HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/1993, 3 - LOCATING RECREATION ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ON EMERSON SCHOOL SITE �/ 11-14-49
IIIry��`II�I�II��
s
�III "J MEETING DATE:
Cl o san �Uis oB�spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Vi
From: John Dunn,.City Administrative Officer
Sub'ect: Locating Recreation Administration building on Emerson
School site
QUNCILDIVrC
R
�WE�pp" FlN DI �y
❑ CHIEF . iL;.C;EI Y
IR
O'CLEERKIV R O ❑RNEY 00W CE CHF DEC 7 03
CAO RECOMMENDATION ❑ MiGWTEAM RECDIR WY COUNCIL
❑ C ILE ❑ UTIL DIR OAN LUIS OBI.SP_O,CA
That the City Council: f t e ❑ PERS DIR
1. Make the determination that the new recreation building should be built on the Nipomo- .
Pacific comer of the school site.
2. Appoint a Council Subcommittee to work with staff to further evaluate the timing,
concept, and financing of such a facility, with the goal being to complete such a facility in
the relatively near term at the lowest possible cost consistent with appropriate quality.
3. Defer consideration of other site uses until completion of the Parks and Recreation
Element update and Community Recreation Needs Study.
4. Adopt Recommendations 1 and 2 in Item 5, which will allow for demolition of the
existing buildings to proceed.
DISCUSSION
As of last week I realized that there possibly might not be majority Council support for the
staff recommendation currently before you. Facing that situation has caused me to ask
myself several questions, with the major one being "forgetting all that has been said and
done about the site in the past, and transcending any 'position', what should we do that is
in the best long-term interest of the community?".
My first conclusion is that the City needs a properly-located, permanent Recreation
Administration building, to replace the current temporary one. The present site will
probably be needed for parking, consistent with the downtown plan, within the next few
years. In the years of thinking about a proper location for a permanent home for
Recreation Administration,we have never come up with any real alternative to the Emerson
School site. We have no other site in mind, and finding a suitable site within a reasonable
distance of the community core and the balance of City Hall operations would be a very
difficult and expensive exercise. All of us at the staff level agree that this site is the
preferred site for future Recreation Administration activity.
3-
j►II�III city of san L s osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Thu second conclusion, consistent With the C-ouncil discussion of a few weeks ago ielating
to the preparation of the Parks and Recreation Element Update and Indoor Recreation
Study, is that the City needs to engage in an appropriate planning exercise to determine the
best long-term uses for this site.
Should it be a Recreation facility, either a park-like use or an indoor recreation space,
higher.quality condominiums or apartments, subsidized housing, a non-profit corporation
office and program center, etc.? The good news is that this important subject doesn't have
to be decided tonight; indeed it would be premature to do so. These decisions should await
completion of the Parks and Recreation Element update and Indoor Recreation Study
(scheduled to be completed in tandem with the update). This timeframe suggests that our
first priority in considering other long term uses should be municipal uses. After completing
these studies, we may determine that another recreation oriented facility should be co-
located on the site, or we may conclude that the only other municipal use appropriate for
the site is the remaining park.
The previously stated reservation to the Recreation Administration building being on this
site is not to the site itself but to the proposed facility. As was stated in Council Member
Rappa's memo, the Recreation Department has been, from an office-facilities perspective,
the stepchild of the City. Over a number of years, they have had a number of locations, all
described as temporary, and most could be described as second-rate facilities as compared
to other professional offices in the City, both public and private. Therefore, I believe it is
time to have a quality, properly-located office and meeting room facility for the proper
conduct of the City's recreation oriented business.
If we do not demolish Emerson School it is going to continue to be the subject of vandalism
while empty, and it will continue to attract all kinds of proposals for future use. Some of
these uses might attract a market rent, but many of them would be proposed at below-
market or rent-free. As explained in Mr. Elliott's memo, the costs of rehabilitation of the
building are high. Even after rehabilitating a portion of the building, this space would not
provide, in the staffs opinion, a good or a suitable place for Recreation Administration
activities. Our dollars would be better invested in a new facility, which could serve the City
by adequately meeting our needs for many decades to come.
FISCAL IMPACT
Obviously, the question of how to pay for a new building is a major one that needs further
analysis. I would recommend that this be the first order of business for staff and the
Council Subcommittee. I believe, however, that we have options that will make the project
feasible in the short term. For example, if the Cborro Street Parking Garage is eventually
going to need the existing Recreation Administration site, then the site (which was
purchased by the General Fund) should be acquired through the resources of the Parking
Fund. These resources could be used to help finance a new Recreation Administration
building. In any case, this option and others can be explored with a report back to Council
in early 1994.
3-
,��il��i►i�illlllllll►° ►111lll city of san 'L -7s osI spo
COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
My recommendation to the City Council,based on stepping back and reviewing the situation
in the most objective way, is that the majority of the decisions relating to the future use of -
this property can be properly deferred,but that we need to make a commitment to selecting
a permanent location for Recreation Administration, a building which is not at a"hand-me-
down", and one which gives this municipal operation appropriate work space, as we have
attempted to provide for the other City operations.
I recommend to you that we slow down a bit, that we think beyond the process that we've
been engaged in in the last several months, and that we take a fresh look at future
community needs. I believe this argues for building a new, compact Recreation
Administration on the corner of this site, and making appropriate decisions for the
appropriate use of the balance of the site in the future.
JD:mc
h/recadmin
3.3
^yy II. I -r4-
I►
�IIIII�IgIIII�IIIIIIII�I III "J r
ME city of o Sar JI s OBISPO rrW7
Omni COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT N BER:
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Director
Mike Maramonte, Interim Recreation Director
PREPARED BY: David Elliott, Administrative Analyst\`��
SUBJECT: Disposition of Emerson School Buildings
CAO RECONEMENDATION:
By motion,
1) Award the contract for "Building Demolition Project: Emerson School Site, 1341
Nipomo Street, City Plan No. T-30X" to Total Environmental Industries, Inc. in the
amount of $97,608 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract documents
2) Transfer $107,000 from the Fire Station No. 1 project account to a new account for
the demolition project
3) Direct staff to develop interim uses for the Emerson School property after demolition
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting on November 16, 1993, the Council considered four recommendations for the
Emerson School property:
1) Defer sale of the property
2) Confirm the previous decision to demolish the buildings on the property
3) Direct staff to develop interim uses for the property after demolition
4) Defer rezoning the property
The Council approved recommendations 1 and 4, but deferred action on recommendations 2
and 3. The Council then asked staff to analyze two alternatives to demolition: moving
recreation administration to the site and conducting recreation programs on the site.
For reasons discussed fully under the "Alternatives" section of this report, staff continues to
recommend demolishing the buildings and developing interim uses for the property. Because
the buildings are obsolete and have been stripped of mechanical and electrical systems,
renovation to simply make the buildings habitable would be relatively expensive and would
trigger additional improvements required by building codes. The Chief Building Official
concurs with this assessment. Also, after viewing the sight, three local real estate consul-
tants recommended demolishing the buildings.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Base contract amount $ 97,608
Contingencies @ 10% 9.392
Total $107,000
r�T
����h�► I�IIIIIpIIin ���ll city of San LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Demolition cost was originally included in the budget for construction of Fire Station No. 1.
When the City purchased the property from San Luis Coastal Unified School District, a side
agreement allowed the City to withhold $50,000 of the proceeds to pay for any future
environmental cleanup, including asbestos abatement, undertaken before June 1, 1995. As a
result, the net cost of demolition to the City will be about $48,000 plus any contingencies.
ALTERNATIVE 1: RECREATION ADMINISTRATION USE
Under this alternative, recreation administration offices would move from 860 Pacific Street
to one renovated Emerson building. Then the City would perform minor renovations to the
860 Pacific building and lease it out. (Incidentally, the City should proceed with this
renovation work regardless of whether recreation administration moves or stays.) Attach-
ment A analyzes the financial effects of this alternative under two scenarios:
1) the best case, assuming minimum renovation cost, maximum rental revenue, and
continued use of both sites for seven years.
2) the most likely case, assuming typical renovation cost, probable rental revenue, and
continued use of both sites for five years.
The following table summarizes the financial effects under these two scenarios:
Most
Best . Likely
Case Case
Rental revenue $314,300 $165,200
Management fees (8,400) (6,000)
860 Pacific renovation costs (58,000) (58,000)
Emerson renovation costs (192,000) (275,000)
Lease commission1( 6.200) (9.900)
Net $39,700 ($183,700)
Under the best possible circumstances, the City would do little better than break even and
would otherwise stand to lose a substantial amount of money. Consequently, there is no
compelling financial reason to pursue this alternative. Moving to the Emerson site would
give recreation administration more room for future office expansion but would also present
the following disadvantages:
■ The new site would be less convenient for recreation customers because it is farther
from central parking, the post office, stores, medical offices, and banks.
■ Whenever recreation administration moves to a new location, there is a pronounced
decline in recreation participation rates while patrons grow accustomed to the new
location.
3S
����N�►�ii��IIIfIII�P II�IU city of Sar�L'U1S OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ While recreation administration staffinembers can now easily walk four blocks to
conduct business at City Hall, they would be more inclined to drive the ten blocks
from the new site.
■ If the Emerson site were developed in the future for active recreation uses, recreation
administration would not be an appropriate adjacent use. That may sound like a
contradiction, but experience shows that recreation administration activities work
better when they remain separated from program activities.
Conclusions: Alternative 1 would not benefit recreation administration, which would prefer
staying at 860 Pacific. Also, this alternative could end up costing the City a substantial
amount of money in the short term. It would only make financial sense if the City could
commit both properties to the proposed uses for at least seven years under ideal circumstanc-
es. But the City may likely need both sites before then, particularly the 860 Pacific site. As
the Downtown Centre is completed and the local economy begins to fully recover from the
current recession, there will be increasing pressure to develop additional downtown parking.
For that purpose the parking program may need the 860 Pacific site within as short a time as
five years.
If Alternative 1 were selected, immediate capital costs would range from $250,000 to
$333,000. Attachment B shows in detail the estimated costs of renovating one of the
Emerson buildings for office use.
ALTERNATIVE 2: RECREATION PROGRAM USE
Under this alternative, the Emerson buildings would be renovated for use by recreation
programs. The following circumstances argue against this alternative:
■ One major recreation facilities need is space for gymnasium-type activities like volley-
ball, badminton and tumbling, but the Emerson buildings could not accommodate such
activities.
■ The classrooms could accommodate some active youth programs, but they would have
to be enlarged and would require expensive improvements like hardwood floors and
mirrored walls. Also, the change to an assembly occupancy type would require
substantial renovations to meet more stringent building code standards.
■ Although classrooms could be used for the City's childcare programs, state licensing
guidelines would require extensive additional renovations like separate child-sized
restrooms in each room, safety fencing around the childcare area, and playground
equipment. The City conducts its existing childcare programs at schools attended by
the children served. Locating childcare programs at some other location would
require City-furnished transportation from school to the childcare site. Within the
City, the only current childcare demand is for infant/toddler care, which the City does
not provide.
Conclusion: Alternative 2 would not satisfy any existing demand for recreation facilities.
The Joint Recreational Use Committee is discussing expanded City use of school gymnasiums'
:-(a
���iu�i�N►IVIIIII���IN�u�I �`I city of San WIS OBISPO
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
as a way to immediately provide for gymnasium activities. This joint-use strategy would be
much more cost-effective and responsive in the short term than renovating facilities.
If Alternative 2 were selected, immediate capital costs would range from $193,000 to
$702,000 depending on the level of improvement and the number of buildings used.
ALTERNATIVE 3: OTHER USES
Under this alternative, the City would offer the buildings rent-free for up to five years to
community and social service organizations willing to renovate them adequately. Given the
level of improvement required to make the buildings habitable and meet building codes, there
would probably be little demand for such facilities over such a short potential occupancy.
But even if the demand were there, staff would recommend against this alternative because it
would be incompatible with either of the two future uses intended for this site: medium-
high-residential development by a private party or recreation development by the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
Agreement for Demolition Contract
Bid Summary
Attachment A: Analysis of Recreation Administration Use of One Emerson School
Building
Attachment B: Cost of Renovating One Classroom Building for Recreation Administra-
tion Use
3-�
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on this day of , 19_, by and between the City of San Luis
Obispo,San Luis Obispo County,California,hereinafter called the Owner, and Total Environmental Industries,
Inc., hereinafter called the Contractor.
WITNESSETH:
That the Owner and the Contractor for the consideration stated herein agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1, SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall
provide and furnish all of the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and
transportation services required to complete all the work of construction of
Buildine Demolition Project: Emerson School Site, 1341 Ninomo Street. City Plan No. T-30X
in strict accordance with the plans and specifications therefor, including any and all Addenda, adopted by the
Owner, in strict compliance with the Contract Documents hereinafter enumerated.
It is agreed that said labor,materials,tools,equipment, and services shall be furnished and said work performed
and completed under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of the Owner or its authorized
representatives.
ARTICLE 11, CONTRACT PRICE: The owner shall pay the Contractor as full consideration for the faithful
performance of this Contract,subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents,the
contract prices as follows:
Approximate Unit
Item Quantity Items with Unit Price Written in Words Price Total
1. One Job Remove friable asbestos-containing materials $34,817.00 $34,817.00
for the lump sum price of THIRTY-FOUR
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTEEN
DOLLARS AND NO CENTS.
2. One Job Remove non-friable asbestos-containing $29,891.00 $29,891.00
materials for the lump sum price of TWENTY
NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED
NINETY-ONE DOLLARS AND NO CENTS.
3. One Job Utility capping for the lump sum price of $ 200.00 $ 200.00
TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS.
4. One Job Building removal for the lump sum price of $32,700.00 $32,700.00
THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS.
TOTAL: 97.608.00
- 1 -
Payments are to be made to the Contractor in accordance with and subject to the provisions embodied in the
documents made a part of this Contract:
Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work omitted, or of any extra work which the
Contractor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to the Contractor, during the
performance of this Contract, said dispute shall be decided by the Owner and its decision shall be final, and
conclusive.
ARTICLE III, COMPONENT PARTS OF THIS CONTRACT: The Contract consists of the following
documents, all of which are as fully a part thereof as if herein set out in full, if not .attached, as if hereto
attached:
1. Notice to Contractors and information for bidders.
2. Contract General Conditions and Technical Specifications.
3. Accepted Proposal.
4. Public Contract code Section 10285.1 Statement and 10162 Questionnaire.
5. Noncollusion Declaration.
6. Plans.
7. List of Subcontractors.
8. Agreement and Bonds.
9. Insurance Requirements and Forms.
ARTICLE IV. It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict
between the terms of this instrument and the bid or proposal of said Contractor, then this instrument shall
control and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said proposal conflicting
herewith.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands this year and date first
above written.
r
By: Total Environmental Industries, inc.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Date:
City Administrative Officer
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
_ 2 .
C.
3-q
00 O " 0
J O 00 O O
W C O 0 Q Q
FU o n o Q
¢ N A N N t'1
O a N CO /07 z—; IQfl N
N K N
a W
O O O O
Ir co F W 0 0 0 0
O O ZU N O e
N 7 a m m O e
O
N m ^ 0
coo O O
J O O O O O
F U e o 0 0 e
W O ¢ mv> oo �
a
¢ N N N
O
H
0 00 0
O Q F W 0 00 0
a z zV e o 0 0
a Z a 0
a �m 0 0
V � 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F U o 0 a 0 - < 0 0 a 0 0 0
O ¢ co wo co® 0 0 0 m p ¢ v n m
O_ ~ aNpr' w � ~ a44to
.. Z ¢ W O O O O Z O O O O
O Z H F W 0 0 0 0
U o 0 0 o O U o 0 0 0
E OtDZ - 000 Oz 6666
C a zp O a m m to 0 ¢ O a w m 0 0
o � U NQ n y ofm m
0
r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
to u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S o a U o o a om a 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Q ¢ O h O P N O Q O O Oi O 0
O ~ a Z ~ a N m N Q - co H d m0 CO)Q N acr V7
N m
U w O O w N N ¢ N N N y
O
W O 0 0 0 0 ¢ ~
f H H y G F W o o o o
0 Z ¢ U o 0 0 0
QrU mc000
00 = a $ i^,� ne ON SOW. 000 Sdoo0Qo. 0 vmi
N W a r U U
m W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
/,//�� W0 00
V , J O ¢ t0 0 N N w O ¢ O O
C/) O O N
m N n
a ~ a Q 1'f N A m ~ 1 m m N ; N
ZN M W W O N N W -
w Z w
ZQ J z F W O o 0 o W W o 0 0 0
GC~ ¢ Z V T O O O Z Z V o_ O_ 0 0
N O Z 7 a Q N N a Z = d N N N 0
Cl) w M N m W mmLL O
O yO cc cc 0 0 0, 0 0
O O O O O O O OO O
} F U O O o o o F U O O o 0 0
L M Q O O O O O ¢ 0 0 0 0 0
U
r Yi (A O a O N O o O a O W C m Nz ww y N - wy .
¢ W ¢ W
LU rLU w a
o 0 0 o Z F W 0 0 0 0
v t7 O H 0 0 0 0 0 C7 F- U G OO OO G
Z a W W 7 y 00000
ONN W W 7 y vOi O N00
of
W E a � 0 a _ m
0zCL
„
iii iy
OLO
p
m 0 PZ J J J J _O Z J J J J O_
Z = m Z = m
O O
0 IL
U o m m > U o m a >
C p C C
p . Q a m p a Q a m
m I m a ) o
H W m LL j r W m LL
LL o = m
Z m Z
ZN N Q Z - N
VV�V
ATTACHMENT A
ANALYSIS OF
RECREATION ADMINISTRATION USE OF ONE EMERSON SCHOOL BUILDING
General Assumptions:
■ Recreation administration offices would be moved from 860 Pacific Street to one
renovated Emerson School building.
■ The 860 Pacific building (3,400 square feet) could be renovated to good leasable
condition for $58,000 ($18.00 per square foot).
■ The lease commission for 860 Pacific would be a standard 6 percent of the rent for
the first 60 months and 3 percent of the rent for the remainder of the term.
■ The lease management fee for 860 Pacific would be $100.00 per month.
■ Annual operating costs at Emerson would be the same as current costs at 860 Pacific.
BEST CASE SCENARIO (SEVEN-YEAR TERM)
Additional Assumptions:
■ One of the buildings at Emerson School (5,500 square feet) could be renovated for
office use at a minimum cost of$192,500 ($35.00 per square foot).
■ The 860 Pacific building would rent for $1.10 per square foot per month triple net,
which is the market rent for good ground floor downtown office space. (The City
currently earns $1.12 per square foot per month by leasing out brand new ground
floor office space in the Marsh Street Parking Garage.)
■ There would be no vacancy at 860 Pacific.
■ Neither site would be needed for seven years and all one-time costs would be
amortized over that period.
Overall Financial Effect over Seven Years:
Rental revenue $314,300
Management fees (8,400)
860 Pacific renovation costs (58,000)
Emerson renovation costs (192,000)
Lease commission1( 6.200)
Net $ 39,700
MOST LIKELY CASE SCENARIO (S-YEAR TERM)
Additional Assumptions:
■ One of the buildings at Emerson School (5,500 square feet) could be renovated for
office use at a typical cost of $275,000 ($50.00 per square foot).
0 The 860 Pacific building would rent for $.90 per square foot per month triple net,
because the location is not on a major thoroughfare and a portion of the building is
upstairs.
■ There would be a 10 percent vacancy rate at 860 Pacific.
■ Neither site would be needed for five years and all one-time costs would be amortized
over that period.
Overall Financial Effect over Five Years:
Rental revenue $165,200
Management fees (6,000)
860 Pacific renovation costs (58,000)
Emerson renovation costs (275,000)
Lease commission (9.900)
Net ($183,700)
Naturally, a higher vacancy rate or a term shorter than five years would exacerbate the
City's loss.
cj !�
ATTACHMENT B
COST OF RENOVATING ONE CLASSROOM BUILDING
DEMOLITION AND STRUCTURAL
Perform pre-construction cleanup $5,000
Fumigate building 6,000
Repair probable termite damage 3,000
MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING
Install new HVAC 39,000
Provide power and gas for new HVAC 3,000
Modify toilets for disabled accessibility 8,000
Install new plumbing runs and fixtures 13,000
Install accessible drinking fountains 2,000
Install fire sprinklers 22,000
ELECTRICAL AND WIRE MANAGEMENT
.Replace main service, branch wiring, lighting fixtures 49,000
Install security alarm system 2,000
Install data and communications cabling 4,000
INTERIOR
Prep, prime, and paint interior surfaces 11,000
Install floor coverings 13,000
Install new ceiling tile 11,000
Install window coverings 7,000
Replace and repair missing and damaged doors 2,000
Modify all doors for disabled accessibility 5,000
Install new exit signs and emergency lighting 2,000
Install reception and service counters 6,000
EXTERIOR
Install new roof 12,000
Prep, prime, and paint exterior surfaces 5,000
Replace and repair windows 2,000
Resurface and stripe parking area 5,000
SUBTOTAL $237,000 ($43 per square foot)
CONTINGENCIES @ 9 PERCENT 23,000
DESIGN @ 6 PERCENT 15,000
TOTAL $275,000 ($50 per square foot)
3-l3
MttIINU AUNUA
F 7, I2-7- ITEM #
•""""''''A�...�!!!!� O CDD DIR
DATE: December 7 , 1993 O FIN DIR M,IN�uS�e
a FW CHIEF
TO: Council Colleagues _ _ EY DIR
CLERU RIG O POLICE CHF
O MGW TEAM O REC DIR
FROM: Penny DEC 6 1993 O C FILE O UTILDIP.
SUBJECT: Emerson 90 S h of 1, f��� O PERS DIR
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
I was surprised and in a strange way pleased by the staff report
on this subject. The renovation cost estimates of $43 - $50 per
square foot, in today' s market, are realistic. The question for
me that followed was "What would a new Administration building
cost?" .
Before answering that question, please consider the following:
1 . Do we wait until a building is condemned before planning a
replacement? ie: Fire station #1 or 860 Pacific Street;
2 . Is it appropriate for the Recreation Dept. to be responsible
for rental revenue of their present site when that was not
required of the Fire Dept. and the building was actually acquired
by the Public Works Dept. - Parking Division?;
3 . Having moved five times in the last fifteen years, is it time
to permanently locate the Recreation Dept?;
4 . Is the opposition by Recreation personnel more related to
being moved to another "left-over" building than the actual
site?;
5 . If serving the public is our #1 goal, would 860 Pacific
Street be our first choice?;
6 . ' Why was it we easily considered a new site for Fire Station
#1 and neglected to ask about Recreation Administration when both
are shown as deficient in our facilities study?;
I ask you to consider the above questions as we decide the future
of the Emerson school property. I believe conservatively it will
cost somewhere between $225, 000 and $300, 000 to renovate (we will
save some on demolition as one building will remain) . New
construction at $75 per square foot . for 5000 square feet will
cost $375,000 .
Can we really afford to do this at this time? With over 30, 000
people annually coming to the Recreation .Dept. counter I wonder
why this wasn' t a priority before. Maybe out of site-out of mind
is the reason. I believe the retention of the Emerson School
site and the future needs of recreation go hand in hand.
Given our traditional approach it will be many years before we do
something unless the Council shows some leadership.
My first choice would be to build a new administration building
for Recreation at the site. Recent budget analysis shows we can
do very well at cost containment plus we have some one time
monies available. My fear is we will demolish the buildings and
not be sincere about a cost-effective replacement. If the
Council and staff can set cost and time limits, and view this
3_4
project as if it were ours personally, then it could work.
My second choice would be to retain one of the buildings and
renovate it.
It' s obvious to me the Council is the driving force behind this
idea. We need to stay involved to make something happen.
Perhaps we could establish a council sub-committee to work with
staff and return in 30 days with an alternative cost and
schedule .
I 'm not sure how this will effect the demolition contract. I
must admit I believe we allowed ourselves to be boxed into this
corner by not showing leadership in the past.
cc • J. Dunn
M. Maramonte
M. McClusky
Attachment: 3/27/90 Memo
of
� _ I����ii�;�saliul:ri, it �;;I�:i�•�� i Ii�l Attachment
L�
+I •ii;ip�lp
- i��le�t.;�ir I � II •.i.;l I
SAn
OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100
March 27, 1990
MEM— ORANDUM
To: City Council
From: John Du !:)L�
Subject: Thought paper Planning for Fire Station 1 and other
City facilities on Emerson School site
As the Council is aware, we have made an offer to the School
District for the purchase of the Emerson School block. The School
District currently has this matter under consideration and should
respond by mid. April. My hope is that they will agree to the
sale, at or near the appraised value.
The primary stimulus for the City's purchase offer is that the
present headquarters Fire Station . No. 1 is inadequate for the
current operation. Station 1 also has many physical problems
including electrical, plumbing, and seismic deficiencies which are
presently being deferred for remedial work in the hope that a new
facility will be built within the next two to three years. The
Emerson School site is well situated for this purpose; and
currently no other sites are under consideration. Attachment "A",
written by the Fire Chief, details existing problems at . Fire
Station 1.
If Fire Station No. 1 were to be relocated to the Emerson School
or another acceptable site, then the present site (748 Pismo
Street) could either be retained by the City for other purposes or
the site could be sold. City use or property sale could occur
either by itself or in conjunction with the adjoining City-owned
permit parking lot.
Alternate City uses for the 748 Pismo site could include senior
citizen housing or a senior citizen activity center. As we are
all aware, the present senior citizens center at Santa Rosa and•
Buchon, though just rehabilitated, has space limitations and no
on-site parking. Future intensified use of the present senior
center will push parking further into the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
During last year's budget study sessions, staff proposed that the
Emerson School site be purchased, and that the newheadquarters
fire station be placed on the Nipomo end of the property. Staff
also proposed that the recreation administration function be
included in the development. Combining the fire station and the
C3 -!(o
recreation administration uses in one building provide for joint
use of public areas and parking. The fire station/recreation
administration building was proposed to roughly cover the present
paved area. Staff recommended that the grass area be retained as
a neighborhood park/playing field. During the budget review City
Councilmembers concurred that another joint use could be added to
the property, such as a recreation center or a senior citizens
center.
Regarding the recreation administration building, it is presently
housed in the former Knight, Towle, Sage & Johnson building.
Approximately a year and a half ago the City exercised its option
and purchased the building. The recreation administration building
serves two primary functions, .one as work space for recreation
administration and staff, and the other as a public accommodation
space for people to sign up and pay for recreation programs.
Public drop-in accounts for approximately 30,000 visits per year
and program use of the recreation administration building is also
extensive. Attachment "B" has been prepared by Jim Stockton, and
further details the needs of the Recreation Department for both
staff work space and to provide the public facility for recreation
program sign-up and payment.
As the Council is aware, the present Marsh-Chorro parking
structure, now under construction, was designed to accommodate a
future "L-Shaped" expansion of the structure. The more modest ".L"
would use the land occupied by the present recreation
administration building. The more ambitious "L" would also include
the medical clinic parking area and the post office parking area.
Though this statement will sound a bit more definite than intended,
my best current assessment is that the "extended L" of the
currently-under-development parking facility may be the best
intermediate addition to the parking program in the northern area
of the downtown. Therefore, my best current "guess" is that the
present recreation administration building may need to discontinue
its present use in three to seven years. If this assessment is
realistic then we have to start planning for the eventual
relocation of the recreation administration function.
During the budget study session the City Council discussed
possible uses of the Emerson School site. Council suggestions
included the possibility of either a recreation center/community
center or a senior citizens center on the site, to augment the
headquarters fire station development. Council 's suggestions raise
several planning type questions such as what kind of facility is
needed, who are the populations to be served and what part of the
community (or outside the community) are they from, what kinds of
facilities would best serve community needs, are these kinds of
facilities compatible with the adjoining neighborhood, are there
good alternative locations for these facilities, are there better
locations elsewhere,. etc.? Because of these and other unresolved
questions and issues, the staff recently proposed that the City
enter into a comprehensive study to look at the City's community
center, senior citizen, recreational and playing field needs and
opportunities. The City Council deferred this analysis when it
came before you about two months ago, 'but on April 4th asked that
the matter be placed back on the May 1 agenda.
A practical question which is now before us is whether we can do
an adequate job of site planning and designing the headquarters
station No. i and other appropriate City facilities on the Emerson
School site without knowing what the community's present and future
needs and desires are. The lack of current information and
Priority decisions could delay the design and construction of a new
headquarters fire station, when a new facility should be completed
within three years.
What are the prospective ways around this dilemma? Let's pose the
question a little differently. If the City .Council were to turn
to me, and ask what can or should we do in this situation, what
would be my response? Let's. assume that the City Council also gave
me some elementary instructions:
1. "Approach it in a cautious mode"
I would continue to recommend the acquisition of the Emerson
School site, as a resource need of the community, considering
all present and potential needs, and considering its very
central location within the community. I would suggest that
an appropriate part of the site be set aside for the
relocation of Fire Station No. 1. I would further suggest
that the instruction to the architect be that the fire station
design be as compact and concentrated on the site as possible,
to meet operational needs through 2010 and to maximize future
use options of the site. Future site uses could include a
recreation administration building, a senior citizens center,
a recreation center, a community center or some other
community facility. Any new facility would have to be
appropriately accommodated on the site and functional with the
other uses. Design compatibility would also have to be
achieved with the fire station. This option might be entitled
"let's do only what we have to do now, but do it in a way
which keeps our options open for the future. "
2. "Approach it in an analytic mode"
I would start by saying that there is a need for a new
headquarters fire station in this vicinity of town, that (for
several reasons) it probably will not occur on the site of the
present Fire Station No. 1, and that there are probablyno
other equally good sites that are relatively centrally
Iodated. I would also say, as to other complimentary uses
which could be put on the site, that it is best not to be
arbitrary, but to base that decision on some assessment of
3-lg
community need, as determined by some type of planning and
citizen involvement process. This planning process could take
six or seven months and would coincide with the planning and
design of a new headquarters fire station which would of
.necessity be delayed six to seven months.
We'll call this the "thorough and comprehensive and long-term
and policy oriented approach" to community decision making in
regard to locating and building significant public-use
facilities.
3. "Approach it in a decisive mode"
We should purchase the site, we should retain a site
planner/architect, and we should proceed to design a new
headquarters fire station and recreation administration
building. These two .facilities could be either integrated
together, or built adjacent to one another, and should be
designed for both functional and aesthetic integration.
Without being overly concentrated, they should be designed in
a way to reserve as much of the site as possible for other
possible future City needs. The parking should be developed
on a shared-use concept and, while sufficient, should not take
up any more land than necessary in order to .preserve both
future building options but also maximum "green space" for
neighborhood and playing field use.
We'll call this option "knowing what we know now, we have an
immediate need for a new headquarters fire station
replacement, and an anticipated need for a recreation
administration building relocation, so let's move forward and
do what needs to be done" .
4. "Let's not `make waves ' (the do-nothing option) "
When we think about it, this isn't really an option because
something has to be done in the very short term in regard to
the inadequacy and physical deterioration of the present
headquarters fire station and, in all probability, it is just
a question of time before we have to deal with the relocation
of the recreation administration building.
The point- of the above description and analysis is that the staff
needs Council assistance in helping us to work through the dilemma
that we are facing. With the exception of the "do nothing" option,
all other options are workable. It's really a question of which
option is most consistent with City Council thinking and desires,
and with the community "style" or approach to the planning,
designing and building of significant public facilities. With the
Council's instruction to place the community/recreation/senior
center analysis back on the agenda, this gives support to
approaching this issue in the "analytic mode. "
Z-19
Let all of us think about the subject. Please discuss it with
Mike, Jim Stockton, Arnold or me. After we have definitely moved
towards property acquisition, then we should further discuss this
matter at a study session. Thank you for with me on this
subject.
JD:mc
Attachments
b/firestn
C. Ken Hampian
Mike Dolder
Jim Stockton
Arnold Jonas
Randy Rossi
� -ao
"TTACHMENT "B"
il�i�U!,uilnl!!Ili�l�!Iiull�lll�`LII�Il;ljl�;��.11l
of ysAn tuis, IoBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dunn
FROM: Jim Stocktn y
DATE: March 30, 1990
SUBJECT: Emerson School Site
RE: Park and Recreation Department Space Needs for Administration
and Staff Work Areas, for Public Accommodation Space and Other
Departmental Concerns for the Emerson School Site.
During the City space needs study completed by the firm of West and
Doubledee in 1988, the compatibility of Departmental operations in
offering the best service to the user public while still maintaining
tranquility in the work place was one of the criteria considered.
Although the services offered by the Fire Department Headquarters Station
and the Park and Recreation Department are quite divergent, the delivery
of services by the two Departments have many things in common. These
commonalities include:
1. The need for large classrooms for staff training purposes that
can double as public meeting rooms and advisory body meeting areas.
2: Central, visable and stationary location to serve users that come
from all areas of the City.
3. Work space for administrative and staff functions of the
Departments.
4. Indoor public accommodation space for people who come to us for
services, including short term public parking accommodations.
5. Service calendars that include long days, late nights and weekend
operation.
6. Noise creation by the delivery of our services, e.g., code 3
responses by the Fire Department and Recreation Department program
enrollees who are hearty, sometimes boistrous, thus making our operation
incompatable with the more sedate city services commonly located in the
Civic Center.
With these points in mind, a proposal was made during last year's budget
study sessions that the Fire Department Headquarters Station and the
Recreation Department Administrative offices be combined on a common site,
the Emerson School property.
Although the needs at Fire Station No. I have been well stated and backed-
by extensive engineering studies, the question remains, why consider
moving the Park and Recreation Department offices? In brief, the major
considerations are:
3-a �
Memo to John Dunn, Emerson School Site
page 2
1. A centralized and stable location from which to dispense
recreational services and information to the general public. During the
past 12 years, the Park and Recreation offices have been housed at 5
different locations and although we have been at 860 Pacific Street for 3
years, some of our program participants are just catching up with us.
Over 30,000 persons come to the front counter of the Park and Recreation
offices each year to sign-up for or seek information concerning recreation
Programming or park use. No amount of advertisement or notification will
make sure that all persons seeking service will know our next location. A
permanent site for P&R offices would offer the user public an improved
dispensing of services.
2. Use of 860 Pacific for expanded parking facilities: The CAO, in
the body of this paper, has stated the driving force behind the purchase
of 860 Pacific Street - future parking. Park and Recreation offices are
here on a temporary basis and to plan now for the inevitable move would
avoid a crisis when that time comes.
3. Expanded work space for administration and staff functions: We
currently have at 860 Pacific 19 work stations for administration and
staff which includes one common computer terminal. As the City upgrades
its computer and communication systems we will require a minimum of two
additional computer work stations to maintain our current level of
programming. This addition will necessitate extensive interior remodeling
should we remain at the Pacific Street site and would require that our
only meeting room be adapted for staff work areas. The. Council Advisory
Bodies that now meet here and departmental staff meetings would have to be
scheduled elsewhere and at this time we don't know where.
This brief space need statement addresses only our current level of
services. It does not take into account that the 1990s are predicted to
bring about a significant increase in the public demand for "recreational"
services. If San Luis Obispo does not expand the types of programs
offered but merely maintains status quo, the biggest impact in demand for
services is anticipated to be for additional children daycare and
additional services for Seniors. This impact is already being felt in SLO
as our "latchkey" programs, which programmed for 150 participants in 1985,
now provide services for over 800 children on a daily basis. The demand
for staff assistance time for our Senior programs has doubled since the
beginning of the 1989-90 Fiscal Year.
4. Meeting space needs: The one meeting room available at 860
Pacific Street is used by two Council Advisory Bodies and for staff
meetings for our program personnel . The room seats 15 people and offers a
pleasant surrounding but is not large enough for P&R Commission meetings
which at times draw many interested members of the general public or for
staff meetings for our larger programs.
3-a�
Memo to John Dunn, R Emerson School Site page 3
Other concerns for the Emerson School site: The green area of the Emerson
site should remain as it is the only open play space in this neighborhood.
It should remain until such a time that open, green, play space in an
urban setting is no longer considered a quality of life. This is a
limiting statement which indicates that any union of Fire stations and
Parks and Recreation offices that may occur at the Emerson site to meet
immediate needs is not forever. Fire Department space needs will continue
to expand as the City grows and any building designed should keep in mind
easy conversion from P&R offices to Fire Department needs so that the
green area can continue to exist. Where are the offices of the Park and
Recreation Department as we approach the year 2010? Maybe in a new
community recreation park (such as Centenial Park in Paso Robles) along
with the Open Space Property Management Department offices, a community
center, four additional softball fields, a gymnasium and a full service
Senior Center.
-a3
MF" v AGENDA
DAi r. ALL P ITEM 0
MEMORANDUM
UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
VFIN DIR
December 2, 1993 AAOCAO VIRRE CHIEF
E1' ❑ PW DIR
CLERKONO ❑ POLICE CHF
To: Mayor Pinard and Council Members
❑ AAGMr TEAM ❑ REC DIR
r��c FILE ❑ 9L DIP.
From: John D o �' ---- DIR
--b. ROSSC/
Subject: Telephone call with Betty Nielsen Tell UZA
Peg, at your request, I returned the phone call of Betty Nielsen. I had a rather long
conversation with her. Reported below is the essence of what she said. Her general point
was that it was that it was a shame for the City to be talking about tearing down the
Emerson School building when there is such a desperate need among the social service/non-
profit agencies for office space and space to conduct their programs.
Betty.stated that the Rape Crisis Center was paying more than they could afford for rent
of office space, and the same was true of the Women's Shelter and other social programs.
She said that the Emerson School site would be eagerly taken by these non-profit
organizations. She said that there was no boys or girls clubs in the City and space was
needed for this kind of activity. She said that there needs to be a drop-in center for the
homeless during the day, as there is need for daytime space for some of the homeless,
particularly mothers with children, space that could be used for bathing children, providing
cribs for naps, etc.
She said that it seems a pity to tear down Emerson School that could be used for so many
good things the City needs. She said the non-profits are hurting and in need; the use of this
building could be a boon for the non-profits. She said several times during our conversation
that she recognized the neighbors wouldn't like the homeless being in that location.
Betty said there is no place for the homeless to get out of the rain, particularly on holidays
when the library is closed and the buses aren't running. She said that it is really a tough
situation in the winter when the homeless people, a lot of them children, are on the street.
She said there are a lot of problems out there (within the homeless population) and that we
have to deal with them. She also said that if we had people in the buildings (offices and
social service programs), maybe there wouldn't be the problems of vandalism and graffiti.
I informed Betty that this item was scheduled for the December 7 City Council meeting, and
that she and others would be welcome to give their comments to the City Council both prior
to the City Council meeting (in writing) and during the meeting. Though she was concerned
about placement of this issue on the agenda (last), she said she would be there.
JD:mc
MEETING AGENDA
]RICHARD H. LENZ DATE2k2Z&.ITEM #
December 6, 1993 FATTORNE
❑ CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
Mayor Peg Pinard ❑ FIRE CHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo XPW DIR
City Hall ❑ POLICE CHF
990 Palm Street �RECDIR
San Luis ObispoCalifornia ❑ UTILDIR
_ ❑ PERS DIR
Regarding: Emerson School Site
Dear Mayor Pinard:
I have been unable to locate the source and the
exact phrase however, I seem to recall that it has been
said that one can tell the quality of a city and its
people by its parks. What better an area .to apply this
idea to than the Emerson School site.
When this matter was last discussed by the Council
it appeared that one Council Member felt that this
property was a white elephant, a problem with which the
City finds itself stuck. It is truly by good fortune
that the-Fire- Department has chosen a new location and
funds have become available from other sources for
building their new headquarters. Rather than a problem,
this is a wonderful opportunity for the City.
The Emerson School site should be used for present
and future generations as it has been used historically,
for the educational and recreational benefit of the
residents of our City. Located within the historic
district and surrounded by such historically significant
sites as St. Stephen's Church and the Biddle House it
would be a serious blow to the preservation of the
architecture of the City to offer this site up for
private development or low income housing.
Both St. Stephen's and the Biddle House are
examples of why tourists are attracted to the charm of
historical San Luis Obispo. On any given day you will
see people sketching or photographing these buildings.
As you stand across this square, you can view the gothic
gahles_of£ both these properties from some distance. The
current major restoration of the Biddle House is
indicative of the commitment of residents to preserve
the City's past. The City should follow this example by
preserving this site for permanent public recreational
or educational use.
DEC 7 1993
CITY COUNCIL
4,y LUIS OBISPOr CA +�
Mayor Peg Pinard
December 6, 1993
Page Two
It is not surprising to me that many of the City's
older families have had members who speak fondly of
attending not only the Emerson School but in some cases
the Nipomo Street School previously located on this
site. The historical site maps show this was a school
site for the past one hundred years. This is further
evidenced by time capsules located on the property along
with a beautiful granite wall which surrounds a portion
of the property. If staff has not already recommended
that this wall be preserved it should be discussed. Too
many of these beautiful San Luis granite walls have been
broken apart only to be replaced by cinder blocks. The
restoration of the wall and ornamental iron in front of
the Biddle House cost in excess of ten thousand but this
wall will stand for another one hundred years. The City
should be willing to make a similar commitment.
Madam Mayor, you and the Council have the
responsbility of preserving the Emerson School site as
part of your legacy to our great City. It is my belief
that this property should permanently remain in the
hands of the City and its use should be for the
recreation and enjoyment of all residents.
Respectfully sumitted,
PQCC11
RICHARD H. LENZ
559 Pismo Street
San Luis Obispo