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 �/