HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/1995, C-3 - PROPERTY ACQUISITION - 314-350 HIGUERA STREET - MATHEWS PROPERTY MEETING DATE:
"���►�►��IIIIIII�II►i{{��II city of San tins OBISpo it--1-kS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITE uM :
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:
Property Acquisition - 314-350 Higuera Street - Mathews Property
RECOMMENDATION:
A) By motion, authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract for purchase of the property
known as 314-350 Higuera Street, APN 002-480-026, with the L.L. and BJ. Mathews
Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust and the L.L. and B.J. Mathews Revokable Trust in an
amount of $885,000.
B) By motion, amend the City's adopted Capital Improvement Program to include a new
project approving the demolition of the buildings on the site,planting of vegetative cover, and
preparation of plans and specifications for the long term use of the property, totalling
$120,000.
C) By motion, authorize the expenditure of$165,000 from the Street Reconstruction account
and $135,000 from the Storm Drain Improvements project account towards purchase of the
property.
D) Adopt a resolution preserving the City's ability to debt finance $705,000 for the purchase
of the property.
DISCUSSION:
At the September 5, 1995 closed session meeting of the City Council, the City Council authorized
staff to prepare contract documents for the purchase of the above referenced property for a purchase
price of $885,000. The seller has agreed to the terms and conditions of the contract (as attached)
and the contract is now ready for Council action.
This parcel of property has been under consideration for purchase for approximately five years. At
the time of initial discussions, the key aspects in acquisition concerned the widening of Higuera
Street and obtaining of additional flood protection along San Luis Obispo Creek. Subsequently the
City Council adopted the Downtown Physical Concept Plan and the Bicycle Transportation Plan,
both of which relate to this particular piece of property. The widening of Higuera Street was also
acted upon by the City Council with the adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Program,which
includes this street widening as one of many projects as the basis for the fee. Purchase of the
property will allow accomplishment of one or more goals as described in each of the four areas.
The Downtown Physical Concept Plan shows the area to be demolished and returned to a park like
setting. This is meant to act as a pleasant and inviting entrance statement to the City for those
visitors using the Marsh Street offramp. The Planning Commission, at its recent meeting,
also recommended this area for purchase and conversion to a park like setting.
1 C- 3-1
i�IIIIIIIIIP°N°�9IUIII City Of San W.. OBISPO
NOWAR=dwb COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The Bicycle Transportation Plan calls for a Class II bicycle lane on a widened Higuera Street, as well
as a Class I bicycle lane through the property on an alignment somewhat parallel to the creek. The
City's adopted Flood Management Plan notes that this area is a known restriction in the creek's
capacity to pass major storm flows. The purchase of the property and demolition of the structures
will allow flood waters unable to pass under the Marsh Street bridge to partially reenter the creek
system at this point.
Although the City has been discussing the property for approximately five years, the property owner
(Mr. Lloyd Mathews) .has at times made the property available for purchase and at other times
withdrawn the property from the City's consideration. During one of those such times, while Mr.
Mathews had a potential buyer for the site, he proceeded to have the property vacated by existing
tenants. After that occurrence, he reinitiated contact with the City to once again begin negotiations.
Those negotiations were successful and the City Council did authorize a contract for sale to be
drawn up on September.5, 1995.
The City funded a Phase I hazardous site assessment study. That study identified no known
problems with the property, but did recommend an additional Phase II assessment for the area
around the former gasoline station. A Phase H assessment was done in that area and no
contamination was found. As the site is empty of tenants, there are no uniform relocation act
implications. As the site is contemplated for a future park like setting, the City as buyer, has no
current need for buildings to own and manage; and therefore, the City has given the seller the option
of selling and removing from the site any or all the buildings prior to close of escrow.
The ownership of the property is actually defined by two separate trusts. Mr. Mathews,
approximately a year ago,began investigation into his various options in terms of holding ownership
of the property. As a result of that, 50% of the property was transferred to a Charitable Remainder
Annuity Trust and the remaining 50% was transferred to a Revokable Trust. Approximately
$400,000 in value was assigned to the Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust. Of that, Mr. Mathews
has named the City as a non-revokable 50% recipient of that trust upon the death of Mr. and Mrs.
Mathews. Due to the nature of the trust, it is estimated that the 50% value of$200,000 will remain
somewhat constant over the life of the trust. Therefore, the City at some point in the future can
anticipate a return on this purchase of approximately $200,000. The use of that $200,000 will be
determined by the City Council in office at the time.
Once escrow closes, the City will be the owner of the property and all of the buildings thereon. The
four structures on the site are currently empty and as such, under City ownership, could become
attractive nuisances. Staff recommends the Council approve the creation of a Capital Improvement
Project to demolish the buildings on the site and plant the site with vegetative cover. This will
immediately remove the aspect of attractive nuisance and bring the area quickly into a rough
compliance with the Downtown Physical Concept Plan.
Finally staff would propose, that as a part of the Capital Improvement Project, preparation of plans
and specifications to fully convert this piece of property for compliance with all the various plans
adopted for the area be undertaken. The total cost of building demolition, planting the vegetative IF
2 —3—=2
��,��i�►i��ullllllllll►° ��Ull1 City OF san L.Ais OBISpO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
cover, and preparation of plans and specifications for long term use of the property is estimated at
$120,000.
CONCURRENCES:
The City's bond counsel, Jones Hall Hill and White, drafted the proposed resolution and concurs
with this adoption by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This property and related Capital Improvement Project is proposed to be funded from three sources:
a) Street Reconstruction Funds; b) Storm Drainage Funds; and c) Debt Financing.
The Street Reconstruction Funds, in the amount of $165,000, are to be transferred to this project
from the Pavement Resurfacing Project for 1995/96. This will still retain $360,000 for pavement
resurfacing in that fiscal year program. As the property is eligible for $174,000 of Transportation
Impact Fees, reimbursement to the Pavement Resurfacing Project account would occur when
Transportation Impact Fees are available with the remainder reimbursing the General Fund.
The second area of funding would come from Storm Drainage and Flood Protection Improvement
accounts. A total of $135,000 would be transferred from the 1995/97 fiscal period to this project
account.
The final $705,000 to complete this project would be obtained via Debt Financing. Annual debt
financing costs to the City, beginning in 1996/97, will be $60,000 per year. The City's Finance
Director has contacted the City's financial advisor (Evensen Dodge) and both have reviewed the
project, our debt capacity, our ability to meet the service requirements and have both found that this
project is well within the City's means.
The project will initially be funded using General Fund reserves and those reserves will be
replenished when the City does its debt financing package which will include financing of the
Headquarters Fire Station, the Mission Plaza Expansion, and the City Hall Seismic Safety/HVAC
Improvements. In order to reimburse the General Fund reserves, the Council must adopt the
resolution attached preserving the City's ability to debt finance the $705,000 for this project. The
resolution establishes an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 to allow for maximum flexibility in
financing the purchase. There is no fiscal impact associated with the adopting of the resolution, the
resolution merely retains the City's option to debt finance this acquisition at a later date.
Attachments: resolution
contract
site map
propmathfto
3 -3-3
RESOLtUTION NO. (1995 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES RELATING TO
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY (314-350 HIGUERA STREET) FROM THE
PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS OF THE. CITY AND
DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City has previously advanced funds, and expects
to make future advances, to finance a purchase of real property
(the "Project" ) , and in order to provide funds to finance the
Project, the Council intends to issue debt for such Project and to
use a portion of the proceeds of such debt to reimburse
expenditures made for the Project prior to the issuance of the
debt; and
WHEREAS, United States Income Tax Regulations, Section 1. 150-
2, provides generally that proceeds of tax-exempt debt are not
deemed to be expended when such proceeds are used for reimbursement
of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance of such debt
unless certain procedures are followed, one of which is a
requirement that (with certain exceptions) , prior to the payment of
any such expenditures, the issuer declare an intention to reimburse
such expenditures; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public. interest and for the public
benefit that the City declare its official intent to reimburse the
expenditures referenced herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows :
SECTION 1 . The Council hereby declares that it reasonably
expects to issue obligations (the "Obligations" ) for the purpose of
paying costs of (i) the acquisition and improvement of property,
known as 314-350 Higuera Street, to be used for street widening,
assisting in flood control, compliance with the City' s Adopted
Downtown Physical Concept Plan and Bicycle Transportation Plan.
SECTION 2 . The Council hereby declares that it reasonably
expects (i) to pay certain costs of the Project prior to the date
of issuance of the Obligations and (ii) to use a portion of the
proceeds of the Obligation for reimbursement of expenditures for
the Project that are paid before the date of issuance of the
Obligations.
SECTION 3 . The maximum principal amount of the Obligations is
$1, 000, 000 .
Resolution No. (1995 Series)
On motion of seconded by
, and on the following roll call vote :
AYES:
NOES :
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1995 .
MAYOR ALLEN SETTLE
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I A or
H:MATHPROP.RES
� 3s
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
(San Luis Obispo Property)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ("Buyer") , a California Charter Municipal
Corporation, hereby agrees to purchase, and LLOYD L. MATHEWS AND
BARBARA J. MATHEWS, both individually and as Trustees of the L.L.
and B.J. Mathews Revocable Trust an Undivided Fifty Percent (50%)
Interest as tenant-in-common; and Matthew B. Mack, Administrative
Trustee, of the L.L. and B.J. Mathews Charitable Remainder Annuity
Trust an Undivided Fifty Percent (50%) Interest as tenant-in-common
("Seller") , hereby agrees to sell, all of Seller's right, title and
interest in that certain real property in the City of San Luis
Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, together with all easements,
rights and appurtenances thereto, as described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Said property shall
hereinafter be referred to as the "Property".
1. Purchase Price and Terms
The purchase price for the Property shall be Eight Hundred
Eighty Five Thousand Dollars ($885, 000. 00) . The purchase
price shall be payable as follows:
(a) By Buyer paying the amount of Ten Thousand ($10, 000.00)
Dollars in the form of a cashier's or certified check, payable
to Escrow Holder (the "Deposit") , which shall be deposited by
Buyer into Escrow upon the opening thereof. Said amount shall
accrue to the benefit of the Seller. All deposits shall
remain in possession of Escrow Holder in an interest bearing
account with interest credited to the Seller. Total deposits
shall be credited to the purchase price at closing,
(b) By Buyer paying the balance of the purchase price in the
form of a cashier's or certified check, payable to Escrow
Holder, which shall be deposited by Buyer into Escrow not less
than two (2) days prior to the Closing Date, as defined below.
(c) Notwithstanding the above provisions, if Buyer elects to
terminate its obligations under this Agreement pursuant to
Paragraphs 2 (a) or (b) , the Ten Thousand Dollar ($10,000.00)
deposit shall be refunded to Buyer.
2. Conditions Precedent.
All of Buyer's duties to purchase the Property are expressly
conditioned upon the occurrence and satisfaction of each of
the following-conditions, each of which is deemed exclusively
for the benefit of Buyer:
1
3-�
(a) Title Report. Buyer's approval of the exceptions to
title set forth ' in a CLTA preliminary title report for the
Property (the "Preliminary Title Report") . Buyer shall have
thirty (30) days after the receipt of the Preliminary Title
Report, and copies of all document referenced therein, to
provide to Seller written notice of Buyer's disapproval of any
title exception. Any title exception not so disapproved shall
be deemed approved, provided that if a Supplemental CLTA title
report is issued showing any exception not shown on the
Preliminary Title Report, Buyer shall have an additional ten
(10) calendar days after receipt of such Supplemental Report
to approve or disapprove any such title exception. If Buyer
disapproves any title exception, Seller shall have no
obligation to cure such disapproval (except that Seller shall
be obligated to remove any liens) but Seller may elect, by
written notice to Buyer within five (5) calendar days after
receipt by Seller of such notice of disapproval, to attempt to
remove such disapproved items. If Seller is unable within a
reasonable time to accomplish such cure or removal, or if
Seller elects not to attempt to so cure or remove (which
election shall be communicated to Buyer within ten (10) days
after receipt of Buyer's notice of disapproval) , then Buyer
may elect to (i) terminate its obligations under this
Agreement by providing written notice to Seller, or (ii) waive
its objections to such exception, or (iii) elect to correct
any such disapproved exception itself, in which case Seller
shall use its best efforts to assist Buyer whenever Buyer may
request in order to cure any such defect, provided that Seller
shall incur no monetary obligations in connection with such
cure, and provided escrow shall be extended for a reasonable
period in which to effect such cure.
(b) Inspection and Approval of Property. Buyer's inspection
and approval of the Property and all improvements thereon,
including at Buyer's option and expense, a noise study, a
survey, a soils investigation, a Phase I or Phase II
environmental report or any other investigation that the Buyer
deems necessary. This condition shall be deemed approved if
Buyer does not send written notice of disapproval to Seller
within thirty (30) days after the opening of Escrow. If Buyer
discovers through its investigations any defects on the
Property, or improvements thereon, which it disapproves of,
Seller shall have no obligation to cure such defects but
Seller may elect, by written notice to Buyer within five (5)
calendar days after receipt by Seller of such notice of
disapproval, to attempt to cure such disapproved defects. If
Seller is unable within a reasonable time to accomplish such
cure, or if Seller elects not to attempt to cure said defects
(which election shall be communicated to Buyer within ten (10)
days after receipt of Buyer's notice of disapproval) , then
Buyer may elect to (i) terminate its obligations under this
Agreement by providing written notice to Seller, or (ii) waive
2
C'- 3- 7
its objections to such defects, or .(iii) elect to correct any
such disapproved defects itself, in which case Seller shall
use its best efforts to assist Buyer whenever Buyer may
request in order to cure any such defect, provided that Seller
shall incur no monetary obligations in connection with such
cure, or (iv) the Parties may enter into additional
negotiations, as may be mutually acceptable, concerning an
adjustment to the purchase price, allocation of risk, or
contribution to the costs to cure or other matters, and
provided escrow shall be extended for a reasonable period of
time to effect such negotiations.
3. Escrow and Deposit.
(a) Closing Date. This purchase and sale shall close upon
the recordation of the Grant Deed to Buyer (the "Close of
Escrow") . The Close of Escrow shall occur on or before sixty
(60) days (the "Closing Date") after a copy of this agreement
(executed by both Buyer and Seller) is deposited with the
Escrow Holder, unless extended by mutual agreement of the
parties, or as otherwise provided herein. In no event shall
Seller be required to extend the Closing Date. Time is of the
essence in this Agreement.
(b) Escrow Holder. Within fifteen (15) business days after
the execution of this Agreement, Seller shall open an Escrow
for the consummation of the purchase and sale of the Property
with Cuesta Title Guaranty Company, 773 Marsh Street, San Luis
Obispo, California 93401 ("Escrow Holder") . The Escrow shall
be deemed to be "opened" as of the date on which a copy of
this Agreement (executed by Buyer and Seller) is deposited
with Escrow Holder.
(c) Deposit. Escrow Holder is hereby authorized and
instructed to cash immediately upon receipt the Deposit
referred to in Subparagraph 1(a) hereof.
(d) Escrow Instructions. Although Escrow Holder may require
further written instructions executed by Buyer and Seller to
clarify the duties and responsibilities of Escrow Holder, any
such further instructions shall not modify or amend the
provisions of this Agreement unless any such instructions
expressly provide that they are intended to amend or modify
the provisions of this Agreement.
(e) Title Insurance. Title to the Property shall be conveyed
by Grant Deed. Title to the Property shall be insured by a
CLTA owners policy in the amount of the purchase price,
showing title vested in Buyer, subject only to those
exceptions specified in the Preliminary Title Report and/or
Supplemental Report and accepted by Buyer. Seller shall pay
for said policy of title insurance, which shall be issued by
3
Cuesta Title Guaranty Company. Buyer may elect to have title
insured by an ALTA policy of title insurance, provided that
Buyer shall pay that portion of the premium which exceeds the
costs of a CLTA standard coverage policy of title insurance.
Buyer shall also pay the cost of any survey.
(f) Fees and Taxes. Seller agrees to pay all documentary
transfer taxes and recording fees. Escrow fees shall be borne
equally. Real property taxes shall be prorated as of the
Close of Escrow, based on the most recently available tax
bill.
5. Representations, Warranties, Agreements and Disclaimers.
(a) Authorized Representative. Buyer and Seller hereby
represent and warrant to each other that the persons who sign
this agreement and any other documents required to be executed
by such party to perform its obligations hereunder, shall have
all requisite power .and authority to have entered into this
Agreement, and that all authorizations required to be obtained
by or on the part of such party to execute and perform this
Agreement have been obtained.
(b) Proof of 'Citizenship. Seller is not a foreign person as
such term is used in Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue
Code. Prior to the Close of Escrow, Seller shall deposit in
Escrow a non-foreign affidavit as provided under said Section
1445, and the failure to do so shall entitle Buyer to withhold
from the purchase price such sums as are required by said
Section 1445.
(c) Delivery of Property. Possession of the Property shall be
delivered by Seller to Buyer upon the Close of Escrow. Seller
shall have the right prior to the close of escrow to remove
all personal property and trade fixtures, provided the
Property is left in a sound and tenantable condition.
(d) Legal Actions. Seller represents and warrants that there
are no actions, suits, or legal proceedings related to the
ownership, use, operation or sale of the Property to which
Seller is a party nor has Seller received any notice that any
such actions are pending or threatened.
(e) Indemnification by Seller. Effective as of the closing
date, Seller shall indemnify and hold harmless Buyer from and
against any and all claims, damages or liabilities (whether or
not caused by negligence) , including civil or criminal fines,
arising out of or relating to any of the following:
(i) Any generation, processing, handling, transporta-
tion, storage treatment or disposal of solid wastes or
hazardous wastes by Seller, including, but not limited
4
to, any of such activities occurring on any of the
properties;
(ii) Any releases by Seller (including, but not limited
to, any releases as defined under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980) to the extent occurring or existing prior to
closing, including, but not limited to such releases to
land, groundwater, surface water or into the air.
(f) Seller's Knowledge of the Environmental Conditions of the
Property. As an inducement to Buyer to enter into this
agreement, Seller represents and warrants that:
(i) Throughout the period of ownership of the Property
by Seller, there have been no notices, directives,
violation reports or actions by any local, state or
federal department or agency concerning environmental
laws or regulations, and the Property is in compliance
with all state and federal environmental laws;
(ii) The business and operations of Seller have at all
times been conducted in compliance with all applicable
federal, state, local or foreign laws, ordinances,
regulations, orders and other requirements of
governmental authorities on matters relating to the
environment.
(iii) There has been no spill, discharge, release,
cleanup or contamination of or by any hazardous or toxic
waste or substance used, generated, treated, stored,
disposed of or handled by the Seller on or around the
Property.
(iv) There are no underground storage tanks located at,
on or under the Property; three underground storage tanks
were removed in 1984.
(v) No hazardous or toxic substances or wastes are
located at, or have been located on or removed from the
Property.
(vi) All studies, reports, and investigations, known to
Seller, concerning any pollution, toxic building
materials or toxic hazardous substances or wastes located
at, on, or under the Property have been provided or
otherwise been disclosed to Buyer prior to the close of
Escrow. Known studies to date are: a) Report of Phase
I Assessment Mathews Property, 4/29/94, prepared by
Seacor; b) Addendum to Phase I Environmental Assessment
Report, 12/16/94, prepared by Seacor; and c) Results of
Phase II Site Assessment, 2/23/95, prepared by Seacor.
5
C- 3�b
(vii) There are no soil or geological conditions which
might impair or adversely affect the current use or
future plans for use of the Property.
6. Notices.
All notices, communications, consents, approvals and
disapprovals required or permitted hereunder must be in
writing and shall be delivered by personal delivery,
facsimile, or deposited in the United States mail, postage
prepaid and addressed as follows:
TO BUYER: City of San Luis Obispo
Michael McCluskey
Director of Public Works
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3208
TO SELLER: Matthew B. Mack, Esquire
P.O. Box 7256
Thousand Oaks, CA 91359
Lloyd L.and Barbara J. Mathews
1885 Alrita
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
The foregoing addresses may be changed by written notice. If
served personally, or by facsimile, service shall be
conclusively deemed made at the time of service. If served by
mail, service shall be conclusively deemed made seventy-two
(72) hours after the deposit thereof in the United States
mail.
7. Brokers.
Buyer and Seller each represent to the other that it knows of
no claim for broker's or finder's fees or other commissions in
connection with this transaction other than as provided in
this paragraph. In the event any other broker or finder
asserts a claim for a commission or finder's fee, the party
through whom the broker or finder makes this claim shall
indemnify the other party for any and all costs and expenses
(including attorney's fees) incurred by the other party in
defending the same.
8. Miscellaneous.
This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the
parties hereto, and no modification or addition to any term or
provision shall be effective unless made in writing and signed
by both parties hereto. In the event any litigation is
6
commenced between the parties hereto in connection with this
Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be
entitled to a reasonable sum for its attorneys fees and costs.
The captions and headings in this Agreement are for reference
only and shall not be deemed to define or limit the scope or
intent of any of the terms, covenants, conditions or
agreements contained herein.
9. Entry.
With respect to Paragraphs 2 and 5, Buyer, its agents and
authorized representative shall have the right to enter onto
the Property only during normal business hours, or at such
other times as may be mutually agreed to by the Parties, which
consent to enter shall not be unreasonably withheld. Buyer
shall indemnify and defend Seller against and hold Seller
harmless from, any and all liability, cost and expense
(including without limitation any and all recorded mechanics
or other liens) for loss of or damage to any property or
injury to or death of any person, arising out of or in any way
related to the entry by Buyer or Buyer's agents onto the
Property, unless such liability, cost and expense is caused by
the sole, active negligence of Seller. In the event of the
recording of any claim of lien for materials supplied or labor
or professional services performed on behalf of Buyer, Buyer
shall promptly satisfy and discharge such lien at its sole
cost and expense upon demand therefore by Seller. Buyer shall
repair any and all damages to the Property caused by any such
tests and inspections.
10. Structures.
Buyer agrees that Seller may remove, sell and/or cause to be
removed all structures from the premises prior to close of
escrow. Buyer will honor any sales agreement entered into by
Seller with a third party for the sale and removal of said
structures provided said sales agreement and removal is
consummated prior to close of escrow, and copies made
available to Buyer prior to close of escrow. Should any sales
agreement be entered into wherein removal of said structures
wil occur after the close of escrow, the Buyer shall review
and approve all such documents and in no case shall any
removal activities occur greater than ninety (90) days after
the close of escrow.
11. survival.
The warranties, representations and agreements made in this
Agreement shall survive the close of escrow.
7
3�/2
12. Trust Documentation.
Seller shall provide Buyer proof that Buyer shall be named a
fifty (50%) percent non-revocable beneficiary of the L.L. and
B.J. Mathews Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust prior to close
of escrow. Seller shall likewise furnish sufficient evidence
to Buyer's satisfaction that principal from said Trust cannot
be released for any reason other than maintenance of annuity
stream payments and costs of trust administration.
13. Not Binding Until Signed by Seller.
This Agreement shall be of no force or, effect whatsoever
until signed by an authorized representative of Seller.
Unless and until this Agreement has been signed by an
authorized representative of Seller, Seller reserves the right
to convey the property to (or enter into an agreement for the
conveyance of the Property with) any other person.
In the event this Agreement is executed by the parties on
different dates, the date of execution shall be deemed to be
the later date.
"SELLER"
1. As to a 50% undivided interest as a Tenant-in-Common.
L.L. AND B.J. MATHEWS CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUST
By:
Matthew B. Mack
Administrative Trust
Date:
2 . As to a 50% undivided interest as a Tenant-in-Common.
By:
Lloyd L. Mathews Barbara J. Mathews
"BUYER"
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By:
Allen Settle
Mayor of the City of San Luis Obispo
Date:
8
ATTEST:
City Administrative Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
t me
9/Mathews
9
EXHIBIT A
THAT PORTION of Block 61, according to the map thereof recorded in Book A
Page 168 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as
follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the Westerly line of Higuera Street, said point being 412
feet Northerly from the intersection of the Westerly line of Higuera Street with the
Northerly line of High Street, if the same were produced across Higuera Street, and
being the Southeasterly comer of the lot conveyed to W.W. Mathews, et ux,by Deed
recorded August 30, 1937 in Book 221 Page 413 of Deeds, Records of said County;
running thence N 8° 15' E along the Westerly line of Higuera Street 290 feet 10
inches to the Southeasterly comer of the property conveyed to Everett S. Lichfield,
et ux, by Deed recorded June 3, 1959 in Book 1004 Page 370 of Deeds, Records of
said County; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of the property so conveyed
to the Center of San Luis Obispo Creek; thence Southerly down the center of said
Creek to the Southwesterly corner of the lot conveyed to said W. W. Mathews;
thence Easterly along the Southerly line of the property so conveyed, to the point of
beginning.
10
O
Np
r
�O
C�
�7
O
b
SAN L UIS REEK n
�uN
ti
n
c o,
7
cn
cn
n HIGUERA STREET
p -
o n
C r _
N N I�
d p T
♦ �O `00, i'a IJ vO`�
y5
ur
ff 7�C1 �a\� Vf
%
T N Z
U1 rn
00,
N Z Z
N m r
3 _
[:A
IL CDD DIR
MEETING AGENDA ❑ FlN DIR
DATE_-SiTEM.#= o f CHIEF
EY ETPIN DIR
MG ❑POLICE CHF
EAM REC DIR
FILE ❑ U�DIR
.P6i�SDIR
5W / 15 Dr>tSpo GTZ�r LA cwba �;.
CA �15g6l
YYEf Dr A-OF
sI T PuBlzC //VpaT
� ) � � T�f15 17-15M (P�P YAP- CDIUS
.h�i
cw
f�DDr sS efts 5��r 1 r rssc� W11H FAIA V19ejjl4,�-�l
MOV 1995
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS 0819(°0,C"
Y,}'i
MEETING AGENDA
DATE -9-Z ITEM # -3
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street,San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-mail:rrschmld®o e-alxcalDoty.edu
November 7, 1995 t�vvt�
❑ FIN D1R
City Council ❑ FIRE d1q1EF
City of San Luis Obispo
Re: Mathews Property Purchase and Park O of CHF
Dear Council Members: 4 .; f t u�tal
❑ �$.FU6.
• I oppose purchas of this property at this time and in this manner. ��;:C..• tib..
• I oppose creation of a=on this land. a,
• I oppose any city action that would harm the wildlife habitat value of this pristine section of San Luis
Creek, including creek widening or other destruction of the habitat value. (Council should know that both
the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service put a previous city creek widening
scheme on ice for habitat reasons.)
• I oppose the secrecy with which this Rem has been brought forth--there has been no opportunity for
public input on the park plan because deliberations have taken place in secret meetings without public
involvement.
• I oppose the debt financing of this project.
• Purchase of this land for park purposes is not supported bythe city's General Plan I oppose further
parkland acquisitions that are not in conformance with the General Plan when there are unfunded park
aeauisiteon cites that are in conformance with the General Plan(for example, Foothill Park, badly needed
in the city's most densely built-up neighborhood).
• I request that the council direct its administration to follow the General Plan, and to stop pursuing its
private projects and then shopping for three votes on the council.
Additional comments follow:
1. Why this parcel shouldn't be a park. This segment of San Luis Creek(from Marsh to Madonna) is one
of the most pristine in the city--a haven for wildlife and natural processes. It is this way because of the
benign neglect of its owners and the lack of general public access. Intrusions of the public via a park or
path will disturb these natural habitat values. We have severely disturbed areas near downtown that are
more appropriate for parkipath use. This area should be left as a natural preserve. Preservation as habitat
is consistent with every knowledgeable recommendation ever made to the council—including that of the
EQTF—and is supported by the city's open space element. It is outrageous that those who run Cb Hall
have so little vision that they fail to see the incredible v^I gqf, reserving such a natural refuge within the
Mr. Dunn seeks to subvert these wildlife values—and worse yet, by a series of secret behind-the-scenes
moves. First he proposes a park at the lower end of this pristine habitat stretch of creek, and contrives to
have some students draw up a park plan, planning to pay for this extravaganza by raiding the open space
acquisition funds. Now he wants to start destroying the creek from the upper end of this pristine habitat
section.The upshot is that both plans have come forth with no meaningful public input.As a citizen, I'd
like to know just what is Mr. Dunn's ultimate plan for this area?The General Plan doesn't designate this
area for park use. So what's going on?As a citizen who spent close to 20 years deeply involved in the
city's planning efforts' and who favors protection of those natural qualities of our creeks which thus far
have withstood urban encroachment, I am in the dark about what's happening. If I am in the dark, so is
the rest of the world—except for the elite group that meets in secret with Mr. Dunn.
Officially, Waterways Planning Board, 7 years; Planning Commission, 8 years; EQTF, 2 years.
�V I'D
NOV 71995
Secret government Is unAmerican. Please cut It out!
2.The Council has been spending a lot of money for land acquisitions of late, in virtual secret until too late
for plans to change. (Apparently the fiscal crisis that means we cannot have a city open space planner
doesn't affect favored land acquisitions.)Two large parcels (including this one) with costs oushina
million have been purchased for nark use --the other being Emerson School. Neither fulfills a General
Plan mandate for a park.The downtown neighborhood around Emerson doesn't need a park. Now,just a
few blocks away,we're looking at another non-General Plan-designated park. -
Why?As I said earlier,the Foothill area which has been waiting years fora badly needed nark. is still
b(ajtj(],g. Foothill park is in the General Plan. Its site, however, is zoned for other uses. Is the city,Aping to
sit around and wait till that site is developed privately, and there's no longer any vacant land Or park in .
Foothill?Why aren't General Plan directives implemented before non-General Plan whims? If there's$4
million available for park acquisition,why hasn't the long-standing Foothill park need been the one to be
funded? "'hat's going on here with our civic prioritiea?
Or, are the cynics right:the Council adopts nice words at General Plan time to fool the public, and really
doesn't mean what it says?
3. If this site is purchased and the site is cleared, I hope it will mark the beginning of a new non
-
hypgcdtical demolition ethic on the CU's part. In an era of landfill shortages and diminished building
us+"
material resources/increased emphasis on direct recycling of building materials, it is a disgrace that.the
city itself is at the rear of the pack in changing its own operations to the progressive way of thinking. Not
long ago, as the city sponsored the bashing and smashing to smithereens of the Kozak building's usable
timbers and reusable concrete blocks, I was working with my college design students on a project
sponsored by the American Wood Council (i.e.,the Chamber of Commerce of the timber products
industry)that REQUIRED the use of recycled wood products.The contrast between that industry
mandated wakeup call and the city's trogloditic approach to the Kozak building demolition was stunning.
The industry approaches the 21st century;the city still lives in the wasteful 1950s. On the Mathews site,
there are a number of building/materials conservation issues:
a. Direct recycling of the bricks from the URM buildings.This is easy to do, and helps preserve the
high embodied energy of this durable building material.
b. Conservation of the housing stock at the rear of the site.There are two houses,one is decayed,but
the other looks sound. If it is, it should be moved. The Housing Element says good housing should be
moved rather than demolished, so, set a good example, and prove you mean what you say when you
adopt plans that apply to others. (Ditto for the house recently purchased on Nipomo Street--another
secret land purchase.)
c. Conservation of the historically significant streamline modeme service station. (I have written about
this before; if anyone needs a refresher about the matter, please contact me.) Some reuse should be
investigated, preferably on site or nearby. If reuse is impossible (literally, not rhetorically"impossible',
then salvage conservation should be carried out.
4.When will the Council start conducting public business of this sort (parkland designation) in r
public, instead of merely ratifying its secretly-made decisions in a face-saving public follow-up Ike this
consent agenda item? Does the public deserve no voice In how Its parks are planned, Its wildlife
habitats protected,and Its dollars spent?
Perely,
J ��ItiU�J
ichard Schmidt
C91/ L Wt lT
MEETING A. ,DA
DATE L- �-EITEM # Eel*UNTC CDD DIR
November O F►►d DIRO JRE CHIEF#TTPW DIR
0 UCE CHFSubject:Proposed Public Park on San Luis Creek/Higuera °C DIq OI,ML DIR
PERS DIR
To The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council -
The General Plan Land Use Element, The Open Space El'I,,
and The Park and Recreation Elements were recently adopted
•after many years of careful public committee work,' countless ;
public hearings, many City Council meetings and the expenditure
of. hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds on staff
time, E.I.R.s, and consultants. As a result, lands designated. fgr .1
parks and open space is clearly identified in the General Plan.
THERE IS NO PUBLIC PARK DESIGNATED ON THIS PART OF SAN LUIS
CREEK.
The City' s Parks and Recreation Committee did NOT recommend
that there be a public park on this part of San Luis Creek.
The City' s Open Space Committee did NOT recommend that there
be a public park on this part of San Luis Creek.
,The City' s Land Use Committee did NOT recommend that there be
a public park on this part of San Luis Creek.
The City's Environmental Quality Task Force did NOT
recommend that there be a public park on this part of San Luis
Creek.
The Downtown Plan is NOT a general plan element, did not go
through the same general plan process, and does not carry the a
legal weight of the general plan. City actions are legally .
required to be consistent with the general plan, not the Downtown
Plan.
This -appears to be a proposal to buy land. for a "park lik "
lace which is c own o an, or w is no.
Co en y ; R rP^„fired. What is the difference between a u
>park-like place and apublic park? Wi the im ac s on .the ..creek
be_any different? Will the use a any different? Did �e
sQek input from creek experts, such as Dr Ric and Krejsa, about
t' e deOreabilit of a Public mark or " k-1ie" p ace on this
sensitive part of San Luis r ek ?
NOV.. 7 1"5
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA