Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1999, 5 - EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING PERIOD: CHINATOWN-COURT STREET PROPOSAL council Mwi°°� j acEnaa Repout . 'ttN= CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Dunn, CAO Prepared By: Ken Hampian, Assistant CAOVW� Bill Statler,Finance Director�y � SUBJECT: Exclusive Negotiating Period: Chinatown-Court Street Proposal CAO RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a 120-day exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with Chinatown-Court Street Partners, LLC in order to further explore the Chinatown-Court Street proposal, including assessing the feasibility of the required real property transactions and the necessary planning and regulatory approvals, and to allow the Copeland's added time to involve the community in reviewing and refining the proposal. 2. Approve the reallocation of $40,000 budgeted for the North Downtown Area Plan to support City costs during the ENA period, including financial consultation and representation and planning analysis. 3. Authorize the CAO to negotiate and execute two sole source contracts: (A) With Allan Kotin of PCR Kotin for financial consultation and representation during ENA negotiations; and (B) with Fred Sweeney of Phillips, Metsch, Sweeney, and Moore to update the 1990 Civic Center Architectural Program and Space Needs study. 4. Direct staff to return to Council during the Mid-Year Budget Review in February 2000 with the recommended reprioritization of other goals and activities necessary to accommodate this new and very substantial undertaldng. 5. Endorse the "Team Norms" adopted by the staff relative to the organization, management, and team ethic necessary to carry out this project in the timely and proactive way encouraged by the City Council. REPORT-IN-BRIEF This report recommends entering into an exclusive negotiating agreement for a period of 120 days with Chinatown-Court Street Partners, LLC. There are several reasons why an exclusive agreement is appropriate, including that the proposed project can implement many community goals, and that it cannot be accomplished without land owned by the developer. In essence, the proposal offers the opportunity for a unique public-private partnership, and under such circumstances,an exclusive negotiation is entirely legal and appropriate. 5-1 Council Agenda Report—Exclusive Negotiating Period: Chinatown–Court Street Proposal Page 2 There are a number of issues to be addressed during the 120-day ENA period, including the preparation of a realistic project schedule and the determination of responsibility for various longer-term processing and review costs. These and several other issues are outlined in both the proposed ENA and in Exhibit 1. While exciting, negotiating this transaction and accomplishing the project will be a complex undertaking, involving added costs and some reprioritization of other activities. Most immediately, it is recommended that the City acquire the services of PCR Kotin to assist in the ENA negotiations, and the services of Fred Sweeney to update earlier City Hall expansion studies. The Community Development Department will also need some added services during the 120-day period, most likely in the areas of archeology and environmental study. It is recommended that the City support these early costs with funds available in the 1999-00 Budget. Finally, moving this project forward in a timely way will require excellent organization and teamwork on the part of staff, advisory bodies, and the City Council. A set of"Team Norms" has been prepared to help us achieve this standard of teamwork and management, and Council endorsement of these norms is requested. DISCUSSION Background On September 20, 1999, the Chinatown-Court Street team presented a proposal to the City entitled "Chinatown-Court Street: A Vision for the Future of Downtown San Luis Obispo, California, Inspired by its Past." In addition, Mr. Copeland asked that the City agree to engage in a 120-day exclusive negotiating period with him in order to "work out the project details." The Council received the presentation with great enthusiasm, and directed staff to return on October 19, 1999 with a recommendation relative to whether the City should agree to an exclusive negotiation,rather than a competitive proposal process. Staff has evaluated this question,and in the spirit of moving ahead in a timely way as encouraged by Council, we have taken the matter a few steps further by also addressing priorities, initial support needs, and the "team norms" around which the staff will organize and support this endeavor. Our recommendations in these areas are outlined below. Exclusive Negotiations Versus Competitive Proposals The City may legally enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with Chinatown-Court Street Partners, LLC, for the sale or lease of property. In fact,the California Municipal Law Handbook states: "A city may sell property essentially in any way it chooses, if the sale is for the common benefit of the city's citizens." The Handbook goes on to say that "there is no requirement the city formally declare the property as surplus." 5-2 Council Agenda Report—Exclusive Negotiating Period: Chinatown–Court Street Proposal Page 3 On the other hand, the City's Property Management Manual says that the City should generally declare property surplus before it is sold, and that the"sale or lease or property will be conducted through a request for proposals (RFP), competitive bid, or auction process"(as determined by the CAO). Policies of this kind, however, are adopted by the Council to guide decision-malting, and policies can be changed or waived by the Council when circumstances warrant, as determined by Council. For several reasons as summarized below, staff believes that current circumstances warrant waiving our usual policy: 1. The proposed Chinatown-Court Street project would implement numerous City goals, including (but not limited to): Downtown planning and vitality goals (as set forth in the General Plan, Conceptual Physical Plan for the City Center, and a Major City Goal established for the 1999-01 Financial Plan); historic preservation and enhancement goals (consistent with the Chinatown Historic District); and overall economic development goals (as set forth in the 1999-01 Financial Plan). 2. Due to its potential for implementing so many public policies and goals, there is an extraordinarily high level of Council and community interest in further pursuing the project through more detailed study and negotiation. 3. The Copeland's control much of the privately held property that is needed to successfully implement the project. (If the City were to initiate an RFP, we could not appropriately include the Copeland's property–therefore,we would essentially be requesting proposals for a very different project). 4. The Copeland's have demonstrated their ability to complete a major project in Downtown San Luis Obispo in a highly successful fashion, and in a way that has advanced many City land use and economic goals for the City's center. For these reasons, staff recommends entering into a 120-day exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with Chinatown-Court Street Partners, LLC, in order to further explore their proposal, as set forth in the attached exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA). The ENA outlines the general areas to be explored during this period, and also highlights the Chinatown-Court Street team's commitment to work closely with the community to further refine the project, culminating with the filing of a formal project application to the City. Other issues that are likely to be addressed, to one degree or another, during the ENA period are outlined in Exhibit 1. The parties will address some of these issues more independently, and others through negotiation. Suffice it to say, the issues are many, complex, and sweeping in . their range. In order to move through these issues in a timely way, a number of strategies are necessary, including the reprioritization of some current goals and activities. 5-3 Council Agenda Report—Exclusive Negotiating Period: Chinatown–Court Street Proposal Page 4 Reprioritization to Accommodate a New(and Now Our Largest) "Major City Goal' San Luis Obispo is an ambitious community, and the process we use to establish the goals of City government reflect these high aspirations. Every two years the Council engages in a rigorous community goal-setting process, and through this process a number of "Major City Goals" are established for the coming two fiscal years. The 1999-01 goal-setting and Financial Plan process produced perhaps the most ambitious set of goals established by the Council since the"Major City Goals"process was initiated nearly 10 years ago. The Chinatown-Court street project far exceeds these other goals in its range and complexity. Combined with very high time pressures, the project will have a major workload impact on several staff persons and departments (indeed, it already has). Even with added "help," this impact cannot realistically be absorbed without affecting other tasks and activities. So, as is true in many other aspects in life, there are trade-offs that must be recognized and accepted in order to accomplish this new community goal. However, until we are further into the ENA process it will be difficult to determine to what extent specific projects may be affected. Therefore, staff will defer specific recommendations; most likely until the 1999-00 mid year budget review is presented to Council in February 2000 (although staff could bring this issue forward sooner, if circumstances warrant). Staffs eventual recommendations regarding reprioritization will be based on three primary considerations: (1) Staff/departments that will have the greatest work assignments caused by the Chinatown-Court Street project – Administration, City Attorney, Community Development, Finance and Public Works; (2) Goals or activities that currently exist independently, but can instead be advanced by the Chinatown-Court Street project (North Downtown Area Plan); and (3) Goals or activities which are less urgent. Although we cannot be specific at this time, even with added assistance(as discussed below),we can say that some current activities will be affected by this effort. Existing staff already meet frequently, and work between meetings on matters directly related to the Chinatown-Court Street project and negotiation. In the Development Review Division of the Community Development Department, for example,we can expect some delay in work on the updated ARC Guidelines,the Commercial Zoning Ordinance Update, and the updated Office Demand Study. In the Transportation Division of the Public Works Department, the list of"top priorities"is very long, and includes such major projects as the Marsh Street parking garage expansion, Prado Road Interchange Project Report, Froom Ranch issues (and LOVR Interchange study), San Luis Marketplace EIR, Santa Barbara Street corridor study, Downtown Transportation Center, Railroad Transportation Center, several bike path projects, and numerous Council, citizen, and neighborhood traffic studies and issues. Administration and Finance Department staff will also be significantly impacted by this project. For example, staff from these departments had but a few days to prepare this agenda report and 5-4 Council Agenda Report—Exclusive Negotiating Period: Chinatown–Court Street Proposal Page 5 the attached ENA – and in order to do so, staff from several departments had to meet, identify and address numerous policy and organizational issues, and make many decisions. Again, it is too soon to predict specific workload impacts,but we know it will be significant. Immediate Resource Needs During the "Communications" section of the September 21, 1999 Council meeting, the Council discussed the possibility that added staff assistance might be needed to properly support the City effort relative to the Chinatown-Court Street project. While added needs will undoubtedly surface over time (depending in part on how Council addresses the reprioritization issue and whether new significant tasks are added later), staff has identified three immediate needs, two specific and one more general in nature: Civic Center Architectural and Space Needs Update. In April 1990, the Council adopted an architectural program and space needs analysis relative to the expansion and consolidation of City office space in the "Civic Center" area. This study was prepared by Fred Sweeney, then of Grant Pedersen Phillips Architects. However, work on the expansion of City Hall stopped shortly thereafter due to budget shortfalls caused by the recession. In approving the 1999-01 Financial Plan, the Council reactivated study of a possible City Hall expansion by appropriating$15,000 in the Capital Improvement Plan for the purposes of"re-examining the Civic Center design and expansion to determine whether or not it meets current needs." Given the time sensitivity of the Chinatown-Court Street project, with Council concurrence, the CAO will immediately negotiate an agreement with Fred Sweeney (now with Phillips, Metsch, Sweeney, and Moore) to review and update this work. Mr. Sweeney has consistently performed very well for the City. Given this prior history, his work on the Civic Center specifically, and the limited ENA period, we recommend a sole source contracting approach. Financial Consultation and Representation. Regardless of how enthusiastic we might be regarding the Chinatown-Court Street concept, we need to be very business-like and analytic in . dealing with the substantial public assets involved in the proposal, and the many other financial aspects of the anticipated negotiation. For example, central to the proposal is the sale of City- owned property and the abandonment of a public street. There are many other related critical issues, such as: 1. Separation of the City's role as owner and regulator. 2. The question of sale versus ground lease of City property. 3. The extent to which parking(loss/gain)may interact with land value. 4. Establishing the value to be placed on the abandoned street (and whether the City should reacquire it or if it should remain private). 5. The comparison of public to private value for the land. 6. Coming to agreement on appraisal methodology and evaluating the appraisal. 7. Establishing business terms for lease or purchase option on improvements and land that might be built to satisfy City office space needs. 5-5 Council Agenda Report—Exclusive Negotiating Period: Chinatown—Court Street Proposal Page 6 8. Consideration of the financial issues associated with the relocation of 955 Morro staff. 9. The prospect of replacing fairly low-cost public parking with a higher-cost structure parking and how that cost is bome. While it may be that all of these issues cannot be fully addressed during the 120 day ENA period, they at least will need to be considered. Staff does not have the time or expertise to properly analyze and negotiate these matters without assistance. For this reason, we recommend that the CAO enter into a contract with Allan Kotin of PCR Kotin. The contract will be on a"time and materials" basis, with a total cost through the ENA phase estimated to be about $25,000. This cost will be funded from the $40,000 previously set aside for the North Downtown Area Plan (which has been largely superceded by the Chinatown-Court Street proposal). Mr. Kotin has represented the City for many years, most recently on the San Luis Marketplace project. He is very familiar with the City, and with the Downtown specifically. For example,the February 1999 fiscal impact study his firm completed included a focus on how the Downtown could best compete with additional regional "power-center"development. The Chinatown-Court Street proposal includes many of the elements recommended in Mr. Kotin's study. We are confident in his analytic skills and financial acumen, and in the spirit of moving ahead in a timely way, we wish to engage his services on this project on a sole source basis. In short, given Mr. Kotin's competence and familiarity with the City, we see no reason to invest time in "re- training"another consultant to take on this task. Development Review Staff Assistance. The Community Development Department will have many tasks associated with the study, review and processing of the Chinatown-Court Street project. These tasks will first fall most heavily on the Department's Development Review Division. For example, environmental and archeological study will be among the fust tasks to be undertaken by the Division. While it is premature to identify the precise nature and level of "outside assistance"needed to support such tasks, we are proposing that initial assistance(as it is more specifically identified)be supported from the reallocated$40,000 discussed earlier. Longer Term Needs. The tasks and support needs identified above are only those most necessary to support the ENA process, and staff believes that it is appropriate for the City to support these costs by reallocating General Funds already appropriated in the 1999-01 Financial Plan. However, assuming agreement will be reached at the conclusion of the ENA period, there will be many other study, review, and processing costs associated with the project. How these costs are to be supported will be addressed through the negotiation process, as set forth in the recommended ENA. 5-6 Council Agenda Report—Exclusive Negotiating Period: Chinatown—Court Street Proposal Page 7 Team Norms Given the nature of this project, staff felt it necessary to establish a set of operating norms ("Team Norms') around which we can manage this complex, high-pressured undertaking (Exhibit 2). For the norms to be fully useful, they need to be supported by the Council and accepted by other parts of the City organization, including advisory bodies. Therefore, the CAO requests your endorsement of these principles. These elements include establishing the Chinatown-Court Street project as our"highest development project priority," and supporting the reprioritization of goals and reallocation of resources we need to make this designation more than a desire or hope; to cause it to happen. In addition, it is essential that members of the team play their most appropriate "position" so that we can move ahead effectively and avoid unnecessary delay. Along this line, we especially call your attention to the areas of"Setting the Course But Not Rowing the Boat,""Navigating Through the Advisory Bodies,"and"Rowing in Unison." Next Steps and the Major Questions We Hope To Answer With Council support of the CAO recommendations,we will initiate formal negotiations with the Chinatown-Court Street team and other work and studies. The negotiations will begin to address the myriad of issues outlined in Exhibit 1 including establishing a realistic project schedule and considering the phasing and financial issues discussed earlier. It is unlikely that all the issues will be resolved by the end of the ENA period, and it may be appropriate to bring certain other issues forward to the Council prior to the end of the 120 days. Most importantly,however, it is our.hope that by the end of the 120-day ENA period, we will be able to answer the following three fundamental questions: 1. What exactly is the proposed project? 2. Does the project and any proposed agreement meet the public interest? Are they fair to the City and its citizens? 3. Does the project meet high standards — aesthetically, economically (for the City and the Downtown), and over the long term? FISCAL IMPACT To summarize, fiscal impacts associated with the actions recommended in this agenda report are: 1. The reallocation of 540,000 appropriated in the 1999-01 Financial Plan from the North Downtown Area Plan project to support immediate needs in the areas of financial consultation/representation and community development. 5-7 Council Agenda Report—Exclusive Negotiating.Period: Chinatown=Court Street.-Proposal Page 8' 2. The utilization of$15,000 currently budgeted in.the 1999-.00 Capital Improvement Plan to review and update the architectural program and space needs for the expansion of City Hall. Staff feels that these costs are appropriate costs to be bome by the City during the negotiating period, and in the spirit of proactively pursuing a project of great interest to the City and to the community at-large. However, it will also be important to address during the•negotiation period the appropriate assignment of further review costs,.including possible staffing costs associated with fast tracking this project without substantially delaying other projects already in the "pipeline"(such costs are typically borne by the developer). ATTACHMENT Exclusive Negotiating Agreement 9XIHBI 'S 1. Issues to be Addressed"During the ENA period 2.. Staff-Team Norms Note: The Chinatown-Court Street Proposal is available for review in the City Clerk's Office 5-8 EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT 511SM., lili� 101101000 am THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this 19t°day of October, 1999,by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as City, and CHINATOWN-COURT STREET PARTNERS,LLC,hereinafter referred to as Copeland. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Copeland presented the City with a proposal for redeveloping a major portion of the City's downtown(Chinatown-Court Street:A vision for the Future of Downtown San Luis Obispo, California,Inspired by Its Past)on September 20, 1999,hereinafter referred to as the Project;and WHEREAS, the Project has generated enthusiasm from a broad range of community members, and it appears that it may help implement a number of City goals, including those set forth in the City's General Plan, Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center and 1999-01 Financial Plan(Major City Goal:Downtown Plan);and WHEREAS, Copeland successfully developed a major commercial project in the City's downtown (the Downtown Centre),which reflects its ability to successfully undertake a similar project that will be well-received by the community;and WHEREAS,Copeland proposes to hold a number of community and stakeholder workshops facilitated by a nationally recognized expert on"smart growth"before finalizing its development application in order to provide meaningful community input on the Project and to incorporate the community's ideas and suggestions into its overall design strategy;and WHEREAS, Copeland has represented that it owns or controls much of the privately-held property that will be needed to successfully implement the Project and the City's goals for the downtown;and WHEREAS, Copeland has requested a 120-day exclusive negotiating period with the City to finalize the details of its proposed Project, conduct initial environmental review and resolve real property issues that may arise; and WHEREAS,the unique nature of this Project calls for a unique approach in exploring its feasibility due its private-public partnership approach,under which the City has dual roles in exercising its regulatory responsibilities as a government agency in the development review process,and its proprietary responsibilities as a landowner;and 5-9 Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Page 2 WHEREAS, for these reasons the City is willing to consider direct negotiations with Copeland in the potential disposition of City properties rather than pursuing a request for proposals, competitive bid or auction process as set forth in the City's Property Management Manual. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained,the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. 'PERM. The tern of this Agreement shall be for 120 days from the date this Agreement is made and entered,as first written above. 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to further explore the Project concept by: assessing the feasibility of the real property transactions that will be required between the City and Copeland in implementing the concept; and evaluating the planning and other regulatory approvals that will be required from the City. If the parties mutually determine that the Project appears feasible,after the initial term of this Agreement,the parties may extend the team for a reasonable period of time in order to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), or other similar agreement, that will set forth the general business principles, framework and key procedures for the disposition of any City properties to Copeland under the Project, including but not limited to, sale, lease, trade or development. If executed,the MOU(or other similar agreement)would be a prelude to a subsequent Development and Disposition Agreement(DDA), or other similar agreement, which would finalize the terms and conditions of any sale, lease, trade or development of the City's property to or by Copeland The City and Copeland shall not execute this DDA (or other similar agreement) until all discretionary approvals for the Project, including environmental review, have been received Other than exploring the feasibility of this Project from the City's perspective as set forth above,both parties agree that no other obligations are established under this Agreement. 3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. The City agrees to complete the following general tasks: a. Analysis. Research and analyze the likely economic, fiscal and organizational issues facing the City in its"proprietary" role as a landowner and potential Project participant in considering the Project concept,and set policy parameters in negotiating the MOU accordingly. b. Development Review Process. Prepare a,development review process and schedule that will subsequently provide timely and expeditious review of the Project while at the same time ensuring meaningful public input,and appropriate planning and environmental review. c. Resource Needs. Identify the City's resource needs and funding sources in negotiating the MOU and DDA(or similar agreement),and in processing the Project's development application. 5-10 Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Page 3 4. COPELAND'S OBLIGATIONS. Copeland agrees to complete the following general tasks: a. Finalized Project Concept. Prepare and submit a finalized Project proposal to the City within forty five(45) calendar days after execution of this Agreement in as much detail as possible, including but not limited to: building program;properties involved and their ownership;parking needs assessment and proposal for how these will be met; Project phasing and methodology for ensuring that the Project will be completed; proposed form of the City's contributing properties, such as sale, trade, lease or air rights; likely environmental, traffic and archaeological issues that will be encountered by the Project and how these will be addressed; and financial pro forma for the Project. b. Financial Capability. Provide documentation satisfactory to the City evidencing: Copeland's financial capacity to successfully fund and complete the Project; the form and identity of its development team;and substantial pre-leasing commitments. C. Community Workshops. Hold a series of community and stakeholder workshops before finalizing its development application in order to provide meaningful community input on the Project and incorporate the community's ideas and suggestions,as feasible,into its overall design strategy. CL Formal Development Application. Finalize and submit a formal development application for the Project to the City. e. Compensation for City Review Costs. Discuss and finalize how City processing and review costs will be funded, such as: those costs that will be directly paid by Copeland; those that will be paid by the City but reimbursed by Copeland(including the level and method of reimbursement);and those that will be fully paid and funded by the City. f. Fiscal Analysis. Provide sufficient descriptive material for the City to initiate a fiscal analysis of the Project 5. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be extended or modified with the mutual consent of the parties hereto. Any such extension,amendment,modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the Council. 6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of 5-11 Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Page 4 any force or effect,nor shall any such oral agreement,understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto. 7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows: City City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Copeland Chinatown-Court Street Partners,LLC Post Office Box 1348 966 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Copeland do covenant that each individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute Agreements for such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,A Municipal Corporation By: City Clerk Mayor Allen Settle APPROVED AS TO FORM: CHINATOWN-COURT STREET PARTNERS,LLC �i1ce By: rn 5-12 Issues to Be Addressed During the Initial ENA Term A. RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 1. Properties Involved a. Exactly what properties are involved? b. Are there any title restrictions on the properties? c. What are the legal requirements under State law for disposing of City properties and rights-of- way? d. What surveys need to be completed? e. Who will contract for this work? Who will pay for it? 2. City Property Values a. What City properties are affected? b. How much are they worth? c. How will this be determined? 3. Parking a. How much existing parking—private and public—will be lost as a result of implementing the Project? b. How much parking demand—both replacement and new demand—will be generated under the City's current zoning standards? c. How will any resulting deficiencies be addressed? 4. Major Policies a. How does the Project proposal compare with the City's major policy documents (such as the General Plan, Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center, Facilities Master Plan and Civic Center Master Plan)? b. What uses are currently allowed under the City's zoning code? c. What are the performance standards under this zoning? S. City Space Needs a. What are the City's future civic center space needs? b. Is the proposed"City Hall"space interim or permanent? c. If interim,how long is the likely interim period? d. How should the City fund this space(lease,lease-purchase,acquisition)? Issues to Be Addressed During the Initial ENA Term Page 2 e. How will the City house the staff currently located at 955 Morro Street during construction? Does this space need to meet seismic safety standards? B. POLICY ISSUES FOR THE CITY IN ITS PROPRIETARY ROLE AS LANDOWNER 1. Parking a. What are the maximum number of parking spaces we will allow? b. What are the minimums? c. What role does the parking enterprise fund play in acquiring and managing the parking spaces after construction? 2. Site Use a. Who should own the walkways and plazas? b. Should the creek be exposed on the Court Street property? c. What is the maximum lot coverage we will allow? d. What underground utility services will be affected (especially those on Morro Street), and how will they be relocated? 3. Relationship to Other City Goals and Projects a. Will we require public art? If yes,how much? (For example,will we require some value amount as a percent of project construction costs?) And where are the appropriate locations? b. What will be our likely archaeological resource preservation requirements? c. What are the likely traffic problems? How can they best be mitigated? Can they be mitigated through parking structure ingress and egress preferred solutions? d. What are the significant fire plan check and inspection issues? e. What are the significant building code plan check and inspection issues? f. Is it possible to coordinate the Higuera Street bridge project with the construction of this Project? If yes,what is the best way of doing this? g. What other major goals, objectives and projects are we willing to defer in order to devote adequate resources to completing this Project within an acceptable timeframe? 4. Property Disposition and Development a. What is the City's position on sell versus lease or trade? b. Will the City consider condemnation,if necessary,for those properties Copeland does not own? c. What design/build construction options are allowed to the City under the Public Contract Code? How will construction costs be accounted for? d. How will construction on the sites be staged and phased? 5-14 Issues to Be Addressed During the Initial ENA Term Page 3 e. How can existing developed properties best be addressed? f. How can the project best be developed to minimise business disruptions on surrounding properties that are not directly in the project area? g. How can the City ensure that the Project will be completed? h. What is the seismic retrofit status and future plans for adjacent properties? Does this need to be addressed during Project planning and development? C. NEGOTIATION AND REVIEW PROCESS 1. City Resources What City resources will be required in negotiating a final development agreement and processing the project on a"fast track?" Who will pay for them? 2. Development Review Process What should the development review process look like to ensure meaningful community involvement, M analysis of environmental and cultural/histoncal resource concerns,and an expedited process? D. OVERALL"HIGHER LEVEL"QUESTIONS 1. Meet Public Interest Is the Project and its component parts, any agreement that the City and Copeland may enter into, and any actions either party may take,in the public interest and fair to the City and its citizens? 2. Meet High Community Standards Does the Project meet high design standards? Is it economically viable, functional and aesthetically pleasing? Will the Project stand the"test of time"over the years as a testimony to good City planning and implementation? And will it be a significant factor in the long-tent strength and viability of the downtown? 5-15 . Norms and Organization For Chinatown-Court Street: October 1999 The Chinatown-Court Street concept has the potential of changing our downtown in perhaps the biggest single way since the establishment of the Mission. The Council and the community have embraced the concept with great enthusiasm, and the Council has "challenged"stafflo move forward with the project in an expeditious way. In order to 'fast track"a project of this complexity, we must "think outside the box"and do things differently. At the same time, the project must be carefully managed in order to assure organization and focus,proper planning and environmental review, and responsible use of public resources. Undue haste, on the other hand, could lead to setbacks and delays. Consistent with these sentiments, the following norms have been adopted by staff involved in the project: Reordering Priorities to "Make It Happen" • The Top Priority. The Chinatown-Court Street proposal is our highest priority development project. • Malting It Happen. Moving the project forward at a faster than usual pace will be accomplished through a variety of methods,including: Council agreement to reprioritize some activities;consultant and contract assistance in core project areas;reallocating existing staff and other resources; sound planning and organization;and maintenance of an orderly hierarchy of involvement. O When Other Things Take A Backseat. When other projects are delayed as a result of the project,staff members will be certain to advise the CAO,who in turn may advise the Council,depending upon the significance of the project/delay. While every effort will be made to avoid delays,they must be expected. It will be essential that we can accept them when they do occur as"trade offs"in exchange for maintaining the"top priority" status of the Chinatown-Court Street project. Council and Advisory Body Leadership and Involvement • Setting the Course But Not Rowing the Boat. The City Council should serve in an overall leadership capacity,setting the tone and making decisions. Individual Council member involvement should be limited and handled with great care to avoid confusion, possible internal differences,and ultimately,delays. This is especially important during the negotiation phase. Toward this end,the CAO will manage the process so strong collective City Council leadership guides the way. The CAO will also work with Council members to assure that individual Council member interests or concerns are communicated through him,and are not"negotiated"by Council members directly with the project applicant. • Navigating Though the Advisory Bodies. Advisory body input will be very important in achieving the best possible project,and several advisory bodies will be involved in the formal processing of Chinatown-Court Street. However,if the project is to be processed in a timely way,this involvement needs to be predictable,organized,and consistent with Ex"546 defined roles. Therefore, advisory body involvement should primarily occur at the usual stages in the formal development review process,unless otherwise requested by the Council or by the applicant(although advisory body members may wish to attend community workshops or hearings on the project in an individual capacity). Advisory bodies should not,however,prematurely involve themselves in the project at their own independent initiative. This could lead to confusion for all involved. Staff Leadership,Involvement, Organization • The Rowing Teams. The staff effort will be lead.by the CAO,and will consist of two major teams: the Negotiating Team(CAO,City Attorney,and negotiator/fiscal analyst) and the Steering Committee(CAO,City Attorney,Assistant CAO,Community Development Director,Finance Director,and Public Works Director). Other staff members, such as the Development Review Manager,will augment these teams,as needed. • Added Help. With regard to the involvement of other staff,we will think outside the box and,as needed,assign staff members to assist on project tasks that would not normally be in their usual area of responsibility. • "Rowing"in Unison. Staff members will not independently involve themselves in the project in any way without first reviewing their proposed involvement with the Steering Committee(e.g.staff members should not independently involve advisory bodies or, for example,offer recommendations to individual Council members). All matters to be reviewed by the Steering Committee should be scheduled through the Assistant CAO. The Steering Committee will meet on a weekly basis. The Team Ethic • Communication and Teamwork. Extraordinary levels of communication and teamwork will characterize our work on the project. Staff members will take personal responsibility for keeping other appropriate staff members informed,and staff will share a spirit of cooperation and positive follow-through. "Right hand-left hand"disruptions will not occur with this project. • Staying Positive. Recognizing the significance of this undertaking,team members will share a positive,"can-do"attitude. • Staying the Course. While people are often enthusiastic at the beginning of a project, the number of decisions and the time flame of this project will provide a number of tests. What is desired by,and in the long-term best interest of,the community will be the teams' sustaining motivation. • Having Fun. Recognizing the pressure staff will be under,team members will also support one another and maintain a sense of humor! G:Chhaw%m-Court StreeVream Norms Exh&17 ' U F 1 MEETING AGENDA ❑F �C�ii_i I NEY W DIR _ ATE it-/2-99 ITEM # CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF TO THE CITY COUNCIL -J ❑M T 7 EC DIR .7 ❑UTIL DIR ❑PERS DIR A TO TO THE COPELAND � NATOWN/COURT STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The presentation on September 20 by the Copelands was very impressive. Though my enthusiasm for the project hasn't waned, there are two major questions, I feel, should be addressed. Should one family control such a huge chunk of the downtown, and is it really wise to build the whole thing in a year. I think the answer to both of these questions is no. But, to keep the vision alive, how about exploring the possibility of a public entity owning the development. If a single family controlled that much of the heart of the city as proposed, that financial muscle would be exercised from time to time. For the sake of argument, lets say that the Copeland brothers became saintly and exercised no more influence on city affairs than any other private citizen. They, as all of us, are not going to live forever. We would hope that the proposed development, or at least its vision, could. Who would control their estates? What if their vast retail empire were to collapse, or control be wrest from them. Would much of our beloved downtown be owned by a New York bank. Even if it were possible to begin construction immediately, would it be advantageous to complete such a large project in so short a time. The City's growth management ideals would be shattered. What could be done for an encore. Once the local infrastructure geared up to support such a frenzied work schedule, on completion all would have to be down sized. What good could that bring to the local economy, and at Christmas time no less. Also, doing the whole thing at once, along with the Marsh Street garage expansion, would basically close the downtown for the duration. What effect would that have on the existing retailers. Why wouldn't it be possible to set up an entity, that was public and an arm of city government, to own and oversee the vision. The city already owns the property! This could relax the time pressure apparent in the present private offer. The Copeland team could still be contracted with. A public entity could assure participation on a very large scale instead of having just three public forums. Other pertinent issues, such as transportation systems, could be discussed. A flexible structure that was tailor made for this particular situation would have to be devised, though there are models to draw from. Seattle's "Pike Place Market" is one such model that is extremely successful, as I am sure there are others. I then, am asking you the City Council to at least explore the possibilities of a public entity overseeing the project. This could be done in tandem with granting the Copelands an exclusive private entity right to negotiate. After the 120 days, there could be at least a choice of two different approaches, one private and the other public. For, without being given the opportunity to explore any other possibility, other than selling to one sole bidder, would, I feel, be an error of great significance. By: Stan Ryan, RECEIVED 234 Broad St., SLO Phone:593-0962, E-mail: sryan@slonet.org 6 r T 1 8 1999 SLO CITY COUNCIL