Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/1991, 1 - PROSPECTIVE RELOCATION OF CERTAIN COUNTY FUNCTIONS TO TRW SITE DOWNTOWN SAN LUIS OBISPO BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION October 30, 1990 Penny Rappa San Luis Obispo City Councilwoman Dear Penny: A committee from the BIA met recently with County Administrator Robert Hendrix and several of his staff. The BIA Representatives were Tom Donat, Mike Spangler,Monte Lukov. and Carolyn Mason. We discussed how we might insure the longevity of the County downtown, and ways to open better lines of communications, plus a review of the BIA parking study and its effects on the County' s plans. This meeting covered a broad spectrum of subjects including: the county's need for additional space, consolidation of many of their programs and expansion of some others. We also discussed their perceived view that they are limited in the ability to expand in the downtown. Added to the above items were our concerns regarding the potential loss of any substantial numbers of County personnel in the downtown (2) the parking problems and (3) how we might best coordinate discussion between the City and County on issues such as downtown expansion, seismic retro- fit and land use. We even offered to assist in finding additional lease space in the core area if that would help. From this meeting several factors evolved: (1) The County is attempting to reduce the amount of out-of-pocket flow which does not give them some economic return such as ownership, (2) Improvement of their staff efficiency by consolidating and bringing together interfacing programs (building, planning, engineering, .etc. ) , (3) Better public accessibility thru this consolidation effort and ( 4) The ability to expand their court system needs. P.O. Box 1402, Son Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 541-0286 We discussed their options: (1) Expansion of their social services site (they are purchasing property next door) , (2) their downtown garage site (3) the TRW site (4) a site being discussed with the City on Prado Road, and (5) expansion on their current site, such as building above their current court parking area and adding an additional wing for the courts. The County is currently circulating a space plan survey through their department to determine actual needs. They generally plan to replace people moved from the courthouse, but it may not be a one-for-one replacement, or may require a time delay before the replacements can be moved in. The County' s feeling is generally that the employee density in the Court House building will remain the same and that any expansion will go to other areas. This would be a loss of the generally expected growth normally foreseen in the future for downtown business. In reviewing our meeting, we find many factors which need to be considered as soon as possible. 1 ) The longevity of the County downtown. 2) Our need for normal growth in County presence. 3) Both short and long term goals to work together. 4) Determine the way the City can assist with downtown County expansion. 5) Joint planning and design efforts to help develop current property (court building/garage, etc. ) 6) Use of BIA as third party influence in both directions. Penny! As you can see, the seed you planted regarding the BIA getting involved has taken root. We believe it is imperative that we sit down as soon as possible to discuss these subjects and how we can help influence the option which means the best results for everyone. Sincerely Tom Donat President,BIA city of sanl�u�s oBispoi y 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 January 23, 1991 MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: John Dun 7 � Subject: Pendi it action to relocate County offices to TRW site on Laurel Lane I wanted to give the City Council a brief status report on some reactions to the County's proposed acquisition and transfer of part of their operations to the TRW site. In brief: 1. A committee of the BIA has formed and had two meetings with Councilmember Rappa and myself. 2. The Downtown Physical Concept Design Committee last Wednesday met with our architect Fred Sweeney and County representatives Bob Hendrix and George Rosenberger, and thoroughly discussed the consequences of this prospective move. In summary, both the BIA committee and the Design Committee expressed serious reservations about the impending move of the County, and the belief that such a move would have negative long- term consequences on the downtown. Both groups clearly feel that the County should have been planning to expand their facilities within the downtown area. A strong concern expressed by the Design Committee was that if the County does move to the TRW site, then the private sector offices that have a working relationship with the County government offices, (engineers, attorneys, architects, etc. ) will attempt to locate somewhere adjacent to the TRW site, with the result that this area will substantially change in the years ahead. Both groups are willing and anxious to work with the County and to offer them whatever assistance they can to retain the County offices within the downtown area. There has been much brainstorming over what might be done to assist the County in staying downtown. Some of the following ideas may have merit and some may be next- to-impossible to achieve. Without comment, I will mention the ideas that have come up in various conversations with downtown representatives, the Design Committee, and with City staff members. o f _ b i. Our new information is that AT&T is using only a portion of their building, and might be willing to rent a major portion of their building to the County. The County has said that their major problem, aside from their space needs of approximately 60,000 square. feet, is that they desire to use the money they are currently spending for office leases for buying a permanent facility. 2. The City should rent or give the use of the old library building to the County for a period of time (perhaps three to five years) . The major problem is there is that the building has serious problems; it has no heating system, it has an inadequate electrical system, it has major structural problems with the mezzanine and noise circulation problems. 3. Consideration could be given to expanding the older County office building. The County has assumed, probably quite correctly, that there would be a major furor in the community if they proposed to demolish/rebuild or substantially change the exterior of the old County office building. However, members of the Design Committee felt that there was a possibility for adding to the building while retaining historical and architectural authenticity. 4. Arrangements could be made for the County to have the upper stories of the Court Street Prosect. The basic present issue is that the City has an agreement with the prospective developer to give them approximately another five months to "buy into" the project and to finish firming up their proposal. The though was expressed that if the project doesn't go, for whatever reason, then the City and the County should form a partnership to get commercial on the ground floor and County offices on the upper floors: 5. The City could seriously consider a proposal which the County has informally made, that they get the City Recreation building on Santa Rosa Street, and permission to tear it down, in exchange for, giving the City the Veterans' Memorial building. Major problems are the intensive recreational uses which the recreation building provides, and the commitments the various veteran organizations have for the use of the Veterans' Memorial building. 6. That the City build the new City Hall enlargement area, and agree to rent the area to the County for a number of years. This would give the County an opportunity to plan and build new facilities in the downtown area. 7. The County locate a portion of their offices to the Mitsubishi auto dealer site on Monterey near Santa Rosa, which would require a four-way agreement between Mitsubishi, the County, the City and Alex Madonna, to relocate the auto dealer on a portion of the Froom Ranch on Los Osos Valley Road, which is presently in the County. At my last meeting (on Monday) with the BIA committee, they agreed to write one-page letters to both the County Board of Supervisors and the Mayor and City Council setting forth their position, and asking for an opportunity to meet separately with both groups and to explain their position. They will also be speaking with representatives of the Chamber and Telegram-Tribune. They asked me in several different ways, "What is the City's position on this?" I explained that the City had taken no official position, that this could only be done by the City Council in a formal meeting, but that we had concerns with the County moving to the TRW site. I did explain to them that, irrespective of any City position, the County could use its "superior agency status" to go the TRW site even without City permission. BIA representatives know that this is a political or influence issue, as opposed to a legal restriction issue. The basic purpose in writing the above is to let the City Council know of the concern Penny and I and others have heard from the BIA committee and the Design Committee, and to ask the City Council if you desire to take action or establish a position on the perspective move of the County to the TRW site. We need to develop an answer to the question, "What is the City's position?". We can do this partially by meeting 112 and 2" with the Councilmembers, or by a study session with this as an agenda item. The BIA plans to ask the Council for a joint meeting on the subject. Please feel free to contact either the Mayor, myself or Ken with your thoughts on this matter. JD:mc C. Ken Hampian Jeff Jorgensen Arnold Jonas Bill Statler 4/coke t _g MEETINGhA" AGENDA j i` E RECLIVED FEB 11 1991 County of San Luis Obispo A MINISTRATION am .� COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,RM.370■SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA■(805)549-5011 Ta February 6, 1991 - C" ~ OFFICE OF THE R a a a� COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR :K enotes aMicn b1 Lezd Per;ort John Dunn woad b, City Administrator lCounal City of San Luis Obispo ^F,G P.O. Box 8100 City Alty. San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 lleeakk-oorig. ee Dear John: With the recent flurry of newspaper articles~and City Panning Commission attention to the possibility of the County purchasing the TRW site, I thought it appropriate to again share with the City some of the reasons why the County feels compelled to look at this as an option to meet our critical need for space. I might add that I have also shared these reasons with the Downtown Business Improvement Association(BIA) in response to a recent letter sent to Supervisor David Blakely, wherein the BIA expressed concern about the possible County acquisition of this property. In brief, the TRW site is of interest for several key reasons: amount of square footage, near term availability, and estimated financial savings. Each of these are discussed below. For several years the County Government Center has been unable to meet the space needs of those operations which have been housed there. Though we significantly reduced the square footage allotted to employees in the Government Center, we have nonetheless been forced to meet our expanding needs through the local rental market. Currently we have approximately 33, 000 square feet of rental space in the general vicinity of the Government Center, and still have a need to relieve severely cramped conditions in the Center which exist today. It has long been our desire to acquire additional, County-owned space to relieve the noted pressure on the Government Center and to bring in our various operations from rental quarters. We, along with yourself I am sure, recognize the benefits to owning one's facilities versus indefinite leases and the no equity return they represent. We have explored various new construction options for meeting these needs over the years, including 1039 Monterey Street, the parking area on Santa Rosa Street, and a site on South Higuera and Prado. All three of these sites have less than desirable availability time frames, three years versus one year for TRW, and SEB 1 1 1991 �3� .3NaJEW 1 they represent considerable costs. Current estimates for downtown development are $12-13 million, without consideration for additional parking needs. . While the financial attractiveness of the TRW option is important, its near term availability is also a key factor. Not only does the County have the space pressures noted above, but we also have the added requirement, in the near future, to retrofit the Old Courthouse to seismic safety standards. For this we will need space to temporarily relocate many of the employees currently working in that building. A facility which could come on line for us in the space of one year would go far to meeting that pending need. In its letter the BIA offered to be of assistance in identifying both short and long-term solutions to the County's space needs. In my reply I noted that a desirable downtown alternative for the County would have the following features: - Be nearly cost competitive, i.e. is there some economic value derived from being close by which could equal the apparent financial benefits of the TRW site? - Address the parking issue - Represent a long-term solution - If construction, identification of a feasible interim solution - Preserve future expansion options A major concern noted in the BIA's letter to Supervisor Blakely was the economic stability of the central business district. We too share that concern, but believe the County' s acquisition of the TRW site would have no detrimental effect. Should this option come to fruition, our plan would be to backfill employees in the Government Center to replace most of those who would relocate to TRW. Hence there should be no loss in numbers of County employees in the greater downtown area. In response to the BIA's request for a joint session with the Board of Supervisors to discuss the issues associated with this matter, Supervisor Blakely suggested, instead, working meetings with individual Board members and staff as a more productive and expeditious approach. In that spirit I have made myself and other members of the County staff working on this matter available to meet with BIA representatives in an effort to address their concerns. I make .the same offer to you and members of your staff. Should you desire such a meeting please let me know and I will make every effort to schedule it as soon as is practically possible. Sincerely, Robert E. Hendrix County Administrator t RESOLUTION NO. (1991 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CONCERNING COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO'S PROPOSED RELOCATION OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS TO THE TRW SITE WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo may relocate certain government functions to the TRW building on Laurel Lane in San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the relocation of 200+ employees from the downtown area would negatively effect an area already facing significant financial challenges; and WHEREAS, the additional loss of subsidiary-type businesses which will follow the County's relocated function will further impact the downtown in negative ways; and WHEREAS, departing from the tri-polar framework would undermine longstanding planning principles which have served the community well, including making access to local government services reasonably centralized and convenient; and WHEREAS, use of the TRW site for office purposes will reduce the limited amount of manufacturing zoning currently available in the City; and WHEREAS, several discussions have occurred between the County, the BIA, and the City during which time these concerns have been shared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby: 1. Opposes the County's proposed relocation of certain government functions to the TRW,building site; and Resolution No. (1991 Series) Resolution No. (1991 Series) 2. Offers the assistance of the City Council and City staff in joining with the County and Business Improvement Association to identify alternative solutions for short and long term space problems now facing the County. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1991. Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: Pam Voges, City Clerk APPROVED: a7,— Cit Admini trative 6fficer C/ty///Attoi-neryi � H\dy.res �/