HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1993, 5 - EMERSON SCHOOL PROPERTY MARKETING PLAN IIIIIAIyllll�lllllllll II MEETING DATE:
city of San Lays OBISpo
NMI A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
William C. Statler, Director of Finance
PREPARED BY: Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager
David Elliott, Administrative Analyst
Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: EMERSON SCHOOL PROPERTY MARKETING PLAN
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS
■ Defer the sale of the Emerson School property
■ Confirm the previous decision to demolish the two classroom buildings on the
property
■ Direct staff to work with a landscape architect and develop appropriate interim uses
for the property
■ Defer rezoning the property
REPORT IN BRIEF
In June 1993 the Council directed staff to split the Emerson School parcel, demolish the
existing buildings, rezone and sell the east 60 percent, and use the proceeds to help finance
construction of the new headquarters fire station at Broad and Santa Barbara Streets. For
several reasons (described more fully later in this report), the City will not have to sell this
property immediately to pay for the new headquarters fire station. Because of the significant
decline in real estate values, staff recommends not selling the property at this time but
holding it for a few years to avoid a substantial capital loss and to determine if this site
should serve the City's future long term facilities needs. Staff further recommends develop-
ing a productive interim use for the property after demolishing the classroom buildings.
And, finally, staff recommends that the property not be rezoned before determining its
ultimate best use.
DISCUSSION
Background
In November 1990 the City entered into a purchase agreement to buy the Emerson School
property for development of a new headquarters fire station and recreation administration
offices. In October 1992, escrow closed and title passed to the City. In February 1993 the
Council authorized negotiations to buy a better site at Broad and Santa Barbara Streets owned
by Southern California Gas Company. In June 1993 the Council approved purchase of the,
gas company property and eliminated the recreation administration offices portion of the
project.
��������H��uIIIIIIIII►I�' lllllll City of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Originally, plans for financing construction on the gas company site depended on
proceeds from the sale of the Emerson School property. For this reason, the Council
directed staff to preserve the west 40 percent of the Emerson School parcel as open
space, rezone the east 60 percent from Public Facilities (PF) to Medium-high-density
Residential (R-3), demolish the buildings, and offer the east 60 percent for sale.
In August 1993 staff advertised for bids on a demolition contract. After bids were
opened, protests from bidders indicated that the specifications needed further clarifica-
tion about certifications required for asbestos removal. At its meeting on October 5,
1993, the Council rejected all bids and authorized readvertisement. New bids on a
revised demolition contract will be opened on November 10, 1993, and a bid summary
will be available at the Council meeting.
Since the Council's decision to sell the property, circumstances have changed. Real
estate values have continued to decline. Also, for the following three reasons, the City
will not have to sell the property immediately to pay for the new fire station.
■ Cash payments for construction will not begin for at least two years.
■ The Fire Department is confident that it can obtain grants to pay for a portion of
the new station.
■ Unanticipated one-time revenues will be available in 1993/94 because of two
actions: 1) State legislation channeled $195,500 to the City by extending the 1/2
cent sales tax for public safety purposes and transferring money from a state
transportation planning and development fund, and 2) the City took advantage of
a change in the method of allocating property taxes (Teeter Plan) and realized a
one-time increase in property tax revenue amounting to $543,000.
■ Based on preliminary unaudited financial statements, it appears that General
Fund balances at the end of 1992-93 will be higher than initially projected. At
this time, overall General Fund revenues appear to be on target with 1993-95
Financial Plan Projections, with operating expenditures less than budgeted by
about 5%. However, final balances will not be available until the audit is
completed, which is scheduled for sometime in December of 1993.
Because of this situation, the Council should reconsider the following questions about the
Emerson School property:
1) Should the City sell now or hold the property?
2) Should the City renovate or demolish the existing buildings?
3) What would be an appropriate interim use for the property?
4) Should the rezoning proceed?
Site Data
The 3.02 acre site covers the block bounded by Nipomo, Pismo, Beach, and Pacific
Streets. The site is on the edge of the downtown. A turf playfield and paved ballcourts
occupy 40 percent of the area on the west side of the property. On the remaining 60 9
11���111 city Of san Lacs OBISPO
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
percent are two classrooms, a small storage building, landscaping, and a parking area.
The floor area of the buildings is about 11,700 square feet. (See the vicinity map
included as Attachment A.)
Question 1: Should the City Sell Now or Hold the Property?
Assuming that the west 40 percent of the site would be preserved as open space, a May
1993 market study estimated that proceeds from the sale of the remaining 60 percent
would range from $880,000 to $1,100,000.
Arguments for Selling Now
■ The proceeds could pay for additional capital improvement projects or reduce
debt financing on existing projects.
■ Investing the proceeds could earn $40,000 to $48,000 in interest per year for the
general fund.
■ With the property in private hands, the City could realize additional property tax
revenue ranging from $2,000 per year with property undeveloped to $15,000 per
year with property developed under R-3 zoning.
■ Holding the property would require ongoing operations and maintenance expens-
es, including about $10,000 per year for the grounds and about $15,000 per year
for the buildings if they were retained and renovated.
■ If the City held the property, its investment might continue to deteriorate over the
short term in the current declining real estate market.
■ If the City held the property and promoted an interim park or recreation use, the
surrounding neighborhood could grow accustomed to the open space and expect
perpetual recreation uses. Objections from residents in the vicinity might compli-
cate future sale and development.
Arguments for Holding
I
■ The City no longer immediately needs the sale proceeds to build the new head-
quarters fire station.
■ Selling the property now would result in a permanent capital loss of $500,000 to
$700,000. Although property values might continue to decline in the short term,
eventually the market should recover and values should increase, particularly for
properties in good locations like the Emerson School site. Because the City can
hold the property for the long term, it can wait long enough to eventually realize
a gain, instead of a loss, on the sale.
■ The site might serve the City's future long term facilities needs. Within the next
two years, the City will complete an assessment of indoor recreation needs prior
to revision of the General Plan parks and recreation element. This assessment
might identify desirable recreation uses for this site. For example, the City still
does not have a permanent site for recreation administration, which will have to
move from its current location when the downtown parking expansion program
starts.
i���iai�N►�IIIIII�Ip l@ISI city of San L.AIS OBIspo
IM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
3taff Kecommenaation
Defer the sale of the Emerson School property. By taking this action the City might
forgo the use of an extra $70,000 per year, but it would also avoid a substantial capital
loss of $500,000 to $700,000. More important, the City would preserve the potential for.
either realizing a future gain or using the property for some appropriate municipal
purpose.
Question 2: Should the City Renovate or Demolish the Existing Buildings?
The classroom.buildings were in marginal condition when the City acquired the property
from the school district. Then, because the buildings were slated for demolition, building
maintenance crews salvaged HVAC systems, electrical equipment, plumbing apparatus, .
and other fixtures for use in other City buildings. Also, as these buildings have sat
vacant, vandals have further damaged windows, carpeting, wall finishes, and door
hardware. Consequently, the classroom buildings are now in deteriorated, uninhabitable
condition - a situation which would not have been a problem under previous plans to
build a fire station on this site. (See the notes on the site visit included as Attachment
B.)
Argument for Renovation
■ If the City held the property for at least five years, there might be potential for
rental income through renovating and leasing out the existing buildings. From
1983 to 1992, the school district leased out the buildings in marginal condition at
60 cents per square foot triple net with no vacancies over the entire period.
Minimum improvements to make the buildings leasable would cost roughly
$410,000. Rent at 70 cents per square foot per month would bring in a net
$83,000 each year, after covering repair and maintenance costs. This net rental
income would recoup the renovation cost in about five years, after which the City
could realize about $83,000 per year in additional revenue to the general fund.
Arguments for Demolition
■ In their current condition, the classroom buildings are potentially hazardous and
might constitute an attractive nuisance. If a trespasser were injured, the City
might incur the costs of defending against a lawsuit and paying monetary damages.
■ It would take $410,000 to $590,000 to renovate the buildings for use by City pro-
grams or by lessees. By contrast, demolition would cost the City only a net
$40,000. The total estimated demolition cost is about $90,000 (including $55,000
for asbestos abatement and $35,000 for general demolition). When the City
bought the property, the school district placed $50,000 of the proceeds into escrow
to pay for any future environmental cleanup, including asbestos abatement. As a
result, the net cost of demolition to the City would be an estimated $40,000 —
$90,000 minus the $50,000 in escrow.
■ Assuming the buildings would be renovated and occupied if they were not demol-
ished, ongoing operating and maintenance expenses would amount to an estimat-
ed $15,000 per year.
���n��i��iIIVIIIIIIUIpi'���IIUIII city of San JS OBISp0
ONGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ There is no current demand for facilities to house existing City programs. Represen-
tatives of one potential occupant, Recreation Department, have stated that even with
extensive renovation the buildings would be unsuitable for either offices or recreation
programs.
Staff Recommendation
Confirm the previous decision to demolish the two classroom buildings immediately but save
the small storage building for grounds maintenance storage. The only justification for
keeping and renovating the classroom buildings is potential rental revenue, but realizing the
benefits of that income would require a more stable rental market and longer than prudent
commitment of the property. By demolishing the classroom buildings for a relatively small
expense, the City could eliminate a hazardous eyesore and clear the way for some productive
interim use of the property.
Question 3: What would be an appropriate interim use for the property? `
If the City held the east 60 percent of the property for several years and demolished the
classroom buildings, there would be an opportunity to develop productive short term uses for
this portion of the site. Possibilities include:
■ Paving about one third of the area and installing apparatus for temporary game courts.
In conjunction with a street resurfacing project, these improvements would cost about
$15,000 to $30,000.
■ Planting additional turf for passive recreation use over the entire site but not installing
irrigation because of the interim use. This work would cost about $20,000.
■ Making the site available for public gardens to demonstrate concepts like drought-
tolerant landscaping, composting, and organic gardening.
■ Providing parking for activities at the Jack House. With little on-site parking
available, guests at Jack House activities must park on the street up to three blocks
away and worry about time limits on parking meters. The Emerson School property
is just one block away from the Jack House and could offer convenient guest parking.
Staff Recommendation
Direct staff to work with a landscape architect and propose appropriate interim uses for
future Council consideration. Money to develop an interim use would come from the
parkland development fund, if appropriate.
Question 4: Should the rezoning proceed?
The entire property is now zoned Public Facility (PF). When the Council directed staff to
ready the east 60 percent of the site for sale, it also initiated a rezoning from PF to Medium-
high-density Residential (R-3). For consistency, this rezoning would require a General Plan
amendment changing the land use designation from Public/Semipublic to Medium-high-
'1141111111$11111 uICity Of San IS OBISPO
muffiftwMA
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
density Residential. This amendment has been scheduled for Council review at its meeting
on December 7, 1993. On October 27, the Planning Commission reviewed the direction to
sell part of the site with R-3 zoning and found the proposed R-3 zoning to be appropriate.
(See the notice of Planning Commission action included as Attachment C.)
There are two other options to consider:
■ Retaining the PF zoning. This option would make sense if the Council elected to
hold the property and maintain either an interim park use or.a future permanent public
use, such as recreation facilities.
■ Rezoning the east 60 percent to Medium-high-density Residential with a mixed use
overlay (R-3-MU). Previous nonresidential use of the classrooms indicates that a
mixture of housing with office and neighborhood commercial uses would be compati-
ble with the surrounding neighborhood. This option would probably maximize sale
revenue. (See the letter from Dennis E. Greene included as Attachment D.)
0
Staff Recommendation
Retain the PF zoning for as long as the City holds the property. If the Council decides to
sell the property now or in the future, it should initiate a General Plan amendment and
rezoning to allow a mix of residential and commercial uses.
Unsolicited Purchase Proposals
Over the last two months, the City has received unsolicited purchase proposals from Rob
Rossi (representing Rossi Enterprises), Michael Morris (representing the Catholic Church's
Diocese of Monterey) and Barry Williams (representing a Cal Poly design group and the
Housing Authority). If the Council opts to sell the property immediately, staff recommends
offering the property through competitive sealed bids and awarding the sale to the highest
bidder rather than reviewing individual proposals which could not be easily compared. Full
sale procedures are outlined in Attachment E.
CONCURRENCES
The following departments and divisions concur with the findings and recommendations of
this report:
Fire Department
Police Department
Recreation Department
Community Development Department - Building and Safety Division
Public Works Department - Building Maintenance Division
Staff discussed the disposition of the Emerson School property with three local real estate
consultants and with property managers from the cities of Monterey and Los Angeles. All
���������IIVIIIIIIUIh�Nu��IIUIII City Of San 1S OBISPO
MftZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
advised deferring sale of the property until the real estate market improved. After viewing
the site, the local consultants all recommended demolishing the classroom buildings.
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs of the four staff recommendations would be:
Ongoine One-time
Deferring the sale
existing turf maintenance $5,000
Confirming the direction to demolish buildings
classroom building demolition (net) $40,000
Directing staff to propose an interim property use
conceptual design 2,000
construction (maximum) 30,000
additional grounds maintenance 5,000
Deferring the rezoning 0 0
Totals $10,000 $72,000
This table emphasizes that avoiding a $500,000 to $700,000 capital loss, eliminating obvious
liability, and putting the property to some productive interim use would entail up to $72,000
in one-time capital costs and about $10,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. The
one-time costs would be paid from the parkland development fund, which will have a
projected fund balance of $300,300 at the end of 1994/95.
ALTERNATIVES
All of the recommendations of this report are based on the first recommendation to defer sale
of the property. If the Council decides instead to proceed with an immediate sale, staff
recommends:
■ selling the property by competitive sealed bids according to the procedures and
schedule shown in Attachment E
■ rezoning the property from PF to R-3-MU
ATTACHMENTS ,
A. Vicinity Map
B. Notes on Emerson School Site Visit
C. Notice of Planning Commission Action
D. Letter from Dennis E. Greene
E. Schedule and Procedure for Immediate Sale
GAWP67\EMERSONG
ATTACHMENT A
N.
n 41t
\ . ::::::: c::::. /
i.::::•:...
...
i
9
t' A
r.
1
.V
on
of
t
site e
...............:::::::
:ieeei:
?eeEirE? •'2 ?Si ' ...
\
10,
1 •\
VICINITY MAP 1341 NIPOMO STREET NORTH
GP/R 100-93 REZONING FROM PF-H TO R-3-H A
�8
ATTACHMENT B
Notes on Emerson School Site Visit
Monday, October 18, 1993
Participants:
Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official
Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner
Dave Smith, Building Maintenance Supervisor
Recommendation:
Demolish the classrooms but keep the storage building if usable for on-site storage
of maintenance supplies or recreation equipment.
Property Condition:
The following comments list the improvements required to bring the buildings up to
building code standards and to make the buildings habitable for occupancy:
■ Replace the roof. The structure shows signs of rot and decay.
■ Replace windows. Windows near doors should be replaced with safety
glass. Broken panes need replacement. Existing windows need caulking.
Existing windows are not secure from forced entrance.
■ Install a new HVAC system.
■ Improve the electrical systems. The existing service entrance is a 400-amp
panel, which is very outdated and should probably be replaced. New
fixtures and possibly repairs or extensions of branch wiring may be neces-
sary.
■ Improve the plumbing systems. New water-conserving fixtures would be
required. Toilet rooms would require remodeling to meet ADA standards.
■ Install accessibility improvements to meet ADA standards.
■ Install fire sprinklers. There are no fire sprinklers now. Hydrant and water
main improvements might be necessary.
■ Repair probable termite damage.
■ Install interior cosmetic improvements -- painting, carpeting, partition
removal, etc.
Additional Comments:
■ The building appears to be seismically safe.
■ Existing site planning is somewhat inefficient with much courtyard area and
substantial setbacks.
5-9
ATTACHMENT C
cityO scm 1WIS OBISfP
A=• � 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 934038100
November 3, 1993
Chief Bob Neumann
City Fire Department
748 Pismo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: General.Plan Amendment/Rezoning GP/R 100-93
1341 Nipomo Street
Dear Bob:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 27, 1993, modified the mitigated negative
declaration of environmental impact and recommended to the City Council that the proposal to
amend the General Plan land use map and to rezone a portion of the site from Public Facilities
(PF) to Medium-high Density Residential (R-3) be approved with the historic overlay "H" to
remain. The commission also determined that the proposed sale of property at 1341 Nipomo
Street is consistent with the General Plan, based on the finding that the site is not necessary for
development of public facilities.
The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore,
is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council
on December 7, 1993. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office.
Further discussion of the future use of the Emerson School site yielded the following Planning
Commission comments for Council consideration:
1. Mixed-use may be appropriate for the school site.
2. An affordable housing project may be appropriate for this site.
3. If the eastern 60% of the property is sold, a portion of the proceeds should be used
to enhance the remaining park area.
4. If part of the property is rezoned to allow residential and/or commercial uses,
architectural review of future development should ensure adequate buffering between
zones and uses.
If you have any questions, please contact Whitney McIlvaine at 781-7175.
Sincerely,
Ro d Whise nd
Development Review Manager
Attacht: Resolution No. 5126-93
/ The Oty of San Luis Obispo is committed rn include the disabled in all of its services. programs and activities
l� Te' : •,mun,ca:•ons Oenca for the Dear (9051 781.7110 `/J�
ATTACHMENT D
`Dennis 8. Greene,,, Inc.
(805)238-6776 Post Office Box 2460
Paso Robles, CA 93447
October 19, 1993
Ms. Linda Asprion
Revenue Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
RE: Your Letter of October 19, 1993 Concerning "Emerson School Site"
Dear Ms. Asprion:
This letter is in reply to your questions which I restate. I offer my replies
and suggestions and hope they will be of some value.
Market Study performed in May 1993 assumed zoning for property would be R3.
Generally,how would a mixed use zoning of R3 /Office or Office JCommercial impact the
value of the property?
A mixed use zoning is generally more flexible to the eventual owner-
developer in developing a finished product. Such zoning is found in the City of
Paso Robles for example,they have an R-3-0 category. I did not see this type of
mixed use zoning in the City of San Luis Obispo based upon a cursory survey.
Office zoning is a good transition zoning from commercial use to residential
uses. Office and multi-family zonings are often adjacent. It is important that the
zoning and eventual use(s) of the Emerson School Site are harmonious with the
surrounding community. In the May report you received value estimates based
upon the R-3 zoning. In my opinion a mixed zoning will typically enhance
property values.
Based upon the ct:rrent market do you think the City should sell the property.
immediately? If no. best guess or market indications on when property values will
"turn-around."
Of paramount importance to the value of a property is the economic
setting at that point in time. Any appraisal is made at a point in time and a few
months later, the original market estimate may be invalid. California is in a
recession of unparalleled magnitude since the Great Depression. Demand and
market stability today is very uncertain. Rezoning Emerson School Property to
R-3 or O will not automatically confer salability. Absorption time for a specific
property is at best an educated guess. My impression of today's real estate
market is a buyers market wherein,sellers have diverged into two sub markets.
Those who are motivated to sell within one year or less and are willing to drop
prices to attract a buyer and those who can wait and are holding their asking
RESIDENTIAL • RURAL • COMMERCIAL • INDUSTRIAL • APPRAISALS
`Dennis E. Greene..,, Inc.
(805)238.8776 - Post Office Box 2460
Paso Robles, CA 93447
prices. The latter in my opinion can expect to have a marketing time over one
year up to three years, especially for unique properties or properties over one.
million in price and /or are speculative-development type properties. If you are
interested in selling the Emerson School Property within one year, you will be
selling at discount in my opinion.
Since you asked about selling immediately,I advocate holding the
property for at least three to five years as a long term investment. In my opinion
(I've been wrong before), it will take at least 5 years to produce a healthy market.
Conditions leading to today's market have been slowly developing over many
years and a quick fix is very unlikely.
If City retains property should buildings be rehabilitated or demolished?
If you hold the subject property you risk real estate values going even
lower. Another risk is someone being attracted to the empty buildings
(transients or children) and being hurt or setting a fire. The current buildings
eventually will have to be demolished in order to transform the property to its
highest and best use under the R-3 or O zoning. If you do not demolish, the
buyer will generally negotiate a lower price to offset this added expense.
I would demolish the buildings unless the City has areal need or a game
plan for interim use. In another three to five years the City may be very happy to
own this site due to some unforeseen need. Real estate in the long nun will come
back in value and become expensive especially for a good location. I am bullish
on the City of San Luis Obispo. Historically,City property values have shown
more appreciation than comparable sites within the County.
Sincerely,
Dennis E. Greene,MAI,CCIM
RESIDENTIAL • RURAL • COMMERCIAL • INDUSTRIAL • APPRAISALS
ATTACHMENT E
Schedule and Procedure for Immediate Sale
12/3/93 The Community Development Director approves the lot combination
and lot line adjustment to preserve the west 40 percent of the parcel
as open space.
12/7/93 The Council passes to print an ordinance changing the General Plan
land use designation for the surplus property from Public/Semipublic
to Medium-high-density Residential.
12/21/93 The Council gives final passage to the ordinance changing the land
use designation.
12/21/93 The Council adopts a resolution declaring the east 60 percent of the
parcel surplus.
1/4/94 The Council passes to print an ordinance rezoning the surplus property
from PF to R-3-MU.
1/5/93 Staff offers the surplus property to the Housing Authority and to
County, Regional and State agencies as required by state law.
1/17/93 An appraiser completes a current appraisal of the surplus property
under the revised zoning.
1/18/94 The Council gives final passage to the rezoning ordinance.
1/19/94 The City Clerk receives any offers tendered from the Housing Authori-
ty and government agencies.
1/19/94 If any offers from the Housing Authority or government agencies are
higher than the appraised value, staff prepares an agenda report for
the Council to award the sale based on the best offer.
1/20/93 The ordinance changing the land use designation takes effect.
1/22/94 If offers from the Housing Authority or government agencies are lower
than the appraised value, the City Clerk advertises for sealed competi-
tive bids on the surplus property.
2/17/94 The rezoning ordinance takes effect.
2/18/94 The City Clerk receives bids.
2/23/94 Staff completes its analysis of the bids submitted.
3/15/94 The City Attorney completes preparation of sale documents.
3/24/94 Staff submits an agenda report recommending award of sale to the
highest bidder.
4/5/94 The Council awards the sale.
If the Council decides to sell the surplus property immediately, it might want to
reconsider preserving the existing buildings for two reasons. First, a potential
buyer might have plans to use the buildings pending future development. Second,
the City would avoid the perpetual responsibility and liability for disposed asbestos
associated with demolition. Whether a sale occurs immediately or sometime in the
future, staff recommends offering the property through competitive sealed bids and
awarding the sale to the highest bidder.
,s/3
S. a wl N p
n
.f:_
O p T 6 SIO ut pY TO
T =I;
cr
a m m m m
10
3 m m
m) N Y. l wll 01 �- 0'� m m�
m mS. px. dsl c3 1p u' p ( O:
Ot" i f
-�'...�.. . _GW�O_-•' .I°r,-4�j�'' -.'s�m Lr1 0 . . i e'" '` - _�1'y-s't'es„`:.;.-4>i1'�T1'r,'.°��:y't-'..1:"'','���'j�IpOONc-N11N.am.w0.�"IN4iaOoOS0N-«ooo,;.rU�,4--C,m_a--E;l,«--N_r0-erom�ry,«N'•Nl�0NoN,»d'
D_m'9i999mfAmnp�-_-f—
1
1O 3D1mZzy polIyD0mm..Z:
n r �NN NNZ r C
N N -
'
m
; `y.-;.
O.14�
'
Zmwyyrm3mo�o3'
OO D pir c o ZI
0 '009Z' O9ZN0Z AtOOQZ
O O Omcoo
000
00 0 0 5?.
oo o
m
e m mm
W �0wTooNo a o0C
00'009a0000Ooo000ooOD
0omr
0000 51 p _ cn
CAN w ca
9 -
00 � pc :5Oo �' i0Oo 0 0 0 on y
oo 0 o m Mo0 0m -
so m0ce�iceO.
.';1.
..
•I:t.'.
.Aa^
Z�Q�nVR/i
..
(n
O O coo 0 n°D
000mr O
M00o0000oo0
mwO �
� OO u cZ=.% C'zto 0 o _ :j0N o C
o00Zonz000o09D -irk .'z
0eoOomo
« Z
wNDm 40 VIWO w 40 .0
o oyp 0000 0 0 0 07
o 0 0 0 o mrr
000ooo000 ; 0
WO
A v2 zPp0I0 - 200 00
oO�oo000oo0''O � -0 o m '0 0 0 o msz� O ooo 000 mm „o000
0 0 O yOm
00
ioom
0o9'0
IN M's
0 0 o o 'o
ij
I-L.11w N rCb cc mb
ON m Z
O O 00 .1 ~ ZD0000D
cn `Y " mmo
p
oOO
O00
w
A O °M-0
appo01> .
..
..'.'.�.
..
..
a
MFRING AGENDA
h, 5 Cii 11' yy d c '.,11'$k9�t l v,hGr
ITE
_
c r ;I yi:Y P y'GuF` ,cTv.s Y1� , �r1 r$,I � '�` � k �Ir-7--�•b 1. r:: r
s9
I It
hA ti 3 y" �,'_s.'F a ,,•' ,r `�FL �F CJIr I I u
r UM
So
*r... .Nlii i
cn,7•'� FY'.8'�1 .✓t +n �
November 15, 1993`
AI
.. GIAr t
M :E fiUl'O R AiN D'U'NI err y� FTH it D FIRECMIEFt
A �•s o �W_EY O PW OIR W'
TO: cauana o E C J
` � Council Colleag_-dt sYYF„ it 6 1 due nuc 6 '
- �'REc D�l
r z ti o_ LE
D Flue °o urn aA ,
FROM: r Penny Rappa _FILE- D PEASDtR
It
SUBJECT: ��EMERSON SCHOOL: ° S
h µ` Z,. ' h. b. !1 r cn ' AOFPfl4llt• IJ; r�.y n, I •�yi I .
I''would,'.Ilke to encourage the Council to defer the sale of the Emerson School prop_,erty
at this time it;would also like to suggest further evaluation of a use/user not Identified
staff. Attached'toathis memo is an excerpt#rom the Cit' _Facilities Master Plan adopted
in October 1988°,I believe there Is poiential'for Recreation Adrriihistratlon to function very,
Well in one wing ofrthe:finerson School buildings: The rooms are large and.easily dnnded
in separate areas for various.functions: 'The remaining wing could, either be rented orj
�a {
demolished) .rlhert. esbe"stos, like -floor tiles, can.Tremain and be covered ,reducing
rehabil'Itatlon costs=� 'Parking could be arranged to meet the needs of the`various rusers14- , N�
There may even bean opportunity for program expansion on the remaining property ry
The currenIt
tiRecreation Administration office located at 860 Pacifc`Streef should tie eas er,
to rent4hd produce,A higher value per square foot: This would help toit
.offset any*lossr
Of revenue from Emerson Sch0ol..'.j4 ;•,. v �; ; ' w"4': ,`
w r,
1.1
would.encourageall`of you to vM—,,both sites° l'm not quite sure how,the Recreation} r.
personnel do'tas well; as they .do given the conditions gf their work envlronrnent hL _m
r
suppose we all-see things differently, but the school buildings tlon';t appea"r to me to�have. • .. =
used yp all of.thelr°Ilfe,expectancy p b 'y ,�
p
R, •t„1 t f ," '� I,1 c
rig
Lastly, one suggested use would aceommodate parking for Jack House patrons There r
is a logon Hlgue�a Street,with'the rear property line connecting,to Jack.House property 15
This property'could be rented and used for additional parking during the week, and Jaek'#
House parking on the weekends. ;I believe we discussed this earlier this year_ Many 1
communities ee that surface parking lots fiave dual results more parking for the public
arld improved `aesthetic valued to ar empty run down loty. tr," `
L IIID rb`t
JI 1 Ll 1
'I. ~ ctS!-°t°t'r" ,i i a�,,IM1` �'T ^ c '{t r •�'J'rlY A .� h �. G,,i
PR:ss ' 4 iF 7iK til K� ,Sw °v) c 9 hr t�`r kl xex4 P nT y t
r4Ut 41 m {, , ♦` i�.,, L Vy 'ar{ r` I� ri° rai � � Ali+£ G, ,, c t-Trr-•.
tiy 1 'y.-
Attachment: 9 r
llV I y
Attachment:
' •,, y, :. u c4 Yr,
ur rpr
Exoerpts�from SLO City Facilities Master- Flan,
1988-;120,10 Overview& Options
W
, y"' p 'I it 1 r'Ca 1'�f k•c'.h'�a.+n! ' f fj. r ray r kr
3 15 � i, v� °N'•aa 9y '+�'Fail,�, V�v'7rT r" Fdniti' �,111SjPn,Y i -
Nr r '• rdt.W.
✓t' '
4
�I 1 14 Y,l .• V N I %f 11.'V YI 411u
5t �
' 1•. 1_('J vi��',t dl � 6 V•. 1 � 7 ,l..l 1 S,. • Cu
C' t ]
Y
� San. Lues Obispo
City Facilities
� Master- Plan
r
r
� 1988_ to 201 '
OVERVIEW & OPTIONS
r
140
- :4], -, v] lr i t']• � R p � dR ��:r 1! 0 I I F U, 4 � n ,
• to�r tlT t �"�1'�L � .fur U.1� � .1, �. a`�ri]✓
--w
}, 860 PACIFIC (RECREATI'0N����� FFICE)
�'S t,� m I: R ; Yr��f t F ,". IFh .Y• ' r� Y�� i! '
ISSUES s' 1 The :Recreation Department administration office is located
-:N �..
downtown m an old converted�house on Pacific Street.
Although the`Department has adapted•well tolth"e'space,;the con
1]
f -aonis crowded and inefficient To improve the efiiclency
and accommodate immediate growth at-this location,substantial .
f - remodeling and construction of`an;addition will be.required`
i
The facility experiences a Iarge volume of:traffic`composed'of
public participants in.recreation•programs;temporary employees
and volunteer wo_r-kers..'This activity and related automobile�traf-
i 1 fic suggests that the Recreation offices would be best•located4,aft.
from .the general city administrative functions;easily acre"ssilile
v and near ample public parking:
f
Continued use of this facility is inconsistent wilt" established .
policies relating to productive woik environments; energy effi
dent buildings and positive image for the city a = v
-
T1ie foIlowing material examines alternatives for meeting4faclhty,,
a needs to the year 2010 s,
G r%
ir
� '_Py � L 4 µ11 J ^` ].y 1. )f.4., n y..5 ••,
' n"� ti. °i pf,L l ff � i ,- � :. ^l."b: � ]t k-• 1 'i. x5 n ...��-. .
' 4 '^:iu�A� ]rA-•�6 � IW �f r�, II! I ,r',. ^"?'79rti' ' 1t* �".•t� ' - - '�
�. _ • x•. .� t+'u ter , L _ �' ., �.-al ie �`� Ira- ^ �r�J
*t a �',• Ff ,. e. fI r 4 + K ,t i+ ,{ ]
f
Ir_,' T ° 1ojt 4, wNt°r tri r`v ]I• n J i „' x fC1 �'
' ^ `..iC t ii u, a.'fr'' � '3y 1 ]d `m;�'".>SM�,,i••�t t'-rv.;en 5•, � .• ^" r'•',r
qr 5 pp
:}] '' IY rk 6>N /w.`L. n. - , >♦ _'n i� r4 ..
Y•r t^rti ]. � 2' ...e^� '_ 'V rf:;F n � � � ' cF ttd L �f, tl t� ,n rN: f ..
- � .�. . .::.!1LN 9�. -'?moi• 9,f-��. sN s'I�M`rx+.- �.:�"ti. ^r,'�- v�''',N•`�,'�'l ro-1 ,�r�r.�oq. _
., I
( �L it,
1 � H J , l
11
OPTIONS' -- --'4 n- n � As
t Pit ~ ..4�' '�.
4 g
i
Description Advantages I Disadvantages I Est. Cost*
}:F{.�3k-;...: .�j.i.nn.{rvxg2.,.atj..dk�ti+Y::'. ;t,:. •;:.:o-�;t{.{;,o-,:a,n.};��:}:/
• Expand Santa Rosa St
y;:i°�14cafes.Wrii;j ustr: tloi;3= n> • Requires acquisition of
b'S;,�F}:}.::' .,4f.f;3..,., ..:Y.;:e.,W;
O}.:Sen:: :i%„V:n'!�v yk;...............
<.}; :.},: .I( �:u>Y{�<::�> nt r t
Recreation Center to :an;;>actY centeC.:t .. adjacent property o
IV' `.'s%: .w :: :',/f:': , I
ffiinco'rpmorate admin- v :.:+ro-;:{''.3sFG'.:,n;.'v$�,kyi'• ... i..fi{i'iy,;'.^;,�o-'w..,»:.Nws}:`G"u.''n>vf:' provide adequate
' ;\:.0Istrative offices. parking.
.} •Y4S::::;Ro S`:t;::
}F.u°ri F ;w f :..�s �a, • Existing building may
notP rovide for optimal
':`.�:`n;::'}:; ..x:..;'A..w:;'}i.,��.<;?s`.%};:V;{.';�,:t;<: ':u3i:.:;+:}:vr•;Fit'�2k!{: :if:yi.�x'L:r,; }r::;u,:
#k: : expansion ;'t.%:�.',i..:iw:•;:•�:t}:'r;:•n:::.
';i:•.. r:i^;::.:wx;i' •y...,i�.`.::,:;..5{'c.{Y.'%:z;
xo::v{i;ar `k;aq
+wtivyrtfi
"Hconfiguration.
tf4::...... � sn�'' .�i ?+^{.e`�'ti.1`"f.,Yl.C.i}'i$'<i.i:., }!wF`.#•.;t; ,i#±C'.'. h{i<^{i:.`i
S. F:;::.,+.-, :✓S.w...,F.,.::..55...,..,.:., +A.?u.,;Fx.ni'. ;}:,::,x..3 ,..::.tt:%ix:}:.Fee,e::.:.,i^::
: ....ty" ':"' "tPY", %Fd};„°'°• °:y,..e..y...f :;a}:i;n`... ...c."' i':i:}fi'<"o:�.:n;,,.:::::::.:::
..........
}.:'�}` .'i}»k, .»e �o-w:.:
.:.`3.j{: »,H:.;�:.,mw;y..:�;a.vw,r,;.t;u,:o-:u..' }x.'.nx;..3.�+�':,..
o:.' a vii+
• Continue at existing Io- :s{>i csrteset[nistratletr :; . • Requires interim
;'; k,w}.,r.F:::. moi'{r' •}}`r„ k:,.•;,
U5.;.;,.. ,.: ?! x<:} relocation.
cation temporarily. .WATX ac#lv?f erste::}, •'
'j�,}-!:.:n2`:k:::ii';.;y'iD:::::;.:;:?i3:;'^::£TRf:::v'.R'9,`.t:i�ic'�+7<£
• Provide interim locations::::I3:oes::�pt1�..].(:�d:;ciie <., • Temporarily impacts
'Y^ts d;:' .Y.' , <. ayro;....o-:v':n;:ii'•t;�}ss°,,.::
K' .r,,A . .i6:t;t}• to¢'¢d'P'.h"' :'i,h <.%::.FiT:ynn::
F rfabirrt ` ,< leases space available
; „: .: at Chorro St Parking �$a e„ ,n,}. `:r�� i>. pa
iFk..y,M2}ox:tSit.;Fb:^.j/3.)?� �t:�ifeu.{3:}ai ','.•`�:;
955 Morro as ! .iPtpva<:Bc;C :[lial;: t�ct.e. at Chorro St parking
vywa,y}x;V nn
�:}:,;,w.o-.y,w.+'.X.:,y:;r f�: w.w.. :..S f?:v:Y.:c;r.::. ::.i•.:};;q
:e.,tii};;C. }, 9
space becomes avalable. ; u<: dtip!?'q>> ' + structure.
k. ��,!'....;f:'',.
. ° y,,:ro;:•;t.fi:k ,.9,rw: ',. : <: :gzi: .y?4nx.;. 'r:{;.; ;
• Plan forermanent lova-
P
tion at future recreation ..:.,,#>i>;..;«ayx . }
*�",{�;+.:X«ry%:}O•'.�,„:aF::o-!::;a4k. ;'.::.{.�:.:.:.t;v
facility.
: a."}`Z.( J:+;'::^':.'. a;<::<<F=o}';,:f'%”xw k.'+.}'!:ir,�.�}GnG<t:.xFkFk:•,u;.;,�:':!}ek;;;fi�'k}r.tri#{;y`;S;.Yi.:.
i
�; +�. on:: 7i'�'nHo-.}}Li{';�•` o- q,� .t}n_n. 'v't }:';n:.. '
.:aLo-y'»$^ .t ,y:+ue ;:i;w{o-:•6 < <}#y}e'i.y:, ; }:Yti,i:�..,.sKk:9};t}i:Frs;:.: I
gh
::<:,i r:.'..G �SK°i�'F.};a 4• �.�:.'
*Total projected cost including construction&design. Not including land acquisition j
•'Contn'butory construction cost of City Hall addition i
i
CONCLUSIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS
OPTION A
Maintaining the Recreation Department at its present location
will require immediate renovation to mitigate existing deficiencies
and building addition to accommodate projected staff growth.
Continued use of this facility is inconsistent with city policies and
the cost of improving this structure will not prove to be cost effec-
tive if other viable options are available.
OPTIONS B&C
These options examine the viability of relocating the Recreation
Department to alternate city-owned facilities that may be avail-
able at future dates. Both 955 Morro and the Chorro Street park- j
ing structure would be satisfactory locations, and either would be
more efficient and consistent with city policies than the existing
facility.
oFn0N5 64.
_ . .
OPTIONS/ RECREATION OFFICE (860 PACIFIC)
Description Advantages 1--Dit-advant-a es . Est: Cost*
.:f::.x;•• — - - _ 4i%i,O��i,Vii.'.':;?S1:>�i+:?�:>
riQ
• Remain in existing ,., . '.... .:. .. • Will not provide
�.�,�,,:�,`r:xY:.;,iia:i::i'/,i::.:;;:i::i:::::;�
{6 A"'vx• ax4: :>:<<::>;;<:ai::::>.>:;:<:> < :>::::>: efficiency. ;>t;::v:.,.:.
g tact I.N. * optimum
•, \fY' <:.'Se'.: ,+e::n,:.::
: < ,,�+:z ;ii:<, acE>t ;:> r€<'> 9 Does not conform to
• Renovate to mitigate k� ,€)oe5,...0;.._.,.p. .,,.,aE.l?E,. ..,�
„vdu ; ; 2 ;
x'
major Internal >�:�,,'�r#acil�es>"i l city Policies concern-
deficiencies.
oncern- xri.$25f3�QOCz�' _ _
J ,Q):M4'..a.. %ii:�i�i+%i ::' ::Y:Y+:<�:i•i�".;^yf:Q)
•i. E. ;�riiii} p}^�<F:Y4iY'C::i i:i:JiRii`.`u�.L:iii::'A(:Lxi `+'t'Y{'}:i$,Ai•• .Y:::{�:i:+.i}J.:
h:'ry :Y.'i,r y::�:..y tF.y.::.. ..R:rv...
deficiencies. ':��, .::,.....,f.:.:;:i. �:��;:i:;>,;.,Y.;:..i;>;.�<i:i> :a.,:. Ing energy efficiency,
�(Jxi':;'i'> :.}`
W �;''w(N:ii: ,•:;i+`a,.``, '.;;<,R«.,:.;v{i';; }:i},o}:<.;Y. >:,;.�E & �:i<
• Provide future expan ion o-.�. positive city image v$ .v
v^�"-''. J. ,' �x.t:;itx`iiruf :.:;:,.iu.::: J.,.y,Gv.:i:}'{!�
+r`.c.,;<..>^ },:.:::: %
h ix . ...:o.v,::>:;;:£::"`Y;:`s?^:kid:o:;:iR'':ii'::{;.':;if
to meet 1995 needs ; :;. maximum building
SeNiCelifei :i<ii: 'a:
{i' 'itrxi;}i3.a.w:i:::i:`.;:;::i;}'<:
'�y :,. �,l`::�iu.':�.xin':i;i;.>:<:k:..px}:.,r:�::},:�:2�•;,:.::,,.;ri..:.;� b: `�;Y%'k::'%`L2+;2:c:i::Y:.;;; '�"'.�
a i CJJ }> • Residential structure
appropriate for existing
+ix
:r2:
function and location. w : -
Q. w#ry ':Y:;:i:r:k:i:i;5•'uo-.::::n..::::.:::,:..:::.:.. ....:�:.
i;{ra_; :vkk9;f. . .y"i:j;:i$i;v. -
• Relocate to rtion of <wr:<, ares:minlinal:;:;:;;°;:<>;:>:; : • May impact space
p}�� .,�,.,...
Po.. )yar..,+ .„!.'tf" ...v�...,..K
future Chorro St parking available for alternative
.
�uY structure designated administrative func-a
Y'QftiL} ;f :iS,;:;::T "'M?�;
for c' administrative O'riJ.^:�altfQri'emova�ar;;::v,: ;<.; tions or commercial ,�
d4}...:o',^ p ;. Y>Y:... � �I�
tii::i'.:::.iii':J:.iii:!�'\{i:f::>f lease• {•{r'?.:ii}v}}i�i}vq':J:
use oroommerciai �; [t mat: 'ta ..e, :;i.Yi;i»;::<iv:<i;
1f151i1dXIRiISCII''; �.31tifi1�#]c }:f;>,a
lease space. 116,
,.c....,�k:iGY:;.i:)R�3ifi'ii:•:'�'J;<.;::.;;}.i'+fRY",Q. y �,,.; .i Lr..t :•i:
Convert existingstructure: - ''i8cC8S5::Tor: i w
.{*i$:i:.. 3:tom::::::;Y:::;:.Y:;. .<:x......
��(pe.
' -' �. "v'iF:iCY:+if: .Q:::(,,.:w,i,'4i:!}:'in�F;i:i. •:.a,j.
to public kin ►xptbvttlas:effieret >» ::JrY �c;i:....: ..,a.:..
n 'fv�. >:.::> .»:�i;:;�F� �rcY »,}yfiw.:f.
P parking. '+vb'v:
ae".T:,a'x..:x
iy>Mi ;:::v:::
+SJ`}":n' ii`::::iy:�:
. $5'LY.ry�F,, e..:1i:::;%:i5 .
• Continue at existin ft ' tliesmin1: rr" "`" Facility may not
}y�+. ;w'zFvri:i;iY.....>.:.;.....:;:c^:i.>:.:..r.i 2aRJ.r ii..;;Y
1 T>x w::. x' store:: >:':€ ><"; y become available ina ;,<
location temporarily. '20.'K2 J3g..Ol <
..i.. .{;.} ii.av:;::f}Y;L';ii•F:;>:gii;:i;;:cir:ifc• :}x:J. r.;;,
t .955 Mono t Nt itit3lfY5.::qi:.edminis ra?t time to satisfy need.
• Relocate o , ' ! L.
:;<• after engineering .'2:ail?cfior ail • Extends use of existing
. Q:tt�i• 9 9 y`:riiii;;;x;ki+:.:va}:4::::;c;;::t:;,:::x:;i.. +{�4,;u.. 'i9>2•.`'%:`:-:i�+<::.kv: -_
functions are relocated f�. .�/:roiled :�iiy`>>::> ':> °'a.: sub-standard -
N:!:IC.Z}:.. '.�L fS:.i:.,i,)i:iiJ::y.•
,j�f:• Xe}iY f> R4
r expanded
easii facilities. «ii: v v%:i
to future expa ''Murswi'itsfaci �il+itl>a
CittyHall fact' 08mo
:.
un J
ykoy, •:;.s;.>}.,i:.iz:i;;r i:..v ;�z...;' ..i.;:x.>i.i:;;r
, rot. ^':aa,�j>'it�>i;�! _';�•-
s:;tJiairifa9ns
d�
v. A �;L�fzixyxza
v8iiYio':`i;:.:yE.
:"M ':xt..L::.:.oil!£.iz'•.k'r..Ra;.:2.i?+�.}<:D%f •�
I ...,
•o.i:i5:giiiviYY. :.,;�f: `�.. .;G:;y rr
• Continue at:existin ;r,.:.p':�:.tes`n1t9i2..:ihrta['`": • Location may notkX
pro- s < j
b;i4i.vi'v:'Yi'i>i:r..�iix,•;i;n\ .•3+a?4k*�: f;::;:J:: .irtri;':,: :T•y
location tem rani tdRure<>Y:.:�;..i.Y::.:.:.,.T,,.. vide optimal access , r:t:;'i:, :, r-z:
S. ,u"2Y:;i,:i:.i;:isk:.i:.i;;::i":?y :c: 'i,V '- -
N • Relocate to futureWds::centrafizatiorf<i<.i b public.
wp
�....R' �:_r�. ..6i ..i}:y.}:St.t•;Si'v::;;:iii;:a' v^?�Cr.. Y P '�
r' a Major increase in ce
expanded City Hall £ ; failcrtyaclr;�Smisirat�±t <»>. J Pa
,Y;: t?},Cy':if)i:::+..}Yi:i'i/,.::::} FY j4`�:i:i_:;h�S� 5
fact' y. „ :> demand at City Hall.
ay. functions
+9{»rvr,,�fQ}iui:��y;},vii:.<::.;.;.:.:i:::i:i;'<'q<'�cJi'i':ii�3
Major increase in pub[!
w�,;`r::�Re:.nforeesiC:Mlc�nte� 'r •
Q:
parkin
demand at
w: x•"Ta:', A};:i'}i3�Y} Cit Hall.
�..i�
`�'A:�;is 'f J.i:rQ.. (ii:.ir.};f:: Va'a/M:.i 1..:n�♦''n:i
• Extends use of
^,,•yxi
in sub-standard"
: `•Q .........
T`t:�::Y.rr.::..;
.C'.:'C•�'`�:.. }+,i.'.:tiJ.if:<n iijii:x'i>iiv� '�:J.\.:....+.'i.,4,ie::i
�nv::x::x,fw.f:it•}i'}'{i'JE:n}:::}':y'.::;i':}i.:iv::n.:>.YYe; .J.'}.:::)Svv:; f,�'
a.
: opnoNs61
T
@�1 i * �- � '�'� tx ' 1s14 r If `�59 !}��n `}zi �. l _4. •x» � v F.�h I _ .
.71
ORD
This option ezamuies the alternativelof mcorporatiriglthe Recrea
tion DePa`rtment:inio an expanded City Hall facility:ri e poten- .
t P
tial impact upon City Hall, irnconvenience to deparfinent clients .
and potential costs are not itAtified':by the nommal'benefits:that
J fl.•b
maybe delved by"centralization°of.tlus department:.;
}�yyam, ol
Ca:e 'or>l \Fv
RI R r
Incorporation of the,Recreation-DepartmentFadministration into
an "acttvity center" is a logical tactic However, the Santa Rosa
:Street Recreation Center'is not conducive to majorsezpansion and
L.
�T parlang demand cannot lie satisfied at this location�without sub
r stantial site:addition.] s 43
Y+
RECOMIVIENDATION, The Recreation+Department'adniinistrationewouldfunctionmost
"' �` effectively as an integral element of a major-activil■�y center. The
y recommended interim'solution is to relocate t1W Recreation
Department to the Chorco Street paAcing structure scheduled for
._� +. r .
completion in.late 1989.
�q.. 4 r tq h f �•'V\k r r _
1 '
- � t 1 zJ k w 5 •. r '�rpht.�'M nh1 �i.i:r wrs�{ � � y�"S f 41 r
' ..� "�fi ✓ N '� �JlJ `rY',Al" �y3 H1r� 1'1 IC Wa•*1� 7LpJ h M.E' .FS Y� _
`� t 1h M1.. A I EY'JYI V kpP 1-.�').� a• �5 Lnx
1
r +t4 '«. h i ..P ' .+•..�c`r R i t" s d In,. *.o F.4J' 'k'.s °1
Jtia i?'r.i � ,'.. ,� '^Pi.\�.�.a(•4 '}F 1y,�-M�y'�'. .. �+ry� (°.7 ;. s ,
i c r. tom' h.I' ; J�K ' •:Y3. a .ter, ,,�;' ,r�� 41
f?_\ ( -J.y jet !L >. ✓rm r 1.} r�r� R: rl.
.S J tFs. •� n 4 1 iM I+'b p .Ar" v. [+
YyV-
)
JY`�? ^ai r, i4i♦ pV.cpn ` v''L 1� ;(J �s -�S.t
I ..49 ` �➢ + ! '. G-� ? ev 9 1 ig�� ! 1.Mme• vel klr ^j x •.
r.Y -y�� x. p r r.' '�a .a uC3 r"a4Y �}� •Y h.
L
r � r i _ `c, cr•\ r _ kyr JrY.'6$ ' t 4f pS? ', ....
II �F'�"✓�"''T,
. tL.Y � 1 �. 3 rc' � ate`""".` �•-i d� � i�q�.�1r •�-�j � i'L�L. yl,� r 'T:'_ .... .
1 ..�
yr
„r,J t+.s !, 1 ly4 J � ✓:�I d`W r 1 K t
65.. r. '- 2V ik.� 5 ti.' oPuON8
�:. . r 7y:. J sY e1r. .i
r
4.T4 l r'{ :f � 5. _ •.� � t 'br f _ .,.r Via._c:.i Y � i..: y,�..+:.u_
N0V 09. '93 02:36PM DOMINICAN
ME[ AGENDA,
:.. ;
DAT
E %�b'' -ITEM_
MOST REVS-6-6 6YLVE$TER D.RYAN Pastoral 6!r= SBO Fremont Sines
1818X0 G�O.P TXfi DIOCESE 0MOnTM;Y F'O'f3071204B
0
_mac Wi erey,Wf&nii 83842,
Fi` (408}373-4346-
�, a
_ .FAX'(408)373-1:17b a � y
.L'•' , .. i ISI . .. 1
NOVembe= 9, 3991"
it .^' F•. `,;',,.
U":GIL FGD I9
DIR
AST PRE CHIEF
FC
The Honorables :PegPinarde'/yT�7��^� I DU '
City Hal'1_ PFCLEF'M(( ,
990 Palm ;Street. o
San Luis: Obispo, a 93401
MdkF36n school bite c= •� -� °� _'
Dear :hada.-.Aayor
It ,has dote 'to my attention that the. City of San Luis Obispo
as con_s_ideriag various potential uses for the former .Emerson School '
l p=operty which is now owned by the. City. As you are aware, the
Diocese-..of Monterey operates several schools in the City of ban
Luise-Obispo, including Mission Elementary School and'- Mission
college •#j�pa-ratory located four blocks west of the Emerson site.. ,
I would_ appreciate the opportunity to sit down and meet with
you or:, members of the city Staff to discuss potential for ]seeping ,
the Emerson. property as a school site. I will have our legal
counsel,, :Michael 3. Morris, contact your City Administrator in the
nextfew' days to see if such a meeting_ can. be arranged. Thank YOU .
.for your cooperation:
since .11:`-yours in -ist,
-4- `
Mo.... Rev®r- :By _ester bi Ryan, D.D.
B hop of.,Mo ey i
r
Nov 9
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS-OBISRO,CA
. .- -.'3.