $14.424 68.90% 915.579 60.90%
Find C dnv Fl pWm d d Fi d
ASSM&Deft 5. MA+170010
Tues.
Rog Cos aid EWm
Rest 17nddulsdd M, E.Pa
Ad1dl:mae..d 4+14.47. 92020+ 0% x
7.5 W1.413 7 % 9a.M 7.50% 925.397 710%
a.Mt 300% Y366 aDox 00.504 000% $40.159 7.W%
w. . 2 00% 891+4 ani 510.1" 000%
99524 2080% 956S7o 20x% tO.w lox% $M.4,6 x30%
C.t Rev tan ROI cp d aMOo 2214,199 70x% $226.993 7930% SMON 7030% Qm207 7930%
Find Ctwg".Redeoa d Rmd
AMad.Des Si .tad tlmae
Tues.
u+A1t6
f - lav
logs loft its? loft logs 2000 2001
4110/611 p0I6M1 4646611 pa16411 46"61 p4f6M1 41121017 pN6M1 6166661 pNOMI 6610YIIl p626M1 61110/611 pH6M1
42 42 42 42 42 42 42
15.00% 0.00% 15.00% 15.00% 25.00% si 0.00%
5500.10 027.83
161528 576570 674751 Wei 0830.91
17300 17220 17200 17200 17200 26.0016 06.00%
06.007605.00% 05.00% 15.00% 0.00%
S21.w $020 531.6a 5x.16 527.77 520.46 $31.16
10.a0+c
100.00% 100.00% 120.00% 100.00% 10015% 106.00%
63 83 85 as a6 as as
50.63 f0.m $0.71 15.75 1515 50d/ Si
$4 54 54 S6 54 54 34
53 55 55 55 55 55 55
563.12 $0.91 570.0 575.16 Si 5e4A7 soox
50.60 Si :26.545 128.136 52260 al.sls 03.512
5356.942 $360.470 5463.006 Si 1153.157 510.346 5506167
6100326 $103615 5216027 5712061 YN2607 1267375 5772e1a
5374.603
44609" 5444050 5664,707 5725.70 $701 $613.407
12070 81 $2204 aaox Sum 660% 52476 a.ao% Si 6.80% s27a2 a0% 02.942 a.a0%
51.512 6.40% $1.607 6.46% 11.622 6.40% 51p01 SAID% 51.150 640% 120?] 6A0% SZ145 6.40%
51.536 630% 51.670 6.50% $1.725 630% 11.620 630% 51.2]0 a50% 52066 630% 52175 6.50%
Sm 7.0016 5077 3700% 11.031 3.00% $1.007 0.20% $1.10 3.90% $12a 3.016 $1.307 3.00%
5@7 3.90% 1277 390% 51 ass 320% Slow 30M 51163 Seo% sl a 0.00% i/315 xSo%
260 x2x% 57.91 70. 5.631 22.50% 16301 a. 5670 22x%
116.656 70.50% 517.636 70.50% 510745 70.50% 512.837 70.50% Si 70.50% 522266 70.50% Si 70.50%
52e" 750% 826336 730% 530246 7.1% 0200 730% sago 750% 06026 730% 06157 750%
t1o.70 3.00% $11.414 300% 912.090 30% 5171'00 .00% 111163 x ..00 % aliu 00% 91 .6a% 55x275 .00%
614256 4.00% 513212 400 0
% s » r e.. ^-.• -•--• ._.
Gt a7 600% 627620 600% 8.:..:.c e.. 523.650 w-... - .. +e�+
sm'sal 20.1016 577.926 20.50% 7a2.67a 20.50% $87.638 2030% 5927007 20.50% 5964 10.70% $194?711 20.50%
f7e.11t 70.30% a302.4$1 79.60% 502.600 7030% 5336067 70.50% 53sai 791 SMA75 79.50% 944.757 70.50%
VIA'"
1 - Ivl
/
t/Ot tfq 1US 1216
moues pw~t mauttt Pw wl mount port mount pwo"t
Pa441p Cam am Ewmw
Potfq UmIWANod Opar6q Elms
P7w/bopa6oeo6nt►YiMaro 6100000 0732% MIX 000 0309% $112.360 72.01% 3110.102 72.04%
C6d1Roa5omptditO CRwmdb slta6 516231 13A0% 2=184 Vam 261.= 37AM SM.144 07Af%
Rsd Gapes.Rlplmnrd d Rnld
Anwo.0141 50 via.and 4,266.
T6 .
Cwh PO *OmTdd Oprr0lr ask" 5726.663 165.67% smsm 170.02% f220.062 16037% 5730.6E3 11.10%
Rnd Ch g cP Omwt ft Fwd
Al..m 0111 Sallw%n w W�
Tw
Find C4op16
P76p60Y T6r6 $111,124 1.10% 6+11,124 1.10% 5111,126 1.10% 5111.126 1.10%
11 S15.136 100% $16.673 1/0% slam 160% 510.620 100%
FTaE RSt6s t.ao% 5160 t00% 2210 1.6.0% 372.7 1.00%
SIMI 96011. 1 00% 5136.11 00% 516.1267
Cao Ron fan Tad Opa B6lnn 2613252 153.W% SOIIAM 161.15% 360033$ 12323% S609.>6'S 11606%
A%U=KAd d Find A"wW Dit SWAM
67d Oma Taw
p/"m11w0 d Find A6ro 33.9m 1.00% 26 670 3.00% 516 026 100% St3736 3.00%
PMOMd Cwh Roes tem m opl� 260020/ 193.91% 9102.= 130.19% SM.700 12029% 7000.600 113.06%
Beim Oil smiw WN ImmTn
Eselnold Cot St2".601
O.b pwmm %I 2M 730 SIMS 730 S1,366739 S1,369,739
4da6d Am lo' %
3o Y167 AMW@ Pain
C6i Ron AOa Dd/8110 L6 (5757,671) (1760337) 0773.030) (5776,070)
RIYn o.ao%
m m m m
Co4R�70P14 Vo1'n/) (SBSH.636)
&"V Vi11 76.073.74
Co RM 633%
ow R10TwA 312.M.401
5%owpalbat Cmt SU 767
Me Sd16 Am.e.
u,uee
1- 102
loss 1996 un loos loot 2099 2091
rw t 064o461t wowd pwomt 461161ot v646Mt tm69at 0670461 6o644at P64o66t 1984018t pwM t 444ro96t 96/9"1
SIM246 90.04% 2133623 ae.64% $141052 as GM $150303 65.64% 21sa385 90.64% 2168040 0.64% 11700as 1,5.64%
SK078 34.36% a9.w aura 874" 34.38% 274790 34.26% 862,422 34.36% 688.419 34-36% 684722 36.30%
$739.662 +28.66% $734662 121.38% 2»4962 114.51% $739.604 10603% 3739.662 101.01% $739.662 96.14% S730.662 90.70%
1111.126 1.10% $111.124 1.10% 2111,+24 1.10% 1111.124 1.10% 1111.124 1.19% 2nL124 1.10% $191,146 1.10%
ULM 320% SM157 268+6 a4}48 320% x4019 140% 3272® 320% SM25 320% SAM Sam
Sx3e 1.00% ase 1.960% 9666 1.o0x stn 1.00x sz4e 1.960% 1196 1.960% 1331 1.00%
S1 .90% 621 }961 lox a.+24 .90% 1196400% lox 1.9.6 .997 1424496 90%
seea4se 105.49% s904131 90.96% SM796 91,48% $002.238 87.98% $620290 a270% sa96ow 77.896% 4697214 73.22%
s17.247 3.00% 51620 3.00% n9278 3.00% 620241 3.00% $21.774 3.00% SMOSO 3.00% 224.40 ata%
7
029�299 199.49% 2594.,459 91,39% SWAN 98.696% 45964.697 84.09% 14378,606 79.76% $675.097 74.89% 2514749 70.2"
51 366739 51 766739 9066 730 51 366739 51 366739 n 366739 51 366,739
^� 1168,19607 41770.6807 13762.3617 Was.0427 fs787.8537 (2790.832) 11790.9907
>0 SO >a so t9 so so
r
[- l03
COINWOIMII Pte' - SF �y+0y10�1 1. .
63.275' S3R00' S1A31.750
73.000 000 3 x
4000
0,000 36/A0 021,000' -
food�sls 3AN! SN200. SS10A0. i 1
ISdd -- 17,300 -354.00 3071.100
pdwS Ass �nm 373.00 810,000 _ -
33kQj&lwiios Alss 11.070 377A0 3030A00
6Mi lnpasilwb — - S/b000 .
C4fALdt 1Ow Toes
3.00% 31;6,100
3
tl 3.307. 073,376
ca
CO� 5.00% —3465.100.
Tad
�ndd Com 130% 2176370
CaW—a tons Fi" '1.W% $165,3!0
C:vnokmc Ym tem ba 1030% - 27,t063Q7 .
P�eWw loan to 1.001; MUM
Coli "M4 WOUS.S. ''377,400
Fi liwiFw .43 34,000 2733,000. _
–it A07316
Ta1d Cad 312.=Am
1- 10�-
SSS PARTNERSHIP
96S MONTERREY STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 131 1988
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY HALL
SAN LUIS OBISF09CALIFORNIA
RE: COURT STREET DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
DEAR COMMISSIONER
THE 955 PARTNERSHIP HAS GENUINE AND JUSTIFIED INTEREST IN THE PROPOSED
PROJECT OF WHICH YOU ARE NOW REVIEWING. WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE
ANDERSON APARTMENT COMPLEX AT 955 MONTEREY STREET AND OF THE AJOINING
BUILDING AT 969 MONTEREY STREET, CANGELO 'S RETAURANT) . BOTH OF THESE
BUILDINGS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL FRONTAGE ON COURT STREET. THOSE FRONTAGES
WOULD DIRECTLY FACE THE PROPOSED PROJECT .
WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT OF RESONABLE COMMERCIAL DEUELOPMENT
OF THE EXISTING SURFACE PARKING LOT . THE REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PARCEL COULD CERTAINLY COMPLIMENT THE CITY AND SURROUNDING DOWNTOWN
BUSINESS . UNFORTUNATELY, WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT
REASONABLE. OUR CONCERNS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PARKING
CURRENT SURFACE PARKING CAPACITY IS 118 . THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD
ELIMINATE THE EXISTING SPACES AND, IN THEIR PLACE, CREATE 145
UNDERGROUD SPACES. THIS IS A NET GAIN 27 SPACES, HARDLY ENOUGH TO,
SERVICE THE 90,000 SOAURE FEET OF OFFICE, COMMERCIAL 8 RECREATI❑NAL
SPACE OF THE PROJECT! . TO ILLUSTRATE THIS FLAW ASSUME THAT ONE PARKING
SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH 500 SQUARE FEET OF AVAILABLE SPACE, CA VERY
LENIENT FIGURE BY CITY STANDARDS) . THAT TRANSLATES TO A 180 SPACE
REQUIREMENT, LESS THE 27 NEW SPACES CREATED, WOULD LEAVE A SHORT FALL
OF 153 SPACES. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BY ANY STANDARDS, AND WOULD
REPRESENT AN ABOUT FACE IN THE CITY 'S CURRENT DOWNTOWM PARKING PROGRAM .
LOCATION
�— IoS
LOCATION
WE ARE EQUALLY CONCERNED AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT. PROPOSED
PLANS LOCATE THIS STRUCTURE A MERE 20 FEET FROM THE FACADE OF OUR
REFERENCED BUILDINGS. THAT CLOSE A PROXIMITY OF A BUILDING THAT RISES
FIVE STORIES ABOVE GROUND LEVEL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE RESULTING NARROW
CORRIDOR WOULD TEND TO DWARF AND SHADE OUT ALL THE EXISTING STRUCTURES
ALONG COURT STREET.
SIZE
THE OVERALL MASSIVENESS OF THE STRUCTURE IS TOTALLY OUT OF KEEPING WITH
SURROUNDING AREA AS WELL AS THE ENTIRE CITY .
IN CONCLUSION A SCALED DOWN VERSION OF THE PROPOSAL COULD BECOME A
GENUINE ASSET TO ALL CONCERNED. HOWEVER, THE PROBLEMS, AS CITED, SHOULD
BE SUFFICIENT REASON TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED AND CONSIDER A
DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN THAT WOULD SHOW MORE CONCERN FOR EXISTING
PARKING, BUSINESS, AND SURROUDING ARCHITECTURAL TYPES.
S I NCERELY, h/'k-
BARRYHOLDGRAFER, PARTNER ROBERT MILLER, PARTNER
1- Ioly
To: City Planning Department
City Counsel
Mayor
We the undersigned are residents of the Anderson Hotel
Apartment Complex which is a 221-0 Federal Funded Senior Citizen
housing Pro.iect. We are very concerned about the Court Street
Protect which will Put 12 of our units in a "no sun situation"
and create a dungeon type atmosphere. We would like the Planning
commission to make the developer move the set back to a minimum
of 50 feet between our building and their building.
Thanking you in advance for your concern of us, the Senior
Citizens of the Anderson Hotel Apartments.
Name Apartment #
9,4-& X
Resident Manager
2
-7
4. , 1
5
7.
9. 4 Ty Z
10. Z '�4 G 7 -c 3i5�
12. ' ✓ — 0ti
13
14.
15.
PROPX
17.
18. /nL pial. 2 Q
19. �O
20. _x_
21 S/3
22 9. ev C)..23.
a
24.
25. �`T
26.AbwAn., 30
27
28. 3� 2�
29.
30. s�
31 .
32.
33.
34. `d-
35 . � Q -
36 '3 L4
37.
38. )Qf39.
40.
41 . -&&e?e? ----
Page 2 1
- 107
4
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51 .
52.
53.
54.
55 .
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61 .
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Page 3
Wd7
-
j
67.
68.
70.
On- 'i tvmanager _
71 .
72.
Maintenance
73.-
Maintenance
Pase 4
. - 1= Joh
June 15- 1988
San Luis Obispo City Consul
Subject: June 15 TH. Counsul Meeting on the Court St. Building of a new structure
on the Court St, parking Lot.
I mould like to present to the consul , Questions concering the neer building
proposed for the Court St. narking lot.
A crew digging between the new libary and the old County Court house !•-ot a
big surprise! , When they ran into (2) two old rusty oil tanks for heating oil.
One with some oil in it and leeking and the smaller one rusted out. t•?r. Randy
':'filler the 'an Luis '-'ire Dept. ' s Hazard material percon, Said: That the tanks
were at least 50 yearn old. And that ,a Santa Maria F?azard removable Co. had been
darned to come and re:n )ve all conti.nated soil , rusty tanks and -ake to Pakersfield
and put at ti:e hazard material depot sight. The cost e•i11 run into a hu he a-nount.
All of this ju a above Kit. from the Court .",t. Parking lot , and the San
1.�iis streem system runing tinder city St . ' s.
Question? 1''as this oil heating system used at the old Theater allso? And if
it was! Are there any old hidden oil tanks at the Court St. sight? The Theater
was a long ti.-e at that location and could ''nave used: a lot of different sy items!
Now that oil has been fcund close by will ,a survey be made u -der Fround at
Court St . sight?
Question') .''ill a survey mane for sounri deci;.el , before -an^ after a huL-he 4
story buildin_, with parking and u�-,e of sunas and r r wi.minr- pool?
F8 residence ,reside ne-t to the court St. par!,:.ing lot in the Anderson Apt' s
^ith t':e average young age of 70 yrs.Their needs of space: R•: scune need con; ration .
::'e need oven space , trees,Mt. views.
Th;.i.n.. Yo
Mr". Don D. Prown
1- ll0
COURT STREET PROJECT
To City Planning Commission
City Planning Department
City Council
Honorable Mayor
As business owners occupying the west half of Monterey Block
between Morro and Osos Streets. We are concerned about the
Protect called the "Court Street ProJect". Parking as it now
exists is the minimum needed for our survival in business.
Eliminating the surface Parking and added only an additional
27 spaces to service an additional 90,000 Square feet of retail
and office space will totally devastate our businesses.not to
mention the approximately two years during construction time
eliminating all Parking.
We ask the Court Street Protect be approved only when the
developers agree to supply the current number of existing spaces,
before demolition of the city lot takes Place Plus additional
Parking spaces for a 90,000 square foot Pro.iect as required by
city code.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter:
OWNER OR MANAGER BUSINESS
WU"7
/y� n
4. /'(Q/ C/Z (I/rl/�11dQYi ow.
T—
6.
6
7. / n5
8. ( o�.r+/�faYQ
9.
10 CCX
�• ons
12.
�v.►�-� d—►^�2
13.
14.
I � I �
1111 Ilii city osAn luis OBISPO
•� 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 934113-8100
May 26, 1988
TO: John Dunn and City Councilmembers
VIA: Mike Multari, Community Development Director
FROM: Jeff Hook, Associate Planne)0_�
SUBJECT: Status Update on Court Street Center
On February 23rd, the Council reviewed Court Street Center's design and use programs, and
referred the project to the Planning Commission for comment. Next, Court Street Center
was reviewed and endorsed by the BIA Advisory Board, the Chamber of Commerce Economic and
Retail Committees, and the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. On April 6th,
Planning Commission reviewed the background of the project, and discussed alternative
land use mixes. Commissioners voiced several concerns with the project's pro forma and
proposed mix of land uses, and continued the item for additional study.
On April 26th, Commrs. Gerety and Kourakis met with Mayor Dunin and staff to clarify
commission's role with regard to Court Street Center, and to voice commission concerns
with the project. The commissioners felt that another meeting was needed to discuss the
project informally with staff, without developer or consultant presentations.
So on Thursday, May 19th the Planning Commission held a special follow-up meeting on
Court Street Center. The meeting was informal, with discussion limited to commissioners
and staff. Staff presented a brief chronology and a tentative work program schedule
focusing on key tasks, hearings, and project approvals which appear necessary to proceed
with the project (copy attached).
Discussion was wide-ranging, constructive, and generally supportive of the concept of
more productive use of the city's Court Street property than the current parking lot.
Opinions about the developer's specific proposal varied. Alternative mixed-use
development strategies, the nature of the city's participation in the project, and
parking issues were discussed in considerable detail. After about two hours of
discussion, commissioners scheduled another discussion on Court Street at their June 15th
regular meeting. The revised economic and land use analysis by the city's consultant,
H.R. & A., will be presented, and the commission expects to formulate a recommendation to
the council at that time.
The City Council is tentatively scheduled to review Court Street Center at its July 5th
regular meeting. At that time, the council will consider Planning Commission comments,
H.R. & A:s economic analysis, and the revised work program schedule for Court Street
Center.
Please call Mike or me if you have any questions or comments.
� - 112
��►��11�8���11����� �►i�� city of sAn loll S oaspo
San 9W Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • SLuis Obispo.CA 93403-8100
May 16, 1988
TO: Planning Commission
VIA: Michael Multari, Community Development Director
FROM: Jeff Hook, Associate Planners
SUBJECT: Background Information for Commission's May 19th Discussion of Court Street
Center.
The city's involvement with Court Street Center began over four years ago. During this
period, the project has been discussed at various times by the City Council. advisory
commissions, citizen and community groups, the developer, and staff. Considerable effort
has been focused on achieving three main objectives:
1. Creating a city program which would lead to development or sale of the Court
Street Site.
2. Selecting a developer.
3. Working with the developer to bring an acceptable project to a stage where
public review can begin.
The council-approved Request for Qualifications has guided the city's efforts toward
meeting these objectives. Along the way, numerous meetings, consultant reports, economic
changes, and developer decisions occurred which shaped the project. The following
chronology may be useful background for the commission's evaluation of Court Street
Center.
Following the chronology is a revised workprogram schedule. It focuses on key tasks,
hearings, and project approvals which appear necessary to proceed with the project, and
an approximate timeframe for completion. Clearly, the duration of the public review
process can change due to many variables (eg. public response, economic forces, developer
decisions). Schedule changes are likely, and commission suggestions or changes are
welcome.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS - COURT STREET CENTER
August 1983: Strategic Planning Program completed; stresses greater fiscal
independence through improved management of the City's land assets.
1984
January 1984: Development of Court Street Center site listed as high priority project
on Mayor's workprogram.
1- 113
Chronology
Page 2
September 1984: Council denies purchase option request by RKO for Court Street site;
directs staff to prepare a detailed development workprogram.
December. Council unanimously approves Court Street Center development workprogram
(schedule attached) .
1985
January -November: Court Street RFQ prepared.
December: City Council approves Court Street Center Request for Qualifications (RFQ);
RFQ is distributed to over 125 developers, design firms. and city officials.
1986
February: Seven developer "Statements of Qualification" received by City.
May: City Council approves contract with H.R. & A. as City's economic consultant.
June: Development team of Glen borough/FAMA/Sykes Group recommended to City Council
by 10-member staff/citizen panel.
July: City Council selects Glenborough/FAMA/Sykes Group as Court Street Developer;
authorizes Mayor to sign exclusive negotiation agreement.
September: Mayor and developer sign Exclusive Negotiations Agreement.
November: Developer submits preliminary development program with 140-room hotel, 60,000
s.f. retail; 15,000 s.f. conference room; 2 levels parking.
November: Community Development Director determines EIR required for Court Street
Center; EIR consultant selection process begun.
December: Conceptual Floor plans for hotel project submitted.
1987
January: Court Street Center property appraised at $900,000.
March: City Council authorizes staff to negotiate with Earthmctrics Inc. for EIR
consultant services.
March: Developer asks to transfer ENA to new development team with
Dillingham/Watkins and Interwest Investments; after checking background and
qualifications. CAO approves ENA transfer.
May: City approves consultant contract; EIR preparation begins.
1- ll
Chronology
Page 3
1987 (continued)
June: Developer submits revised project - 135-room hotel, 22,000 s.f. retail, 6,500
s.f. office, 9,000 s.f. conference rooms, 398 parking spaces.
July: City receives administrative draft EIR without aesthetics section, pending
submission of architectural plans.
September: Developer presents building design concept to staff for the first time.
Staff expresses concern over height and bulk of building.
November: Follow-up presentation of revised building design concept to resolve staff
concerns with building height and massing. Some concern about height and
bulk remain. Developer indicates the program with a hotel and retail must be
a minimum of six-stories.
1988
January: Staff advises developer that decision about whether a taller building with a
hotel component or a smaller one without must be made by City Council; date
is set to present alternatives to Council in February.
Later, the developer informs staff that hotel/retail/office project
infeasible due to changed market conditions and site/building constraints.
February: Revised Court Street Center Proposal submitted with 37,000 s.f. retail;
33,000 s.f. office; 20,000 s.f. recreation facilities; and 2 levels of
underground parking.
February 23: Presentation and project update to City Council; project referred to
Planning Commission for review and comment on proposed uses.
April 6: Planning Commission reviews project status and land use alternatives. PC to
forward comments to CC as soon as practical.
NYORKPROGRAAI SCHEDULE
Task/Product Completed Estimated Completion Datc
1. Council Review of Land Use/Design Program July
2. Developer submits PD Application and Schematic Plans August
3. Draft EIR circulated for Public Review September
4. Schematic ARC review October
5. Developer submits draft. Development Agreement (DDA) October
-1 1
Workprogram
Page 4
6. Planning Commission initial review of PD application October
and Draft EIR
7. End EIR Public Rcvicw Period, Begin Final EIR Novcmbcr
8. Planning Commission Ply review/recommendation to Council November
1989
9. Preliminary City Council Hearing January
10. Council introduces ordinance on EIR, PD, and DDA February
11. Final Council Action March
12. Final ARC approval. March
13. Developer submits construction documents to City May
1990
14. Building Plan check complete/construction permit issued Octobcr
15. Bcgin Construction Novcmbcr
16. Construction completed September 1991
I hope this is useful background information. We will be available at Thursday's meeting
to discuss this in more detail if deemed helpful. If you have any questions, please let
me or Mike know.
jhl/crtst2l
1- lI �O
C
' O
42 OOp
O
C
O
.O U
° T
c
� $ x
am ' $ a „m,
.. �a a
_ M
U � •n O
✓ ✓ ✓
> O m n O O
z O o a U
W L04 00 Cc
L ° L m
O
W ;—
L w
= m m
am u m
N V > w O m
V - c oa
° m -O
O ._ O Y w O � a
5
L.
mm 6 C —O w
O O m ✓ b O L
/Q/ 7 L.L �. QaI UCC - O
oa Sd
L m C v O R a
CL
S.
ri < o a u w ✓ 96 ..... C m - m Y
¢ --- y .Oi L m cd _
li a a m 0 m m \
.°. m _ —
M ° v .ni °a
S.
n m W 0 a w
m L m w 9 Y O L.
a L m
°0 Cd
Z �'
LU
OF .._—_�«✓"mC' - -u- mmLmEL wmT ;i✓muw
a0u L1 vG
w
Z m cs UmYL
mw0
O >L ¢m> y¢Y .40a
W mL O
¢w(1 a L o p
G dO m.�
as
V
W 0 6
a
� p L •y N m �.. m •+
Z L O L w
= o m c a
06 CC as
04—do O0.
° M
u
'-+ x > m ✓ U m
L w
2 _
S 9 a L O W i.7 M O
O O_1..
Q ¢ G. w> ._ ..... _.___. . .. P 6
L VV-
ol
m m
a o e
vE a02.�
w
e Iti .1 11 M
1 - ll �
:I
Dra_"•t Council Minutes - Page 3 Tuesday, February 23, 1988 - 7:00 p.m.
•After additional discussion, moved by Reiss/Settle (3-2, Pinard and Mayor
Dunin voting no) , to approve the proposal by Evensen Dodge and Vertex Cost
Systems with the CAO authorized to award the contract upon successful
contract negotiations and provided that the contract does not exceed
$69,750.
B U S I N E S S I T E M
1. COURT STREET PROJECT (File 3435)
Council held a presentation and discussion on the Court Street Project;
this included an introduction by Mike Multari, Community Development
Director and Jeff Hook, Associate Planner. They reviewed the history and
gave an overview of the project. The project presentation was conducted
by Rob Strong, Planning Mill, Marshall Ochylski of Interwest Investment
Group, Peter Freeman, Finance Director of Dillingham Corporation, Norman
Lyle, Sykes Group, and Pierre Rademaker, designer of the project. Each
reviewed the project from his perspective. Slides were shown and Council
asked questions and made comments.
At 8:50 p.m. , Mayor Dunin declared a recess. At 9:05 p.m. , City Council
reconvened, all Councilmembers present.
Mayor Dunin asked for public .comment on the project.
Maggie Cox, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that they were
very interested in the project and were anxious to see development on this
site.
/ 1 � � 0
l
' Draft Council Minutes - page 4 Tuesday, February 23. 1988 - 7:00 p.m.
Dodie Williams, Administrator of the Business Improvement Association,
stated that Mr- Ochyiski had reviewed the project with the BIA and that
they were anxious to see this go forward.
Janet Kourakis, planning Commissioner, stated they had not reviewed the
ommissioners would have several comments and questions.
project and Pelt C
Brian Starr, Architectural Review Commissioner, also stated that the
A.R.C. had not reviewed the prgject and he was sure they would have
comments.
Charles French. Cuesta Valley Development, stated he looked forward to
seeing this project proceed.
Mike Multari, Community Development Director, stated t to ouncknow il the l
to give direction to staff: specifically.
staff needs
Council felt that this project would iwould want n the ttondtkinds
seemadeapart of
land uses and public benefits the Council
this project.
Marshall E Ochylski made closing comments.
Councilwoman Rappa stated she was concerned about the retail use and the
amount of retail space being made available in the project.
President of
San
Jan Ha ag man-Jercich, if of the ArtsDirectors,
r
CouncilstatingiObispo
they had
County Arts Council, spoke on behalf ro ect
worked with the development team and were anxious to see this p j
proceed.
Councilman Settle stated that hliked
the
mixed
the onuse
site parkingpandlthe
with the retail. He was also pleased tosee
development plan thus far, which consisted of
Draft Council Minutes - Page 5 Tuesday, February 23, 1988 - 7:00 p.m.
more amenities than he had expected. He felt the project complied with
the mixed use concept and could be a real asset to the City. He also
liked the joint venture approach and the ground lease proposal. He did
have concerns which included the financial aspects of the project and that
the project not place the City in a vulnerable position should the project
run into financial problems later.
Councilwoman Pinard stated she had no problems with the architectural
plans. She felt there needed to be a better justification of the mixture
of uses. She saw conflict with having luxury offices and athletic
activities in the same building. She would have preferred one large
department store instead of having the project broken down into smaller
spaces and asked for feedback on the possibilities that exist for
providing for a major anchor store. She questioned whether there really
was a need for luxury office space and felt that much of the residential
use in the downtown had been lost. She would have preferred a hotel
providing for 24-hour use and/or a conference center.
Councilman Reiss stated the primary question he had was how the project
would affect the vitality of the downtown. He preferred to see a use that
would be on a 24-hour basis and felt that the largest single space
proposed was too small to be considered a true anchor. Other concerns
Included the economic viability of the project and how this joint-project
benefits the City.
Councilwoman Raopa agreed with the comments made by Councilman Reiss. She
felt there should have been a hotel included in the project, retail space
should not have been broken up, and that the City secure a dependable
anchor store for this use.
Mayor Ounin stated it was his desire that the downtown be considered
primarily for a shopping area. He felt the most important part of the
project should be retail use and that 18,000 square feet in one space was
insufficient.
Draft Council Minutes - Page 6 Tuesday, February 23, 1988 - 7:00 p.m.
He would like to see a close relationship with the Chamber of Commerce and
the Business Improvement Area with the Development Team. He also felt the
financial needs should be addressed. The space proposed for "art in
public places" was an enhancement but the amount of parking spaces was too
small (as the 140 sites only allowed for an additional 22 parking spaces
than currently exists). The recreational facility was of concern to him
and the kind of activities a club would attract. He'd like to see a time
projection as to construction. and completion of the project. He felt a
followup meeting within six weeks was important in addition to regular
reports throughout the project
Upon general consensus, staff and the development team to report back
after review by the Planning Commission not to exceed six weeks. Council
to receive monthly reports and meet again in a timely manner to review the .
project progress.
At 9:55 p.m. , Mayor Dunin declared a recess. At 10:05 p.m. , City Council
reconvened, all Councilmembers present.
P U B L I C C O M M E N T P E R I O D
A-1 BALLOT MEASURES
After brief discussion, it was moved by Settle/Pinard (5-0) , Resolution
Nos. 6400 and 6401 (1988 Series) were adopted calling and consolidating
the election for June 7, 1988, for the purpose of placing two mobilehome
rent regulations ordinances on the ballot and Resolution Nos. 6391 and
6393 in conflict rescinded as recommended.
/ � 1Z/
Draft PC Minutes
June 15, 1988
Item 1. Public Hearing: Court Street Center. Review and discuss status report and land
use alternatives for the Court Street Center project at 999 Monterey Street.
Commr. Roalman stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and recommended the commission
forward their comments and concerns to council for their consideration.
Commr. Schmidt felt the marketing study was incomplete and did not address the unique
possibilities of this site.
Michael Multari, Community Development Director, passed around a sketch of site lines
that an adjacent property owner submitted concerning possible shade impacts.
Chairperson Kourakis noted the commission had received a petition from the Anderson Hotel
complex and from the Monterey Street business owners concerned about parking, building
setbacks along Court Street, and the mass of the building; and from Don Brown who was
concerned with possible hidden oil tanks on the site and with possible noise.
Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing.
Marshall Ochylski, 979 Osos Street, project representative, summarized the HR&A report
and noted the Chamber of Commerce and the BIA boards supported the project. He discussed
several modifications to the original plan including the deletion of two racquetball
courts to allow additional building setback; the deletion of another court to allow more
room at the corner of Higuera Street; and installing a 3000-square foot cafe on the fifth
floor to allow additional public use.
Commr. Crotser asked about housing options. Mr. Ochylski replied that he did not feel
on-site housing was feasible without public subsidy and that it was a difficult use to
incorporate.
Commr. Hainline noted that the city's ad hoc committee on housing was not in favor of
subsidized housing downtown, except for the elderly.
George Moylen, Housing Authority representative, did not feel the Section 202 program was
viable for this project due to the highly-competitive application process and limited
availability of grant funds. He noted there were few government housing programs
available but added that the principle incentive was tax credits available to developers
of low-cost housing.
Commr. Gerety asked staff about charging for public use of required parking. Staff
responded that there are no laws prohibiting property owners from charging for public
parking; however, council could make those policy calls.
Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing.
/ - /ZZ
DRAFT PC Minutes
June 15, 1988
Page 2
Commr. Schmidt stated he felt the site was special, and he did not favor the uses being
proposed. He favored a plan with a major retail anchor for the entire building with
greater public access.
Commr. Crotser felt the proposal was generally acceptable, but ideally would like to see
some housing included. He was very concerned with the parking demand and felt the city
should study the effects of large scale projects on downtown parking supply and demand.
Commr. Gerety felt the uses were in conformance with the general plan and zoning
ordinance. He felt the city needed to treat this site carefully and did not agree with
the city's request for qualifications on Court Street Center. He wanted to see more
outdoor public space incorporated.
Chairperson Kourakis moved to forward a commission recommendation to the City Council as
follows: (1) Provide more open space on ground level; (2) an analysis should be
conducted on potential sun/shade impacts; (3) the general quality of the HR&A report was
lacking and relied too much on secondary sources; (4) the Court Street design was too
narrow; and (5) that the commission felt the mixed uses were in accordance with the
general plan and RFQ.
Commr. Crotser seconded the motion.
Commr. Crotser did not feel additional outdoor open space was required or that the Court
Street design would be a problem.
Commr. Schmidt did not agree with the uses being proposed and felt the building should be
stepped back from the corner to provide open space.
Commr. Gerety did not agree with the mixed uses proposed.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Kourakis
NOES: Commrs. Crotser, Gerety, Hainline, Schmidt
ABSENT: Commrs. Roalman, Duerk
The motion fails.
Commr. Crotser moved to forward previous and present meeting comments to the City Council
for their review.
Commr. Hainline seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Crotser, Hainline, Gerety, Schmidt, Kourakis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Roalman, Duerk
The motion passes.
Commr. Schmidt moved to forward a commission recommendation to the City Council including
all the comments in Chairperson Kourakis' earlier motion, but deleting a recommendation
on appropriateness of uses.
I23
.DRAFT P_ C Minutes
June 15, 1988
Page 3
Comm. Gerety seconded the motion.
VOTING. AYES: Commis. Sc>imidt, Gerety, Kourakis
NOES: Commis. Crotsei, Hainline
ABSENT: Commis:.Roalman, Duerk
The motion passes.
I I��
MFETING " AGENDA
L..oE d"` 5 .a ITEM #
��►►►�► IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII���������IIII►► ►III ���
cityp sAn suis oaspo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
%
June 30, 1988
a � Covnc�
TO: City Council ����T•
FROM Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
VIA: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner Pik l
i
SUBJECT: Synopsis of Planning Commission Comments on Court Street Center
The Planning Commission discussed Court Street Center on April 6, May 19, and June 15.
Commissioners asked that a synopsis of their comments from the three meetings be sent to
councilmembers as background for their July 5th discussion of Court Street Center.
Commr. Crotser
1. Conceptually supports developer's proposed uses (Retail/Office/Health Club), and
believes a mixed-use development is appropriate for the site.
2. Questioned the appropriateness of a full service hotel or county offices for Court
Street Center. He prefers mid-size retail uses and high-quality, private
professional offices coordinated with public open space amenities like the atrium
and a pedestrian oriented Court Street.
3. Supported housing as a principal use if it were financially feasible without major
public subsidies. He felt a low- to moderate level of public subsidy would be
necessary and acceptable.
4. Supported the proposed architecture, and felt the building height, scale, and
massing were appropriate -- could even be a little higher if sensitively handled,
and allowed more public amenities.
5. Felt on-site parking was an important part of the project that should be
retained. He suggested that the city should study the effects that large-scale
projects have on downtown parking.
Commr. Duerk
1. Considered parking and land uses to be two of the most important issues.
Expressed concerns with flood hazard, architectural scale and massing, and Court
Street treatment.
2. Suggested that additional floor area could be acheived by building over a portion
of Court Street, or by increasing the building's height and mass toward the center
of the building if street scale coul.
Pldnning Commission Comments
Page 2
3. Felt that ground lease (vs. sale of the property) was appropriate, but was not
sure what the ideal types or sizes of uses were to make the project economically
feasible. Above all, felt that the project should have a "cohesiveness" of uses,
so that the uses were mutually compatible and supportive. Would like to see
retail on lower floors with mid-level offices, and residential on upper floor if
financially viable.
4. Felt central atrium was important aspect of project that should be retained if
designed with seismic safety in mind. She expressed excitement for the project's
potential, and felt that it was very important to the city and to the downtown.
Commr. Gerety
1. Felt the city is missing valuable opportunities on this site and this general area
in terms of site planning, uses, and development at this end of downtown.
2. Expressed concern with the nature of the City's involvement. He preferred to see
the city to either sell the property or develop the property itself with a
different project having wider community benefits.
3. Felt there were many unanswered questions regarding appropriate uses, economic
feasibility, and city participation. He noted that the proposed uses conformed to
the General Plan and Zoning Regulations, but felt the proposed uses were not a
desirable mix for this project. Could not support the health club, and felt that
second floor retail was infeasible. Suggested high-income residential uses be
studied for the top floor, executive offices on the middle floors, and retail on
the ground floor.
4. Felt the proposed building mass and scale were boring, and that the atrium was an
inefficient use of space. Preferred to see more exterior public open space rather
than an interior atrium or public mall.
S. Questioned the appropriateness of the City's RFQ, and felt the Planning Commission
should have been more involved in the process. In hindsight, felt that a Request
For Proposals would have been a better approach to get the best project for the
city.
6. Suggested that this site could be used as leverage to acquire other desirable
properties for public use, such as the Fremont Theatre or other parking sites.
7. Felt that the information provided be the developer and city's economic consultant
is confusing, inconsistent, and appears to be based on unsubstantiated hearsay.
8. Stated that if the developer owned the property and the city was not at risk, he
would probably support this project. Due to the city's involvement and lack of
sound information, he was opposed to the project.
Planning Commission Comments
Page 3
Commr. Hainline
1. Did not support low-income residential for this project, since it might affect the
economic feasibility of the other uses. Felt the city should do everything
possible to reduce its liability by helping to make the project economically
feasible, and that the city should not require infeasible uses to be included in
the project.
2. Expressed concern for providing sufficient onsite public parking, and suggested
reducing the number of spaces required for professional offices. Questioned
whether underground parking was feasible due to flood hazard and creek culvert.
She thought it might be possible to reduce onsite parking to the minimum, and
provide the balance of required parking offsite or through in-lieu parking fees.
3. Suggested that an outside accounting/construction management firm be retained to
protect the city in terms of construction financing and scheduling.
Commr. Roalman
Commr. Roalman stepped down on this item due to a conflict of interest.
Commr. Schmidt
1. Felt that this project offered the city an opportunity to get uses the city wants
downtown: hotel complex, conference center, large retail anchor. He expressed
disappointment with the proposed project due to a lack of long-range vision by all
the parties involved. Considered the proposed uses to be inappropriate, with
excessive emphasis placed on the more ordinary and mundane aspects of private
financial feasibility, rather than the site's civic possibilities.
2. Considered development of this site to be important for the downtown, and could
serve to 'anchor' retail development in the northeast corner of downtown.
3. Disagreed with the RFQ approach, and felt that the city should first decide what
type of use it wants, and then find the means to accomplish that land use goal.
On-going public subsidies may be necessary and appropriate in return for long-term
public benefits which may not be otherwise possible.
4. Felt that having followed the RFQ approach, we are just reaching the point we
would have been at earlier with an RFP -- that of deciding on an appropriate mix
of uses. He stressed that this step was an important one and should not be
rushed.
5. Felt housing on the top floor would be appropriate, and wanted to see more usable
exterior public open space provided, particularly at the corners of Higuera and
Court Street and Monterey and Osos Street. He preferred a large, 24 story retail
anchor with a floor area of at least 60,000 s.f., and preferably more than that.
Planning Commission Comments
Page 4
6. Expressed concern with the proposed character of Court Street, and felt additional
study and stepping back of building was necessary to maintain views of the J.P.
Andrews building from Osos Street, halfway towards Higuera Street, and to provide
adequate light and air for adjacent uses.
7. Felt the city should retain land ownership.
Commr. Kourakis
1. Felt the site has exciting development potential and will set a precedent for
future planning and site design for that part of downtown. Feels the existing
proposal does not fully consider the design importance of the site in the larger
terms of downtown.
2. Strongly feels that the ground level should provide exterior public space with
greenery, benches, etc., that usually relates to the Court House lawns and
provides pedestrian comforts in the "lot line to lot line" development pattern of
downtown. Interior atrium space is "private" space in a private building, not
"public" space.
3. Court Street may be dark and unpleasant and the building's impact on light and
shadows of the surrounding area needs attention.
4. Feels a total redesign is necessary to address commission concerns regarding
exterior open space, Court Street character, sunlight, and shadow impacts on the
surrounding area and downtown goals.
5. Supports a mixed-use development and feels the proposal complies with the general
plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the RFQ. Notwithstanding this, feels the proposal
is 'More of the same"--small retail, offices, an atrium (in the Courthouse). The
health club as a major use is new to downtown and probably a risk. If successful,
it would probably encourage a 12-hour or more population.
6. Supports high-income housing as a principal use, if feasible, but does not support
subsidy. Also, notes that housing would provide a 24-hour population.
7. Voiced concerns with HR&A's economic analysis of the feasibility of residential
uses since the firm relied on local opinions and presented no information about
downtown residential development in other jurisdictions as requested.
8. Supports on-site parking.
' a Oda 00
y u
• 9V01. bac ��, ( 26
d�
gCAW
gT•`." •��i o:0� C .
ice) c
5 /�. a0
yor �V
00O
bLiol
D O
100
i
h C
t' ` • I O
4
4 w
cr, p
SL r8Q A Y
sro
GO
_ i. •�. OLb TLb
41
a1b6
• '�j'yt� �'l61
i . iw-v
w T
`� ►" fl
bql� tJ' (GL a p YZ+gg Cs
TOV 0"
• W.9
SO
�
H
L �
v d
o
U
G, I
•� r
G
14
3
co y
v
00
h
E
0
w
w
� d
ACC Lt
t v
cn Q 'F- �Q�
20
P � d
co to
L
lj
Draf t
MINUTES
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
San Luis Obispo, CA
Special Meeting - May 19, 1988
PRESENT: Commrs. Charles Crotser, Donna Duerk, Patrick Gerety, Linda Hainline,
Richard Schmidt, and Chairperson Janet Kourakis
ABSENT: Commr. William Roalman
OTHERS
PRESENT: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; Jeff Hook, Associate
Planner; Toby Ross, Assistant City Administrative Officer
1. Court Street Center: Review and discuss status report and land use alternatives for
the Court Street Center project at 999 Monterey Street.
Michael Multari, Community Development Director, presented the staff report, and
explained the purpose of the meeting. He reviewed previous City Council/Planning
Commission action on the project. He noted that new uses were being considered for the
site in place of the health club, including a restaurant/conference facility.
General discussion of the project ensued.
Commr. Crotser felt the concept had a lot of merit but felt that filling the structure
with county offices or a hotel would be inappropriate. He thought mixed uses would be
acceptable such as mid-size retail uses with luxury profession offices. He liked the
amount of public open space provided by the atrium. He wanted to see the on-site parking
retained. He felt that residential uses probably would not work on its own, but could
support the possibility of subsidized housing in some form with a preference to low-cost
housing in association with the Housing Association. He thought the architecture was
rich (and expensive) looking; the scale and bulk of the building was good but felt the
structure could be a higher if more amenities were proposed (such as a conference and
banquet facility).
Commr. Hainline agreed with Commr. Crotser's comments on the architecture and the use of
interior space, but could not support a low-income residential use. She felt the city
should do everything possible to make the project economically viable to minimize the
city's financial risks and maximize public benefits. The city should not require
infeasible conditions or uses which require city subsidy to be viable. She suggested
reducing the parking requirement to its barest needs and using in-lieu fees for parking
on nearby downtown sites. She felt an independent outside accounting firm should handle
construction finances to protect the city.
PC Minutes
May 19, 1988
Page 2
Commr. Schmidt felt this was a fine opportunity to get a lot of what the city wants such
as a hotel complex, conference center, large retail anchor. He would like to see housing
proposed for the top floor, perhaps around an interior courtyard. He was concerned that
Court Street may become oppressive and not sun lit because of being adjacent to a 60 foot
high building. He suggested more first floor cut back and strategies to provide a view
of the Andrews Building from Higuera Street through the end of an arcade/corridor. He
also wanted to see major public open space provided. He felt the RFQ process was
inferior to the RFQ approach.
Commr. Gerety was most concerned with the nature of the city's involvement, and preferred
to see the city either sell the property or build some project of wider city benefit
itself. He was not comfortable with the city ground leasing the property on this project
because there were too many unanswered questions. He had no problems with building
height and would consider an even higher building on this site. He felt the proposed
uses were not a desirable mix for a project of this nature and also preferred to see
outdoor open space rather than an interior mall. He felt that the proposed building mass
and scale were boring, that the second floor retail space would be difficult to make work
financially, and that the indoor atrium was a waste of valuable and expensive floor
space. He also could not support a health club use. He suggested selling the property
or possibly trading it for an option on the Fremont Theater site. He felt the top floor
should be studied for use as high-income.residential uses, executive offices on the
middle floors, and retail uses on the ground floor including retail uses to support the
residential uses within the building. He wanted to move the project along and was ready
to send it on to the council with the commission's comments.
Commr. Duerk felt the city should deal with the following issues: (1) Should parking be
on-site? (2) How big should the building be? (3) Should the building be built over Court
Street or just taller, with most of the building's mass in the center? (4) What uses are
wanted? (5) What will make the uses viable? She had concerns with the expense of the
project and potential flood hazards. She felt there should be a cohesiveness of uses and
this should be further studied, including any proposal to mix high-end offices with
low-income housing. She was not opposed to a ground lease approval.
Commr. Kourakis expressed her disappointment with the RFQ. She felt the project would be
a trendsetter and landmark for this section of the downtown and hoped the developer would
conform to the RFQ. She felt the city should retain the land and agreed with Commr.
Duerk about the need for cohesiveness among uses. She felt the plan is "too small" and
that a multi-block scope would be better. This could result in a total redesign. She
was particularly concerned with the treatment of Court Street, preferred public exterior
spaces to interior ones, and felt the proposal was redundant with the existing downtown,
not special.
The commission decided to continue discussion of the Court Street project at its June
15th regular meeting.
PC Minutes
May 19, 1988
Page 3
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission
scheduled for May 25, 1988, at 7:00 p.m., Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Multari
Recording Secretary
MEETING " AGENDA /
DATE 5 ee ITEM #
v wI
1
O O
T
O(SCIP
Terry W.C„nrwr Recycling Programs and Consulting Services
(805)544-11e6
M1INLWG ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1621. San Luis Obispo. California 9.3406
#Denotes adlon M Lead P6nc0n
July 11 1988 Respond by:
Jo Coundl
so CAO
Jfl Gty Atty.
Clerk-ori@.
l�
Dear Councilman Jerry Reiss:
on Tuesday, July 5, the City Council will be considering
the Court Street Project.
I urge your support for the entire project which includes
a fitness center and spa.
In that many City Hall employees currently use Kennedy
Nautilus and Fitness Center as part of the city,s wellness
program, I believe inclusion of this aspect of the project is
of utmost importance.
I have known Kevin Kennedy and his staff for 6 years.
The service they provide is, without question, an asset to the
community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
V
Terry W. Conner