Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/2008, B5 - SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT SPEC NO. 90803 -_ 1 councit Mfmg D� -� December 2 2008 acEnaa WPM ,�N� �� CI TY O F SAN L U I S OBISPO FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Director Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, City Engineer SUBJECT: SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT SPEC NO. 90803 RECOMMENDATION Consider the low bid of$194,328 for the Senior Center Parking Lot, Specification No. 90803 and authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with the low bidder if the construction of the parking lot remains a Council goal. DISCUSSION Project Background After a lengthy discussion and review, the Mitchell Park Master Plan was amended by the City Council on May 6, 2008, allowing a parking lot to be constructed on the site. In response to the Council's action to amend the Master Plan, Public Works staff prepared plans and specifications for the Senior Center parking lot. The project site is a partially screened area behind the Senior Center that currently contains a barbecue, picnic tables, horseshoe pit, and shuffleboard court. The project will install a 14-space parking lot, including three accessible spaces, surrounded by landscaping, and decorative iron fencing Pedestrian level lights, identical to the Downtown Pedestrian Light standards, will also be installed around the parking lot. At the September 16, 2008 meeting, Council asked for the fencing to be extended along the new exit drive aisle to Santa Rosa Street as a means of separating the nearby play area from the parking lot exit. Award Process On September 16, 2008 Council approved plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bids for the construction of the Senior Center Parking Lot in Mitchell Park. The Council also authorized the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid was less than or equal to the Engineer's Estimate. The City received 15 sealed bids with the apparent low bidder being Spiess Construction of Santa Maria, with a bid of $194,328. Of the 15 bids, 10 were below the Engineer's Estimate of$235,000. At its November 18, 2008 meeting, the City Council directed staff to return for consideration of award of this project at the December 2, 2008 meeting, based largely on the recognition that the current Council would want to reconsider this project. Senior Center Parking Lot—Spec No. 90803 Page 2 Since the bids were received, a number of questions have been raised, including by incoming Council members, regarding protection for the Heritage Ash Tree. Outlined below is added information addressing this concern. Heritage Tree In developing the plans and specifications, the City Arborist and engineering staff met on several occasions to discuss tree preservation measures to be implemented for this large heritage tree, with the goal to reduce the impact of construction on the tree and ensure its survival. The Community Development Department performed an environmental evaluation of the project and determined that the construction methods proposed would have a less than significant impact on the tree. The area of construction for this project under the drip line of the tree is about 60% covered with concrete now (patio, BBQ pits, etc.) and so staff believes that the additional new impact is relatively small. Some smaller feeder roots will be affected on about 20% of the root area of this tree due to this project and will temporarily reduce this tree's overall ability to absorb water and nutrients. Special measures are to be taken to protect the tree, and have been incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Surfacing will be laid at or near existing grade. The edge curb will be hand dug within the drip line of this tree and any roots encountered over one inch will be "bridged over." Excavation for light fixture footings, fence poles, retaining curb, drainage swale, and electric and irrigation lines will be hand dug. If large roots are encountered, footing locations will be adjusted, irrigation and electric lines will be adjusted or roots tunneled under to avoid large root severance. Roots are to be pruned with a sharp tool and any roots exposed to drying over one hour shall have burlap or other material moistened and placed around exposed roots to prevent the sun and wind from drying out roots. The footing for the BBQ area has been moved further away from the tree protection zone and will be poured on existing grade. This will have little negative impact on this heritage tree as it will be out of the critical root zone. Storing material and parking under trees will not be allowed during the construction period. A pre bid meeting was held with the City Arborist and engineering staff to brief the potential bidders so that they would understand what extra measures will be required. At this meeting, more than 30 representatives attended, and staff stressed the importance of tree preservation and protection. The Arborist, his staff and the construction inspectors will verify all tree protection measures are adhered to during construction. All contractors, sub contractors or any persons working within the drip line of this heritage tree during this project will be informed of these requirements and have a clear picture of the tree protection measures. Inspection staff are empowered to stop work if the construction crew is not meeting the requirements. Failure to meet the tree protection requirements will result in a stop work order. Existing small trees and shrubs proposed to be removed can be mitigated with the planting of new trees per the existing landscape plan. Trees to be planted shall be planted to the engineering standards. The Magnolia Grandiflora to be retained along the street frontage will have no grade changes around it as was originally proposed, so no adverse impact is expected. I, Senior Center Parking Lot—Spec No. 90803 Page 3 Other Background Materials and Issues For background information on the other issues raised during the prior deliberations about this project, staff has attached the May 6, 2008 staff report and minutes. The staff report and minutes of the September 16, 2008 meeting when the project was authorized by Council for bid advertisement are also attached. A link to the longer history of the Senior Center Parking Lot is also noted at the end of the report FISCAL IMPACT The 2007-09 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-345 to 3-351, identifies $70,000 for the Senior Center parking lot in the 2008-09 fiscal year. An additional $181,000 was transferred from the Completed Projects account at the time the Council authorized the advertising for bids. Estimate at time of Advertising Award Construction: $220,000 $194,328 Contingencies: $22,000 $20,000 Archeological Monitoring: $5,500 $5,500 Material Testing: $2,500 $2,500 Printing: $1,000 $1,000 Total for Construction: $251,000 $2239328 ALTERNATIVES 1. Award a contract to, and authorize the mayor to execute a contract with, Spiess Construction, Inc. of San Luis Obispo in the amount of$194,328. This alternative completes a portion of the Major City Goal established for improving Senior Services in the 2007-09 Financial Plan. 2. Reject all bids and request staff to revise the project to address Council concerns. If the Council decides that some parking should be included for the site, but would like to revise the size or scope of the project, specific direction will be needed for staff to proceed with that work. The current bids would have to be formally rejected by Council; and staff would bring forward the alternative project for approval when it was ready. 3. Reject all bids and eliminate the project from further consideration. If the Council decides that no further project work should be undertaken at this location, then the budgeted amount would be available for Council to use on some other CIP. ATTACHMENTS 1. May 6, 2008 Council Agenda Report 2. May 6, 2008 Council Meeting Minutes 3. September 16, 2008 Council Agenda Report 4. September 16, 2008 Council Meeting Minutes 5 �3 Senior Center Parking Lot—Spec No. 90803 Page 4 AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Plans and Specifications Available online at http://www.sIocity.orWparksandrecreation/documents.asp under Mitchell Park and Senior Center Parking History, is a longer history of the Senior Center Parking Lot issue. 77 \\chstore2\Publieworks\sta1T-Reports-Agendas-Minutes\_CAR\2008\CIP\90803 Senior Center Parking Lot\90803 Award 12-2-08.doe �i� nflCPMt-All ADcouncil Meeting� — 5-06-08 AacEnda RepoRt N t CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Betsy Kiser,Parks and Recreation Director Jay Walter,Public Works Director SUBJECT: MITCHELL PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), do not amend the Mitchell Park Master Plan to designate the area immediately behind the Senior Center for a parking lot, and instead retain a specialty garden as a future use at that location. CAO RECOMMENDATION To implement the senior parking component of the City Council's 2007-09 Major City Goal for Senior Citizen Facilities, the Council must amend the Mitchell Park Master Plan by adopting a resolution changing the proposed use behind the Center to allow for a parking lot of approximately 14 spaces. REPORT-IN-BRIEF In response to a City Council established Major City Goal to improve senior citizen's facilities, the 2007-09 Financial Plan included funding for the construction of a parking lot behind the Senior Center in Mitchell Park. To proceed with the project,the Mitchell Park Master Plan must be amended to reflect a change of use for the project site from specialty garden to parking lot. The proposed amendment was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission, and recommended for denial by each. The amendment is now being presented to Council for final action. In addition to the discussions held by the Advisory Bodies, the report provides a number of options for Council consideration,ranging from on-street parking alternatives to transportation alternatives. The interest in constructing a new Senior Center in another location is already being pursued through the Council's adopted 2007-09 Major City Goal work program. A Request for Proposals to hire a feasibility consultant has been drafted, and the study is anticipated to begin this summer. DISCUSSION Situation As part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, the City Council established a Major City Goal to enhance senior citizen facilities through improvements to the current senior center and the pursuit of plans for a future senior center. The work program that resulted includes renovations to the Senior • e Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 2 Center kitchen, replacement of windows and chairs, construction of a parking lot in the area behind the facility and a needs study for a new senior center. To proceed with construction of the parking lot behind the Senior Center, the Mitchell Park Master Plan; which guides the development of the Park, must first be amended to reflect a change of use for the project site from specialty garden to parking lot. History of Mitchell Park (detailed history in Council Reading File) Mitchell Park is 133,000 square feet of urban parkland located in the Old Town Historic District and includes the city block bounded by Santa Rosa,Buchon, Osos and Pismo Streets. The Senior Center, located in the Park, is a former kindergarten school and is located on the Master List of Historic Resources (see Attachment 1 for Vicinity Map.) The site was originally part of the Dallidet Adobe vineyards and was acquired by the San Luis Coastal Unified School District in 1913 from local resident, Mary E. Mitchell, wife of Frank Mitchell. For many years, the School. District used the residence building at the comer of Buchon and Santa Rosa Streets for a kindergarten. The site also served as a community park and included a ball field and gazebo. In 1948, the City leased the site from the School District. The two agencies agreed to an extensive renovation of the park, which was completed in 1953. At the time of the current Master Plan's development in 1995, the park's configuration was essentially the same as it was in 1953. In 1961, Mitchell Park was quitclaimed to the City by the School District in exchange for property in the Laguna Park area. Over the following years, the former kindergarten building was renovated (1974) and became home to the Senior Citizen Center organization that exists and operates at the facility today. In 1978, an agreement was entered into between the City and the Senior Center Board of Directors whereby, in exchange for the Senior Center facility, phone service, office supplies and funds for mailing the newsletter, the senior citizens who use the facility agreed to operate a senior citizen program under the direction of the Parks and Recreation Department at no personnel cost to the City. Since 1988, the concern over parking for the seniors who use the facility has been addressed on a number of occasions. In recent years, two formal requests for an off-street parking lot have been reviewed and denied by both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Council. The denial of a parking lot request in 2000 resulted in the four-hour on-street parking zones that currently surround the park. In April 2007, the City Council approved a new Major City Goal work program for enhancing senior citizen services that included constructing the parking lot, following an amendment of the Mitchell Park Master Plan to allow the use. Mitchell Park Master Plan The Mitchell Park Master Plan was adopted by the Council via Resolution No. 9235 on October 2, 2001, after review and recommendations of support from the PRC, the CHC, and the ARC TACouncil Agenda ReportsTarks&Recreation CAWAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.<K nR dam' Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 3 (see Attachment 2 for the Master Plan document). The plan called for a number of improvements to the park, including: 1. Pavilion similar to one that existed in the park for over thirty years. 2. Landscaping and fencing on the perimeter of the site. 3. Relocation of a flagpole from the center of the park to a small plaza on the corner of Pismo and Osos Streets that contains an arbor/trellis structure with benching. 4. Renovation of the playground. 5. Addition of public art. 6. Replacement of the shuffleboard and horseshoe courts behind the Senior Center with a specialty garden (neighborhood vegetable garden, xeriscape demonstration garden or botanical garden). Thus far, the playground has been renovated, public art installed and a bandstand/pavilion constructed by Rotary Club of San Luis Obispo. The flagpole was returned to its original location upon completion of the bandstand/pavilion.. The area located immediately behind the Senior Center, which currently contains an underused shuffleboard and horseshoe court, is designated for a specialty garden, with options for a neighborhood vegetable garden, a xeriscape demonstration garden or a botanical garden. It is this element of the Master Plan that must be amended prior to implementation of the Council's Major City Goal to construct a parking lot behind the facility (See Attachment 3 for preliminary parking lot site design.) Advisory Body Review The process for amending the Mitchell Park Master Plan involves seeking input from the public and requires review by the PRC, the CHC and the ARC, with recommendations ultimately forwarded to the Council for final action. The results of those reviews are summarized below: Parks and Recreation. Commission. In response to the 2007-09 Major City Goal, the PRC considered the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan on two occasions. The first review occurred on November 7, 2007, and after lengthy discussion and a 4-3 vote, the PRC approved a recommendation to amend the Plan, removing the area behind the Senior Center designated for a specialty garden and replacing it with a parking lot. The Commission also recommended that: 1. The City mitigate the loss of Mitchell Park land to parking lot (6,000 square feet) by purchasing land in the downtown area equal in size to the area lost for parkland use (7-0); and 2. And in the future, if the Mitchell Park Senior Center reverts to a use other than a Senior Center, at that time return the parking lot to"active park use" (4-3). Subsequent to the November 7 meeting, the Council, PRC and City staff received correspondence from many citizens in the community, most particularly neighbors living near the park and in the area known as "Old Town," opposing construction of the parking lot. (All.letters received are available in the Council Reading file.) T:1Council Agenda ReportsTarks&Recreation CARICAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.08.doc �'� A�fi7�C HMI;NI r Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 4 Additionally, members of the community attended both the February and March, 2008 meetings of the PRC and requested that the PRC re-examine the issue given the strong opposition to the parking lot, and in light of a January 2008 action by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). After much discussion and majority direction, the PRC placed the Mitchell Park Master Plan amendment on its April agenda for re-examination. On April 2, 2008, the PRC reviewed the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan a second time, evaluating it for conformance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and taking_ into account the added view of the CHC (discussed below). After hearing from a room full of citizens, speaking both in support and in opposition to the amendment, the PRC determined that the construction of a parking lot behind the Senior Center was not compatible with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and voted 6-1 to forward a recommendation to the Council to deny the amendment. (See Attachment 4 for draft minutes and agenda report.) Cultural- Heritage Committee. At its .meeting on January 28, 2008, the CHC unanimously recommended denial of the Mitchell Park Master Plan amendment. The CHC found that the project is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties because it alters the setting of the historic property by introducing an element (parking lot) that is not consistent with the historical context of the site. The CHC also found that the project detracts from the Old Town Historic Preservation District because the proposed amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan does not promote the historic character of the area. (See Attachment 5 for minutes and agenda report.) Architectural.Review Commission. The ARC reviewed the amendment on April 7, 2008 and voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan, based on inconsistency with Community Design Guidelines. The Commissioners felt that the parking lot would detract from the visual character of Mitchell Park and the surrounding neighborhoods, and remove urban green space that is vital to the community's quality of life for its residents. The ARC also recommended expediting the installation of the community garden and addressing a better means of meeting the parking accessibility needs for those with disabilities at the Senior Center. (See Attachment 6 for draft minutes and agenda report.) Environmental Review Although this report deals exclusively with an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan, the Council requested that it be provided with the results of an environmental review associated with the construction of a parking lot behind the Senior Center. A Negative Declaration of environmental impact in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)was recommended by the Community Development Director on March 26, 2008 (See Attachment 7). The amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan would change the area designated for a specialty garden to a parking lot. CEQA focuses on physical changes to the existing environment. Changing the Mitchell Park Master Plan to accommodate a parking lot instead of a community garden is key to the policy decision, but because there is no garden there now, a garden is not part of the discussion.of physical changes to the existing environment. T:\Council Agenda Reports\Parks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.08 dor S_-- . � r Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 5 Next Steps (including feasibility study for the construction of a new Senior/Community Center) If the Council approves the amendment, the next steps in constructing the parking lot include: Task Date 1. Complete plans&specifications,finalize budget and submit for Council approval 9-08 2. Invite bids and receive proposals 10-08 3. Evaluate proposals and award construction contract. 11-08 4. Execute agreement and start construction. 12-08 5. Complete construction 2-09 If the Council does not approve amending the Mitchell Park Master Plan to allow for on-site parking, then work on this element of the Major City Goal will be concluded; and we will continue implementing the other"Action Plantasks of the Major City Goal (See Attachment 8). One major component of this work plan is to study the feasibility of developing a new community center that can accommodate the needs of senior citizens and, perhaps, meet other community needs as well. Support for this study has already been expressed by the Senior Center Board, as well as the Parks and Recreation Commission and Joint Use Committee. At this time, an RFP has been drafted to begin the consultant search, and the study is expected to be underway this summer and completed in time for Council to consider the further pursuit of a center in conjunction with the development of the 2009-11 Financial Plan. CONCURRENCES Staff from the Public Works Department concur with the information contained within the report.. FISCAL IIVIPACT Although amending the Mitchell Park Master Plan has no direct fiscal impact, the design process has revealed that additional items such as enhanced lighting, landscape, fencing and decorative pavement will be needed, which will add to the cost of the project. The current construction cost. estimate is approximately$195,000. At this time, $70,000 has been allocated through the 2007- 09 Financial Plan for construction of the parking lot. If the Council approves the amendment, staff will return to the Council for approval of plans and specifications, and recommended budget adjustments at that time. ALTERNATIVES A number of alternatives to the construction of a parking lot have been researched by City staff and are discussed in detail below. The first section addresses options for on-street parking, while. the second section looks at transportation alternatives. T:1Council Agenda ReportsTarks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.08.doc Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 6 In reviewing these alternatives, it is important to consider that the need for a parking lot behind the Senior Center, as expressed by the seniors, is based on the need for parking to be located within a short distance from the Center to accommodate: 1. Those with mobility limitations; and 2. An off-street loading zone for lunches, food give-aways and other programming needs. Therefore, based on these considerations and past senior input, staff feels that any parking spaces located more than a half-block from the Senior Center would not be considered an effective solution. On-Street Parking Options 1. Maintain the current parking system. The current parking controls surrounding Mitchell Park began in the late 1990's with two hour time limits on Santa Rosa and Buchon Streets and three hour meters on Pismo Street. After several changes through 2004, the streets surrounding the park now consist of four-hour time limits on three streets surrounding 75% of curb space surrounding the park: 15 spaces on Pismo; 14 spaces on Buchon Street; and four spaces on Santa Rosa Street. Osos Street has open parking for approximately nine vehicles (See Attachment 9 for parking map). Current On-Street ng Zone Surrounding Mitchell Park Passenger - 4-Hour Disabled Loading Open 30 Minute Time Limit Parking Bus Zone Zone Parking Zone Santa Rosa 4 3 1 1 Buchon 14 1 Pismo 15 Osos I I 1 1 9 Totals 1 33 3 1 1 1 1 9 1 2. Reduce Time Limits and Provide Exemption Permits to Seniors (Staff Recommended "best alternative"). The City could lower the time limits on Buchon and Santa Rosa Streets from four-hour zones to two-hour zones and allow the seniors to exceed that time limit through the use of a parking permit. The lower time limit increases turn over of the spaces while increasing the likelihood of available on-street parking for seniors. These streets are in closest proximity to the Senior Center and add 18 potential spaces (four on Santa Rosa and on 14 Buchon). Parks and Recreation staff can issue permits to seniors to exempt them from the time limit. Seniors with disabled parking placards would not need a permit because they are exempt from time limits by law. Although this option does not guarantee senior-only parking, it allows for multiple users for the park and surrounding areas. There would remain nine open or unregulated parking spaces on Osos Street and 15 spaces with four-hour limits on Pismo Street. This would accommodate parking for the mixture of non-residential uses on the north side and east sides of the park. T:\Couacil Agenda Reports\Parks&Recreation CARICAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.6g.doc 9 _-TR(Il 0^ , 1 PC Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 7 Due to competing parking interests in this area, this alternative would be preferred by staff because it allows for non-exclusive or multi-use parking. This is preferable over single-use reservation of street parking for seniors only. There may be some resistance from the seniors due to the risk of receiving a parking citation for not displaying a parking permit. However, the City has an appeal process that allows consideration of extenuating circumstances relating to the issuance of a parking citation. This may alleviate some of the seniors' concerns. 3. Retain Time Limits with Exemption Permits. Another alternative is to retain all of the four-hour zones on Pismo, Santa Rosa, and Buchon and provide for exemption permit parking to seniors. This would work the same as the second alternative. The concern is that having a longer time limit may not provide the increased likelihood of available parking for seniors, since the spaces will conceivably only turn over every four hours as opposed to two hours. (It is staff's opinion that four-hour time limits do not deter downtown employee parking because they move their cars at lunch.) This alternative was considered in the past and was not endorsed by the seniors since it carried with it the risk of receiving a parking citation for not displaying a parking permit. Staff does not think an exemption permit system is a viable alternative for these reasons. 4. Senior Only Parking on the Street. This alternative would reserve parking exclusively for seniors on some or all of the streets surrounding the Senior Center. This option works well for seniors but excludes all others. Staff has identified when the seniors require parking at the park. Seniors need access Monday through Saturday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm. Any parking space identified for seniors only excludes all other park users during most of the day and week. This is not as effective or desirable as multi-use parking that accommodates other uses. The park is located within a mixed use area that parks residents, church goers, downtown visitors, office visitors, the DeGroot home for children with disabilities and a mini-market. Also, it will establish a precedent that the Parking Division attempts to discourage. Currently, staff receives requests from business owners, residents, and others who think that the parking space in front of their property should be designated their parking only. Staff continually reminds the public that on-street parking and other public parking areas are for the benefit of many and not reserved for one use. Therefore, staff prefers a multi-use approach rather than reserved parking at Mitchell Park. 5. On-Street Angled Parking. Parking on the street can be converted from parallel parking spaces to angled parking spaces to provide for more parking. This would increase the number of spaces and allow for more disabled parking. Normal standards require a minimum of 60 feet from curb-to-curb to accomplish this. The streets around the park are 40 feet from curb to curb. This option could require taking more park space on all or some of the streets surrounding the park. This option presents several challenges. Angled on-street parking has the potential to increase accidents because the cars have to back into the traffic lane. A driver has limited TACouncil Agenda ReportsTarks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Ran Amendment 4.06.08.-doc Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 8 visibility until they are almost into the lane of traffic. This can increase vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-bicycle accidents. The other challenges associated with angled on-street parking would be the cost to implement and the elimination of park space needed to accomplish this. There would be costs for design and environmental review. The design would result in taking some park land as well, which has been a concern of those opposing the construction of a parking lot. 6. Increase Green Curb Temporary Time Limits. Many of the seniors have disabled person's placards that allow them to park at any green-curbed time zone for as long as they wish. Currently there is one 30-minute parking space that was intended for deliveries to the Senior Center. The four parking spaces on Santa Rosa and all or some of the 14 parking spaces on Buchon could be converted to green curbs with 30 minute time limits. This will greatly increase the turnover of these spaces, giving seniors a better chance to find space in close proximity to the park. The issue with this alternative is that it will not accommodate seniors without disabled placards.. 7. Add Metered Parking Surrounding the Park. This alternative was recommended by a member of the community. This alternative was tried in the past on Pismo Street adjacent to the park to deter the parking by downtown employees seeking free parking. Parking meters are preferred by staff because they are less labor intensive to enforce than time zones. Although adding parking meters did improve parking access next to the park on Pismo Street, residents, seniors, and other park users objected to paying for parking so the meters were removed. It is unlikely that this solution would be accepted.by seniors or residents. Transportation Alternatives Regardless of Council action, staff will pursue the following alternatives. 1. Support SLO Regional Rideshare's Senior Transportation Options Program and Other Alternate Transportation Systems. Currently, SLO Regional Rideshare works directly with the seniors at the Senior Center to provide transportation choices and has created a Senior Transportation Options program, complete with posters and ambassadors. This program engages other seniors to help their peers plan trips, reduce fear and increase understanding of the transportation system. 2. . Work with the seniors to encourage use of the SLO Transit System, Dial-a-Ride and similar shared transportation options. SLO Transit currently operates two routes, one in each direction past the Senior Center, with bus stops on Santa Rosa at Buchon. Route #4 leaves the Downtown Transit Center(DTC) every 30 minutes Monday through Thursday; and Santa Rosa/Buchon is the second stop after leaving the DTC. Service starts at 6:40 am, with the last trip leaving the DTC at 10:20 pm. (5:40 pm from June 15th until September due to Cal Poly student summer vacation) Weekend service starts at 8:10 am with the last trip leaving the DTC at 5:10 pm and operates once per hour. Route#5 operates every 30 minutes Monday through Friday, with service past T.-Council Agenda Reports\Parks dt Recreation CAMCAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.08.doc - � Ffi�FcHl�e!��t 1 P� �► Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 9 the Senior Center-Santa Rosa/Buchon St bus stop heading towards downtown.Service starts at approximately 6:41 am (Amtrak Station schedule timepoint with Buchon two stops after this location), with the last trip at approximately 6:36 pm. Weekend service starts at approximately 9:11 am (Amtrak) with the last trip at approximately 6:41 pm with service once per hour. Seniors also could choose to use Route#4 to return to the DTC; however, it would require them to ride the entire remaining route and would take approximately 45-50 minutes from the Senior Center departure to DTC if choosing this option. The benefit is that there is later evening service from Monday through Thursday on this route at least until June 15th. Transit staff would be willing to work closely with other City staff to develop a specific transit marketing plan to increase senior ridership on these routes. (See Council Reading File for SLO Transit Map) ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map for Mitchell Park 2. Mitchell Park Master Plan 3. Preliminary Parking Lot Design 4. PRC Draft Minutes and Agenda Report—April 2,2008 5. CHC Minutes and Agenda Report—January 28, 2008 6. ARC Draft Minutes and Agenda Report—April 7, 2008 7. Negative Declaration 8. 2007-09 Major City Goal: Senior Center Facilities 9. On-street Parking Map 10. Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Mitchell Park and Senior Center Parking History(detailed) Letters of support and opposition from the community San Luis Obispo Bus System Map 6 13 T:1Council Agenda Reports\Parks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4. .08.doc MINUTES ' SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER, 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Council Members Andrew Carter, Christine Mulholland, Allen Settle, Vice Mayor Paul Brown and Mayor Dave Romero City Staff': Present: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer; Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney,Audrey Hooper, City Clerk; Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Administrative Officer, John Mandeville, Community Development Director; Bill Statler, Finance and Information Technology Director,Deborah Linden, Police Chief; Jay Walter, Public Works Director; Betsy Kiser, Parks and Recreation Director, Robert Horch, Parking Manager STUDY SESSION 1. MEASURE Y UPDATE ON PUBLIC SAFETY(POLICEI.AND NEIGHBORHOOD WELLNESS MAJOR CITY GOALS. Police Chief Linden, Community Development Director Mandeville and Buildin Official Girvin presented the staff report and responded to Council's questions. Council Member Settle suggested that staffs research into red light cameras include the issues of intersection grid lock and City vehicles caught in violation. Public Comments Brett Cross, Chair of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), expressed appreciation to staff for discussing the neighborhood policing portion of the presentation and said RQN was supportive of the information they received. --end of public comments— Council Members spoke in support of the efforts staff has made and the direction taken to increase public safety and code enforcement services. t) �(7RCfIM�nfT 2 ?�� 2- City City Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Council Member Carter referred to the concept of a 311 program for the reporting ' of graffiti and other non-urgent violations to provide citizens a one-stop method for reporting these types of issues. He questioned why residences are placed on the premise list after receiving two or more noise warnings within 60 days, and suggested that the period of time should be longer given the number of violations. He agreed with Council Member Settle's comments regarding red light violations and blocking intersections. In response to Council Member Carter, Police Chief Linden discussed exceptions to the 60-day premise process, which includes, for example, parties with more than 75 attendees and assaults on SNAP or other workers. ACTION: Council received the report and provided comments as indicated. No further action was required. 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE. Assistant City Administrative Officer Stanwvck and Economic Development Manager Clark presented the staff report. Public Comments Beth Moreno, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Chairperson, discussed , the Chamber's concerns regarding the business community, how business growth is being stifled, the need for additional emphasis on job creation in the Program, and the stratification within the community. She discussed the need to update the City's Targeted Industries Study and mentioned the upcoming trip to Boulder, Colorado, as an opportunity to research how other communities grow jobs. Pierre Rademaker, Member of the Chamber Board and its Economic Development Committee, explained why economic health must be considered in the broadest possible terms noting that healthy City revenues don't equate to healthy local businesses. The city needs to draw base industries that offer high level jobs and success that extends outside of our community. One example of this type of business would be Meathead Movers. Eric Justesen, newly elected Chamber Board Member and Chair of the Sustainability and Resources Committee, concurred with prior speakers. He spoke about the need to create a "Complete Community'that includes an inventory of land and building stock that is already supported with necessary infrastructure. He supported proactive marketing of our community as a place for businesses that support the quality of life; i.e. green and sustainable-oriented. Mike Manchak. COE and President of the Economic Vitality Corporation, reiterated comments made by prior speakers and suggested that collaboration among cities i TTA CN M;5-1UT 2 PG 3 City Council Meeting` Page 3 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 will be the key to providing the kinds of resources that will grow companies in the ' community. Dave Cox, San Luis Obispo, also reiterated comments made by prior speakers. He discussed the need for the Program to support a stable job market. He suggested this be done by enhancing their resources to the Program with regards to collection of data and to make this data available on the website. He also suggested that outreach, namely marketing the community, should be increased. Dave Juhnke, Chair of the Chambers Economic Development Committee, but speaking as a resident, was concerned about the future. He was concerned about stratification of the community and suggested that the antidote is job creation. He suggested that policy direction from Council is what will bring jobs to the community; i.e., by making the city a welcoming place for businesses to come, expand, and remain. He also said there needs to be a focus on infrastructure resources and that new business should not have to pay for existing or future infrastructure needs over and above their fair share. Bill Almas, Representative for Chevron. He discussed the status of the San Luis Tank Farm project and Chevron's interest in annexing to the city, as well as how the project can play an important part in the economic growth of the city. He noted that the project is likely to include 51 acres of development that will open ' doors to companies wishing to establish or expand here. Dave Garth, President of SLO Chamber of Commerce, discussed his concerns regarding the economy and the future of the City saying that this is a critical point for San Luis due to a lack of job growth and a stagnant or declining economy. He asked Council to appoint an elected official to the Chamberis Economic Vision Committee and said that Council Member Carter indicated he would be willing to do this. He also discussed the need to learn about what other communities are doing to create balanced and sustainable communities. Bill Thoma, San Luis Obispo, emphasized that the City must tum its attention to the business community and expressed concern about the difficulty in drawing high paying jobs to the community. —end of public comments— CAO Hampian referred to Mr. Almas' comments regarding Chevron's interest in moving from Phase 2 of the Airport Area Annexation to Phase 1 B, and suggested that a Council study session be scheduled when more clarification on the issues related to Chevron as been received. Council Member Settle concurred with the report and prior comments, supported a ' study session regarding the Chevron annexations, and supported appointing Council Member Carter as liaison to the Chamber's Economic Vision Committee. �� � Le City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Vice Mayor Brown also supported Council Member Carters appointment as liaison ' to the Chambers Economic Vision Committee. He.explained why he believed there should be an economic element in the City s General Plan. Council Member Mulholland supported appointing a Council Member as liaison to the Chambers Economic Vision Committee. She disagreed, however, with prior comments regarding the government's role in bringing businesses to the city. She suggested, instead, that it is the role of the Economic Vitality Corporation and the Chamber to draw businesses. She disagreed that the City is stifling job growth. Council Member Carter explained why he believed that economic development is the most important future issue facing this community. He also explained why he disagreed with Council Member Mulholland and supported the report and the direction the Chamber is taking to attract head of household jobs. He expressed concern about the continued fiscalization of land uses and stratification of the community. He agreed that sustainable businesses and knowledge based businesses would fit well in our community. He stressed the importance of housing in this discussion. Mayor Romero supported. Council Member Carter's appointment as liaison to the Economic Vision Committee. He also supported the City partnering with the Chamber as the Chamber takes the lead related to the economic development of , the community. He believed that some of the City's fees need to be reviewed as they may be discouraging development. He discussed the steps the City has taken over the past few years to prepare for economic growth, including completion of annexation studies, approval of several housing projects, and ensuring there is a sufficient water supply and sewer system in place. In response to Council Member Mulholland's suggestion that additional business recruitment and retention information be added to the City s website, CAO Hamoian explained that it will be important for Council to consider the adequacy of the City's economic development resources during its goal-setting process in the fall. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland/Brown to appoint Council Member Carter as Council's representative to the Chambers Economic Vision Committee; carred 5:0. BUSINESS ITEMS 3. OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR TESTIMONY REGARDING PROPOSED DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENT INCREASE. Assistant City Administrative Officer Stanwvck presented the agenda report. Mt n1T 2- City City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Public Comments No comments were forthcoming. —end of public comments-- Council Member Mulholland noted for the record that a letter(on file in the City Clerk's office) had been received from John Grady objecting to the minimum assessment to businesses. AC71ON: No action was required on this item. 4. TANK FARM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FINANCING. Finance and Information.Technology Director Statler presented the staff report for this item simultaneously with item B5. Public Comments No comments were forthcoming. —end of public comments— ACTION: Moved by Mulholland/Settle to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 9978 (2008 Series) approving an installment sales agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo Improvement Board to assist in financing the Tank Farm Gravity Sewer, Lift Station and Force Main Project. 2. Review the project budget and funding sources downward based on favorable bid results; motion carred 5:0. City Clerk Hooper called the meeting of the Capital Improvement Board to order. Council Members serve as members of the Capital Improvement Board and all were present. 5. MEETING OF THE CAPITAL.IMPROVEMENT BOARD. Finance and Information Technology Director Statler presented the staff report for this item simultaneously with item B4. Public Comments No comments were forthcoming. —end of public comments— ACTION: Moved by Carter/Brown to: 1)Approve minutes of the Capital ' Improvement Board meeting held on March 21, 2006. 2) Elect officers for the Capital Improvement Board (Mayor Romero as President and Vice Mayor Brown S-t� rtfl C HnA;;A-r (,g City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 as Vice President). 3)Adopt Resolution No. 9979 (2008 Series) approving the issuance of lease-revenue bonds to assist in financing the Tank Farm gravity sewer, lift station and force main project. 4) Adjoum to the next regular meeting, motion carried 5:0. The Special Meeting adjoumed at 6:07 p.m. to a recess, following which the Regular Meeting convened in the Council Chamber at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, MAY 61 2008. 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER, 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ROLL.CALL: Council Members Present: Council Members Andrew Carter, Christine Mulholland, Allen Settle, Vice Mayor Paul Brown and Mayor Dave Romero City Staff: ' Present: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer; Jonathan Lowell, City Attomey; Audrey Hooper, City Clerk; Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Administrative Officer, John Mandeville, Community Development Director, Bill Statler, Finance and Information Technology Director, Monica Irons, Human Resources Director; Deborah Linden, Police Chief; John Callahan, Fire Chief; John Moss, Utilities Director, Jay Walter, Public Works Director; Betsy Kiser, Parks and Recreation Director; Brigitte Elke, Principal Administrative Analyst PRESENTATION AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION AWARD FOR THE CITY'S BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.. Public Works Director Walter presented an American Planning Association Award of Excellence for the City's 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan to the City's Principal Transportation Manager and Bicycle Coordinator Peggy Mandeville, Adam Fukushima representing the Bicycle Coalition, and Bicycle Advisory Committee Members Ben Lemer, Tom Nuckols and Jean Anderson and former ' member Kevin Christian who is now the City's Bicycle Intern. 4-t to 2- City City Council Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Mayor Romero announced vacancies on the Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Joint Use of Recreation Facilities Committee, the Mass Transportation Committee and the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee. Applications and additional information are available on the City's web site and in the City Clerk's office. APPOINTMENT Al. APPOINTMENT TO THE PROMOTIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE (PCC). Council Member Carter made the subcommittee report. ACTION: Moved by Carter/Settle to appoint Sarah Maggelet to the Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) effective May 6, 2008, and expiring on March 31, 2011, as recommended by the Council Subcommittee; motion carried 5:0. PUBLIC COMMENT Jesse Bilsten, San Luis Obispo,asked when the work on Grand Avenue and on Broad Street will be finished. ' Public Works Director Waiter discussed the progress of the work being done on the section of Grand Avenue coming down from Cal Poly for the installation of a water line which should be completed within the next month or so. He explained that the area of Broad Street, south of the City, is under Caltrans'jurisdiction. He thought that construction would begin this summer and grinding and paving work will start in the spring of 2009. Shana Reiss, Atascadero, suggested that the City should purchase property adjacent to Fire Station 1 for the expansion of the Police facility. CAO Hampian explained that the subject property is owned by a private developer who has plans for a large development project on that site, rendering the cost of acquiring that land infeasible at this time. Gary Chou, resident, suggested that, similar to Asian traditions where relationships are centered on eating, Council should consider making meals and snacks available during Council meetings. Leslie Mann, San Luis Obispo, asked.Council to have every trash can provided with a section for recycling. 1 5 �� -A-T7A C H!vl eH T 2 i96g City Council Meeting Page 8 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Coral Norris, San Luis Obispo, recommended that more predominant pedestrian crossing signs or lights be installed at Boysen Avenue where it intersects with ' Santa Rosa Avenue. Public Works Director Walter said that they can raise Ms. Norris' concerns to Caltrans, the agency that has jurisdiction over this intersection. R. "Ash"Vulgamore expressed concern regarding the people who are smoking at bus shelters and suggested the City's ordinance should be strengthened so as to be more effective. Brad Clemens, San Luis Obispo, discussed the relationship between Cal Poly students and the City. He encouraged both to work together to enable some of the events that were prohibited because they had gotten out of hand in the past to resume since they contributed to the Citys unique character. Gary Fowler, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the need for a new and larger senior center in the City. Jarred.Samadn, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern regarding the lack of parking on the cul de sac at Leroy Court He asked that the residents at 316, 317, 328 and 321 be given the ability to purchase parking passes so they have the same parking rights as those residents at 301 and 302 Leroy Court. , Michael Lara, General Manager of the Blues Baseball Club, expressed appreciation for the lease agreement with the city and discussed the Club's plans for 2009. Naomi Guv proposed that a dotted line should be painted to connect the bike lane on California Avenue where it splits at California and Hathaway and prevent confusion on the parts of cyclists and drivers. Dorothy Graves expressed concern about the height of buildings in the downtown and suggested that new projects may need to lower their buildings as was done for the Chinatown project. Amy Linker, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern about the lack of late night transportation and suggested that the safe ride program be reestablished or a taxi incentive program be established. Andria Greenlee, Cal Poly graduate student and city resident, asked that Council consider creating an off-leash dog park. Ms. Greenlee was advised that there is an off-leash area for dogs at Laguna Lake Park. ' 5,a"� City Council Meeting Page 9 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Chris Matthew, Paso Robles, expressed concern regarding the way the SLO ' County Public Access Board operates. Patrick Germany, Paso Robles, Vice President of the Sharing the Dream Program, reiterated concerns he has expressed at prior meetings regarding the operations of SLO County Public Access. Allen Smith expressed concern regarding the lack of recycling bins at off campus Cal Poly apartments in the vicinity of Monte Vista Place. He said he has tried to get assistance from the County Waste Management, but has been unsuccessful Council Member Mulholland indicated that the same concerns had been posed to her during her attendance at a class at Cal Poly last week. She suggested that staff shouldinvestigate this matter. CONSENT AGENDA Tenn Mohan, San Luis Obispo, referred to item C4 and proposed that the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 interchange should not be changed. He suggested, instead, that the new interchange at Calle Joaquin is better suited for traffic. Roxanne Carr, President of the Monday Club, referred to item C9, discussed the other contributions the Club has made to the community, and spoke about its pledge not only to donate $50,000 for completion of the missing link of the railroad bicycle safety trail but also to spearhead a community effort to try to raise additional necessary funds. Jan Howell Manx, San Luis Obispo, also referred to item C9, said she is the coordinator for the "Missing Link" project, displayed a copy of the brochures that were mailed to SLO residents, and talked about the impact of the trail once it's been built. It was noted that a fundraiser for the"Missing Link"will be held on May 17th at 6:00 p.m. at the Cuesta Cadillac Dealership on Monterey Street. Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager, referred to item C8 and thanked members-of the San Luis Obispo Elks Lodge for their support and the donation of an easement along San Luis Obispo Creek at the Lodge's property. He explained that the easement will enable the city to undertake certain storm water management activities and provide space for a portion of the Bob Jones Bicycle Trail. Council Member Mulholland referred to item C5 and discussed the funds allocated towards the Senior Center improvements in support of seniors. rt T�i MC-nf T 2- City City Council Meeting Page 10 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Mayor Romero also referred to item C5 and noted that the Senior Center kitchen and remodel was a high priority in the 2007-09 goal-setting as well as one of the Measure Y goals. He also noted that as a result of Measure Y, the City will restart its street resurfacing program this summer. ACTION: Moved by Brown/Carter to approve the Consent Agenda as indicated below. C1. APPROVE MINUTES OF APRIL 1. 2008. ACTION: Moved by Brown/Carter to waive oral reading and approve as presented; motion carried 5:0. C2. NOMINATION OF CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1052 ISLAY STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ACTION: Moved by Brown/Carter to adopt _Resolution No. 9986 (2008 Series) adding the property at 1052 Islay Street to the City's Master List of Historic Resources; motion carried 5:0. C3. 2008 ASSISTANCE TO.FIREFIGHTERS GRANT APPLICATION. ACTION: Moved by Brown/Carter to authorize staff to submit a grant application in the amount of$230,775 to the Federal Assistance to Firefighters Grant ' Program for funding: 1. To train and equip Firefighters to achieve Medium Operational Level Capability for Urban Search and Rescue ($137,055). 2. To acquire Personal Protective Equipment, coats and pants, for structural firefighting ($93,720); motion carried 5:0. C4. CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH DOKKEN ENGINEERING TO CREATE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES (PS&E)AND RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION SERVICES FOR THE LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD/US 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT. ACTION: Moved by Brown/Carter to: 1. Approve a sole source contract with Dokken Engineering in an amount not to exceed $2,408,000 to perform consultant services to prepare State of California Department of Transportation plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) and right of way acquisition services for the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange project, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. 2. Advance funding from General Fund revenues in the amount of$75,000 to fully fund the contract (i.e. fill the shortfall of$23,000 and create a $52,000 contingency)for the design work, to be reimbursed from transportation impact fees when these funds become available; motion carried 5:0. t RT7/iCHA154T 2 b�C it City Council Meeting Page 11 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 C5. SENIOR CENTER KITCHEN. BATH & STORAGE REMODEL. ' SPECIFICATION NO. 90749. ACTION: Moved by Brown/Carter to: 1. Approveplans and specifications for "Senior Center Kitchen Remodel, Specification No. 90749." 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Administrative Officer to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer's estimate of $170,000. 3. Approve the transfer of$99,140 from the CIP reserve to the project construction account; motion carried 5:0. C6. MICROSURFACING 2007-08 PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 90809. ACTION: Moved by Brown/Carterto: 1. Approve Plans and Special Provisions for the Microsurfacing 2007-08 Project, Specification No. 90809. 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the CAO to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is less than or equal to the Engineer's estimate of $653,000. 3. Approve the transfer of$98,000 from CIP reserve to fund construction management; motion carried 5:0. C7. 2008 SAN LUIS OBISPO BASEBALL STADIUM AGREEMENTS. ACTION: Moved by Brown/Carterto: 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute Agreement for Use of the San Luis Obispo Baseball Stadium between the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Blues Baseball Inc. for the 2008 baseball season. 2.Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute Agreement for Use of the San Luis Obispo Baseball Stadium between the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Rattlers Baseball Inc.. for the 2008 baseball season; motion carried 5:0. C8. AUTHORIZATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF AN OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT ON APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES OF THE ELKS LODGE PROPERTY ON ELKS-LANE. ACTION: Moved by Brown/Carter to adopt Resolution No. 9980 (2008 Series) authorizing the Mayor to accept the donation of an open space and public access easement covering approximately three acres of the 11 acre Elks Lodge property at 222 Elks Lane; motion carried 5:0. C9. DONATION AGREEMENT AND FUNDING FOR RAILROAD SAFETY TRAIL PHASE 4A. SPECIFICATION NO. 90821 (FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO CAMPUS WAY). ACTION: Moved by Brown/Carter to: 1. Accept a $50,000 donation from the Monday Rotary Club of San Luis Obispo to pay for wrought iron safety fencing ' along Phase 4a of the Railroad Safety Trail. 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the donor agreement which outlines additional Railroad Safety Trail fundraising rT77AcH MFN j 2 12 City Council Meeting Page 12 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 efforts by the Monday Rotary Club. 3. Advance funding in the amount of $292,000 from transportation impact fees; pending the receipt of additional donations, to complete the design and construction of Phase 4a; motion carried 5:0. C10. FINALACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT.2832 •.A NINE UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDMSION LOCATED ON THE SOUTH.SIDE OF ELLA STREET AND BACKING UP DIRECTLY TO TERRACE HILL BASE ADDRESS IS 1063 ELLA (BRIAN ROLPH, SUBDIVIDER) ACTION: Moved by Brown/Carter to adopt Resolution No. 9981 (2008 Series) accepting the public improvements, and certifying completion of the required private improvements for Tract.2832; motion carred 5:0. PUBLIC HEARINGS ^� 6. MITCHELL PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT CAO Hamnian made some preliminary comments, following which Parks and Recreation Director Kiser, Community Development Director Mandeville, and Parking Manager.Horch presented the staff report. They and Public Works Director Walter responded to questions. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. Agatha Reardon, President of the Senior Center Board, explained that the seniors have not outgrown the Senior Center and will not outgrow it for several years. She discussed a number of reasons why a parking area behind the Senior Center is needed. She explained why the proposed parking area will not affect the aesthetic value of Mitchell Park, or the amenities and activities of the park. She asked Council to approve the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan to allow for the parking area. Stephan Lamb, San Luis Obispo, opposed the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan and suggested that the Park should be completed as indicated in the current Master Plan. He suggested that instead of building a parking area behind the Senior Center, a new location for a future Senior Center should be pursued. Council recessed after a number of comments had been made during the public comment period (i.e., from 9:00 to 9:10 p.m.) and reconvened the meeting with all members present. The following people also opposed the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan to allow for a parking area behind the Senior Center. Many concurred with , Mr. Lamb's suggestion that a site for a new Senior Center should be pursued. f17-tfl(fNrnr-N T 2 PG 13 City Council Meeting Page 13 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Carmie Casella Suzanne Power, San Luis Obispo Allan Cooper, representative of the Obispo Beautiful Association Carol Nelson-Selby, San Luis Obispo Rosemarie Camncaton, San Luis Obispo Lou Carping, San Luis Obispo Tony Romero, San Luis Obispo Bill Casella, San Luis Obispo Andrea Apodaca Cynthia Semel' San Luis Obispo Emilv McBride, San Luis Obispo Sterling McBride, San Luis Obispo Jeff Prostovich, San Luis Obispo Michael Sullivan, San Luis Obispo Ursula-Bishop, San Luis Obispo Tarrah Graves, San Luis Obispo(read from a letter written'by a coworker who was unable to attend the meeting) Jan.Howell Marx, San Luis Obispo Mark Johnson, San Luis Obispo Craig Jacobson, San Luis Obispo Matt Ritter, Botany Professor.and Chair of Landscape Advisory Committee (Mr. Ritter also expressed concern regarding the potential impact of construction of a parking lot on the Heritage Tree on the Parkproperty.) Sean Ryan, San Luis Obispo Jenn Yost, San Luis Obispo Gini Griffin, San Luis Obispo Allen Root, Chairperson of the Architectural Review Commission Stew Jenkins, San Luis Obispo Gary Fowler, San Luis Obispo Mila Vuiovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo The following people supported the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan for many of the reasons cited by Ms. Reardon: Cathie Babb, San Luis Obispo Marie Wilson, San Luis Obispo Enrico Bongio, San Luis Obispo Dick Flanders, San Luis Obispo Charles Oldham, San Luis Obispo Bette Kulp, San Luis Obispo Marcia Nelson, San Luis Obispo Paul Wilson, San Luis Obispo Ellen Dorman, San Luis Obispo Anita Cara Sheppard, San Luis Obispo .6T-rAC410ENT 2- City City Council Meeting Page 14 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Steve Miller, San Luis Obispo, suggested that non-residents should not be allowed to park on the streets in the vicinity of Mitchell Park. Parking should be limited to ' residents and the seniors who use the Senior Center. Enc Meyer. San Luis Obispo, concurred with Mr. Miller's suggestion. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. Council Member Settle concurred with Mr. Lamb. He expressed concem regarding the possible jeopardy to the heritage tree located in the park. He concurred with the Advisory Body recommendation. He also supported pursuing other alternatives, particularly On-Street Parking Option 2, with a review of how it is working at the end of a year. Vice Mayor Brown agreed that there is a need for a new Senior Center in the future. However, he supported the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan. He noted that every other park in the City on which there is a building has itsown parking lot. He thought that because this park is more than a neighborhood park and is used for such things as political rallies, marches and fund-raisers, the need for the additional parking spaces will always exist. Council Member Mulholland discussed the history of the park and various reports over the years which did not support installing a parking lot on the site. She ' explained why she believes it is important for seniors to become transit-oriented. She suggested that: 1)the original $70,000 set aside for the parking area could be placed into an interest-bearing fund and be used to assist seniors with transportation over a long period of time; 2) other options should be explored before consideration is given to a parking lot; and 3)the funds required for construction of this project could be placed in a fund for a study and construction of a new location for a Senior Center in the future. She expressed concern about overriding the recommendations of three Advisory Bodies. Council.Member Carter discussed the importance of honoring and respecting the elder population. He explained that while opponents consider this a transportation issue, the seniors have indicated that the real issue is parking. He said the proposed parking lot is small compared to the size of the entire the park. It would be secluded and shielded from the rest of the park, would be built in an under-utilized space, and would not significantly impact the rest of the park. It would provide mobility-challenged seniors with safe, off-street parking. He pointed out that the Senior Center is critically needed for the seniors who use it. In addition, it would take five to seven years to find a new site and build a new Senior Center. Mayor Romero discussed his ongoing support of a Senior Center parking.lot over the years. He pointed out that every other park in the City has off-street parking. ' He suggested that additional protections are needed to keep the children from 01 a� Cit MINT 2 15- City SCity Council Meeting Page 15 Tuesday, May 6, 2008 the parking area (such as a chain link fence, three feet high, vinyl clad). He explained how the public area of the park would actually increase with a parking lot. It would also make it possible for service vehicles to serve the entire park and may relieve some of the parking overload in the neighborhood. He said he would like supplemental parking on Santa Rosa Avenue and Buchon Street to be considered in additional to the proposed parking lot. Discussion ensued regarding a permit process for use of the parking lot. However, the options for doing so will be explored, along with possible on-street parking, during the design stages of the proposed parking lot. ACTION: 1) Moved by Brown/Carter to implement the senior parking component of the City Council's 2007-09 Major City Goal for Senior Citizen Facilities, the Council must amend the Mitchell Park Master Plan by adopting a resolution, including the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, changing the proposed use behind the Center to allow for a parking lot of approximately 14. spaces; motion carried 3:2 (Mulholland, Settle opposed). Council also directed staff to pursue on-street parking option 2 (Reduce Time Limits and Provide Exemption Permits to Seniors). Council Member Carter said he was not comfortable with the proposed placement of a new barbeque pit and suggested that other alternatives be ' considered. Council Member Settle concurred. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS None. COMMUNICATIONS None. There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mavor Rome-ro adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. n Audrey H per City Cle APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 6/17/08 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 1 counat "'K'°` 9/16/08 j acEnaa RepoRt CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director "W Prepared By: Manuel Guzman, Engineer I SUBJECT: SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT SPECIFICATIONS NO.90803 CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve plans and specifications for the Senior Center Parking Lot Project Specification No. 90803 with conditions recommended by the Architectural Review Commission with the exception of the chlorine building removal,bicycle parking, barbeque location, and pavement material. 2. Authorize staff to advertise forbids and authorize the CAO to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is less than or equal to the Engineer's Estimate of$220,000. 3. Approve the transfer of$181,000 from completed projects to fund the project. DISCUSSION Background Mitchell Park is 133,000 square feet of urban parkland located in the Old Town Historic District and includes the city block bounded by Santa Rosa, Buchon, Osos and Pismo Streets. The Senior Center, located in the Park, is a former Kindergarten School and is listed on the Master List of Historic Resources. The site was originally part of the Dallidet Adobe vineyards. Local resident and former Mayor Frank Mitchell donated the property to the school district in 1917. The site also served as a community park and included a ball field and gazebo. In the same year, the Craftsman Bungalow style Kindergarten School, designed by architect Orville Clark, was constructed. The structure has a low pitched hipped and gabled roof with gable ends to the sides, and one gable over the center front entry. There was an addition constructed in 1974 that is somewhat consistent with the style of the original structure. Other elements in the park include a bandstand,children's play area, a flagpole, a memorial at the corner of Santa Rosa and Pismo Streets, various picnic tables, public art, mature trees and a large open field with crisscrossing pedestrian walkways. Since 1988, the concern over parking for the seniors who use the facility has been raised on a number of occasions. In recent years, two formal requests for an off-street parking lot have been reviewed and denied by both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council. As part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, Council established a Major City Goal to improve the Senior Center. The resultant work program included the renovation of the Senior Center kitchen and construction of a parking lot in the area behind the Senior Center. The creation of the parking lot necessitated a revision to the park's master plan. Although not supported by advisory bodies, the Mitchell Park Master Plan was amended by the q 5�� 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PG 2 Senior Center Parking Lot Specification No. 90803 Page 2 City Council on May 5, 2008, allowing a parking lot to be constructed on the site. The amendment changed the use of the project site from a specialty garden to a parking lot. The parking lot layout shown to the advisory bodies and the Council in May is the same layout that the Council is seeing with this project. Current Project In response to the Council's action to amend the Master Plan, Public Works staff prepared plans and specifications for the Senior Center parking lot. The project site is a partially screened area behind the Senior Center that currently contains a barbecue, picnic tables, horseshoe pit, and shuffleboard court. (See Attachments 1 and 2) On August 18, 2008 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project plan and approved the design with ten recommended conditions (See Attachment 3). Some of the ARC Conditions would increase the base cost of the project. Given the current need to reduce expenditures, staff will be presenting the project with some lower cost options. However, information is provided in the report for the Council to make individual determinations on cost items. 1. Parking(ARC Conditions 1, U 8) The proposed project will install 14 new parking spaces, three of which will be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. The three ADA spaces meet the requirements for a parking lot of this size. The project will comply with the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Program as conditioned by the ARC. Parking lot vehicle traffic is proposed to travel one way through the lot, entering on Buchon Street and exiting on Santa Rosa Street. This direction of travel provides better visibility of pedestrians in the vicinity of the rear.entrance to the Senior Center for cars entering the lot. Entering from Santa Rosa would put vehicles right at the rear door area after coming around a blind corner. In order to install driveway access into the parking lot, two on-street parking spaces currently located on Buchon Street will be removed. One on-street parking space on Santa Rosa Street will be removed to allow vehicles exiting the parking lot to see on-coming vehicles. The parking space being removed on Santa Rosa Street is an ADA space, but does not conform to current ADA standards. The parking lot is currently proposed as an asphalt only surface. To comply with the ARC Conditions, the parking lot's entrance apron from Buchon Street would need to be stamped adobe colored concrete and the remainder of the parking lot plain adobe colored concrete. Paving the parking lot with concrete is estimated to cost an additional $60,000. Staff has evaluated the request and finds no significant advantage to a concrete parking lot, so recommends that the project specify asphalt surfacing. Parking lot wheel stops will be made from recycled rubber, instead of the standard concrete wheel stop. The wheel stop performance and longevity will be monitored by Public Works staff as a test case and depending on performance, may be used on other projects in the City as a way to include more recycled products in projects. 2. Lighting(ARC Condition 2) Parking lot lighting is proposed to be supplied by seven decorative pedestrian lights. These pedestrian lights will be the same style as the new pedestrian lighting being used downtown. The parking lot lighting brightness is anticipated to be 1.35 foot candles. This is less than the ATTACHMENT 3 PG 3 Senior Center Parking Lot Specification No.90803 Page 3 maximum allowable (10 foot candles) by Community Development and within the allowable range of 1 to 3 foot candles from the draft nighttime sky ordinance. This type of lighting is more expensive then large single pole traditional parking lot lighting but should provide a lower profile for the neighborhood and was selected by the Seniors and neighbors as the preferred fixture. 3. Trees,.Landscaping& Fencing(ARC Condition 9) The parking lot installation will require the removal of three non-native trees. The parking lot has been designed to protect five of the larger trees on the project site, one of which is a heritage Ash tree. This project will also install eight new trees,two London Plane Sycamore, one Chinese Pistache and five California Sycamore trees. Additionally, shrubs will be installed along the perimeter of the parking lot as well as at the entrance on Buchon Street. Boulders, fencing and trees will provide a buffer between the parking lot area and the remainder of Mitchell Park. Staff is proposing to install wrought iron fencing in lieu of the originally proposed vinyl clad chain link at an additional cost of$10,000. This was proposed by the ARC and preferred by the seniors and neighbors. 4. Trash Enclosure(ARC Condition 5) Public Works initially sought to relocate the existing garbage enclosure from the north side of the Senior Center to an area directly adjacent to the parking lot entrance on Buchon Street. This relocated garbage enclosure would allow easier access for pickup and removal. After concerns expressed at the ARC meeting, Public Works staff is proposing to leave the garbage enclosure in its current location, "relocation" in the ARC Conditions context meaning different than the Buchon location shown on the draft plans. The existing enclosure has a wooden fence and some landscaping around it now to provide screening. 7. Barbeque(ARC Condition 7) The parking lot construction will require the removal of the existing barbeque area. Staff planned to relocate the area into the park. There were concerns expressed about the new location of the barbeque area and the ARC requested staff to look at placing it nearer the intersection of Santa Rosa and Pismo, near the play equipment, so as to not interrupt the open view of the park lawn from Buchon Street. Staff did not find an area suitable for the barbeque area near the play lot, and has proposed a location near the restroom building. As a compromise, staff has reduced the proposed barbecue concrete pad area from a previously proposed 40-foot diameter to 28-foot diameter concrete pad. The proposed location has shifted more towards the Senior Center than the previously proposed location in the draft plan reviewed by the ARC. 5. Miscellaneous(ARC Conditions 4, 6, & 10) Chlorine Building Removal. Among the improvements that currently exist behind the Senior Center is a small outbuilding which houses chlorine equipment. The equipment was originally designed and built to treat the water that comes from the well in Mitchell Park. It has not been in use for many years, and the ARC recommended its removal. Because the building is not within the footprint of the parking lot construction, staff recommends not requiring the chlorine building demolition with this project. No cost estimating has been completed at this time to do the removal, and removal of any existing chemicals, testing and abatement of any hazardous material and abandonment on the existing water well could delay the project from moving forward. ATTACHMENT 3 PG 4 Senior Center Parking Lot Specification No. 90803 Page 4 Bicycle Parking. Existing bicycle parking for the park will be reviewed internally, and if additional racks are needed for park use, they will be installed either with the project or under separate contract later. Bio-Swale for Drainage. The gravel area proposed at the edge of the parking lot serves a combined function of filtering and infiltration for rain. A bio-swale, as suggested by the ARC, does not provide the same function. However, staff has modified the detail to provide a surface treatment of mulch to soften the appearance of this element,but not change its essential function. Next Steps An alternative to approving the plans and specifications at this time is to delay action until the Council more comprehensively considers options for addressing our budget shortfalls on September 30`h. In approving the development of the parking lot on May 6`h, the Council received a schedule that allowed for contract award in November. Assuming the Council still views this schedule as important, Council should act on the plans and specifications at this time. However, it is also reasonable to be concerned about the timing, given the proximity of this action to our budget decisions on September 30ei. In order to address this concern, staff wishes to emphasize that the recommended action is only to approve plans and specifications and initiate the bid process. The Council will fully retain the prerogative of terminating this bid process when considering the full menu of budget reduction options on September 30`h. While staff will not be recommending termination (given that the Council established this project as a Major City Goal, and recently reaffirmed this status through a major public decision-making process), the Council's ability to do so later is not compromised by bid advertisement. A Building Permit will be required from the Community Development Department's Building and Safety Division. The project plans,have been submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review. The project will not be advertised until this permit has been obtained. If the Council approves the plans and specifications, the next steps for the parking lot include: Tasks, Estimated Date 1. Obtain Building Permit 10-9-08 2. Advertise project 10-11-08 3. Open bids 11-06-08 4. Evaluate proposals and award construction contract 11-30-08* 5. Execute agreement and start construction 01-05-09 6. Complete construction 05-01-09 *assumes the bid amount is within budget and no Council approval is required for award. CONCURRENCES 1. The Community Development Department has completed an Initial Study and issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. The Architectural Review Commission has reviewed and recommended that the Council approve the design with recommended conditions. ATTACHMENT 3 PG 5 Senior Center Parking Lot Specification No. 90803 Page 5 FISCAL IMPACT The 2007-09 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-345 to 3-351, identifies $210,000 for the Senior Center Project in the 2008-09 fiscal year. Of that amount, $70,000 was dedicated to support the construction of the Senior Center parking lot. Based on the Engineer's Estimate, an additional $181,000 will be needed to fully fund this project. Staff recommends transferring this amount from the completed projects account, which has a balance adequate to fund this amount. The project presented to Council in May 2008 had a construction estimate of$195,000. Since that time, staff has further refined the scope of work, and used recent project bids for similar work as the basis for the current estimate. Reasons that the project estimate has increased include revising the driveway on Santa Rosa Street to meet ADA requirements, and including enhanced features such as the Pedestrian style lighting and wrought iron fencing. Estimated Project Cost Construction: $220,000 Contengencies: $22,000 Archeological Monitoring: $5,500 Material Testing: $2,500 Printing: $1,000 Total for Construction: $251,000 Relationship to Short-Term Actions in Fiscal Heath Contingency Plan The City's Fiscal Health Contingency Plan was recently activated and as a result all CII' projects are currently under review for possible deferral or deletion. A report is planned for Council review in September 2008 that will identify and recommend project deferrals and deletions. While this review is underway and not yet completed, staff recommends going forward with bidding for this project at this time for the following reasons: 1. Even if the project became recommended for deletion or deferral, this is only approving the bid package and authorizing inviting bids: Council could subsequently decide not to award the bid. 2. Plans and specifications have already been prepared and the project is ready to advertise for bids. The current economic climate is favorable for construction bidding, therefore staff recommends capitalizing on this investment. . 3. The project is part of the City Council's Major Goals. ALTERNATIVES 1. Delay Approval. An alternative to approving the plans and specifications at this time is to delay action until the Council more comprehensively considers options for addressing our budget ATTACHMENT 3 PG 6 Senior Center Parking Lot Specification No.90803 Page 6 shortfalls on September 30th. This alternative could delay the start of the contract from the current schedule, depending upon the timing of the Building Permit. 2. Project Cost Options. Because costs are projected to be higher than the amount budgeted for this project, staff presented a project that did not entirely comply with the recommendations of the ARC in order to minimize the additional amount needed for the budget. Below is a summary of the cost options presented in the discussion section. Concrete paving. If the Council believes that the ARC condition for paving with concrete should be met, it will require $60,000 in additional funds to be allocated to the project prior to advertising. Delete the BBQ area. The Council could choose to delete the BBQ pit from this project and complete it at some future date. The cost savings for leaving out the barbeque area is estimated to be $14,000. Modify Lighting. The Council could choose to reduce the esthetics of the lighting in the parking lot. There would be a cost savings of approximately$40,000 to go to fewer, larger fixtures. Chain Link Fence. The Council could choose to install chain link fencing instead of the wrought iron currently proposed. The cost savings for chain link fence would be approximately $10,000. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Project Map 3. ARC Meeting Conditions AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Plans and Specifications GAS taff-Reports-Agendas-Minuts\ CAR\?008\CIP\90803 Senior Center Parking Lot\90803A&ertise.do AT-11 A C S Nl MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008—6:30 P.M. COUNCIL HEARING ROOM, 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Council Members Andrew Carter, Christine Mulholland, Allen Settle, Vice Mayor Paul Brown and Mayor Dave Romero City Staff: Present: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer; Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney; and Audrey Hooper, City Clerk, were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION TOPIC City Attorney Lowell announced following Closed Session: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code§ 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Karen Jenny, Monica Irons Employee Organization: San Luis Obispo Police Staff Officers' Association (SLOPSOA) PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM Mayor Romero called for public comments. None were forthcoming and the meeting adjourned to the Closed Session. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Lowell reported on the Closed Session at the commencement of the Regular meeting as indicated below. The Special Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 5�3� �1RcM:��Jl q- City Council Meeting Page 2 Tuesday, September 16, 2008 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 -7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER, 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Council Members Andrew Carter, Christine Mulholland, Allen Settle, Vice Mayor Paul Brown and Mayor Dave Romero City Staff Present: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer; Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney; and Audrey Hooper, City Clerk, were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney.Lowell:reported, during the regular meeting, that a Closed Session was held at 6:30 P.M. to discuss labor negotiations,with the SLO Police Staff Officers' Association (SLOPSOA). Council provided direction to its negotiators. There was no further reportable action at this time. Mayor Romero announced that item PH5 was continued to a date uncertain, but no later than February 17, 2009. PUBLIC COMMENT Gary Fowler, San Luis Obispo, discussed matters before the City of Paso Robles City Council at tonight's meeting related to the Nacimiento pipeline project and questioned San Luis Obispo's actions related to the pipeline. Mayor Romero clarified that the last report from the Nacimiento Committee indicated that the project for the pipeline is within budget and ahead of schedule. Tenn Mohan, San Luis Obispo, distributed a letter expressing his concerns about his inability to use the Council Chamber for a public forum for candidates. He asked that Council agendize this matter: CAO Hampian and City_Clerk Hooper discussed the City's policy and past practices on the use of the Council Chamber and the broadcasting of candidates'forums. ?-( c4iAi&N City Council Meeting Page 3 Tuesday, September 16, 2008 The following speakers expressed their continuing concerns regarding the management ' of the public access channel and submitted related documentation and a DVD. Leslie Bearce Anthony Bolin Patrick Germany Christine Bearce Ron Bearce Sifu Kelvin Harrison, San Luis Obispo, expressed his continuing concerns regarding personal harassment. CONSENT AGENDA Items C1, Minutes of August 19, 2008, and C8, Tourism Business Improvement District Start Date, were pulled for discussion. Council Member Carter announced that he would abstain on item C4, Tract 2825, because his residence was within 500 feet of the project. ACTION: Moved by Carter/Settle to approve the items C2 through C7 of the Consent Agenda as indicated below. ' C1. MINUTES OF TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2008. Council reviewed the changes submitted by RQN to the language in Study Session 2 (Proposed 2009-11 General Plan Update Process). Council concurred with the changes. Council also concurred with changes submitted by the City Clerk regarding the action on Study Session 3 (Development Concept Plan). (Memos containing the revised language are on file in the City Clerk's office.) ACTION: Moved by Settle/Mulholland to waive oral reading and approve the minutes as amended; motion carried 5:0. C2. LAGUNA LAKE GOLF COURSE FOOD/BEVERAGE CONCESSIONAIRE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. ACTION: Moved by Carter/Settle to approve the release of a Request for Proposal for a food and beverage concessionaire at Laguna Lake Golf Course and authorize the CAO to award the contract to the best proposer; motion carried 5:0. C3. MILLS ACT CONTRACT FOR THE HISTORIC FLUEGER HOME (CHCMA 91- 08). ' ACTION: Moved by Carter/Settle to, as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), adopt Resolution No. 10020 (2008 Series)approving a Mills Act ftlTACHMcN74-K 4- City Council Meeting Page 4 Tuesday, September 16, 2008 contract for the historic Flueger Home located at 1546 Chorro Street(CHCMA 91-08); motion carried 5:0. . .. . ' C4. FINAL MAP AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2825, 1231 LAUREL LANE (TR.37-06). ACTION: Moved by.Carter/Settle to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 10021 (2008 Series) approving the Final Map for Tract 2825(1231 Laurel Lane) and authorize the Mayor to execute the subdivision agreement.on behalf of the City. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 10022 (2008 Series) accepting the.public improvements and certifying completion of the required private subdivision improvements for Tract 2825; motion carried 4:0:1 (Carter abstained because his residence is within 500 feet of the project.) C5. FINAL MAP AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE.OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS. FOR TRACT 2807, 499 N. CHORRO (TR/ER 207-05). ACTION: Moved by Carter/Settle to: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 10023(2008 Series) Approving the Final Map for Tract 2807 (499 N. Chorro) and authorizing the Mayor to execute the subdivision agreement on behalf of the City. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 10024(2008 Sedes)iaccepting the public improvements and certifying completion of the required private subdivision improvements for Tract 2807; motion carried 5:0. C6. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2534—A SUBDIVISION WITH ' ONE LOT FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES (82 UNITS) AND TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS AT 3592 BROAD STREET-(BROAD STREET . PARTNERS, L.P.). ACTION: Moved by Carter/Settle to adopt Resolution No. 10025 (2008 Series) accepting the public improvements, certifying completion of the requited private improvements, and releasing the bonds for Tract 2534; motion carried 5:0. C7. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) FUNDS. ACTION: Moved by Carter/Settle to, as recommended by the Human Relations .Commission: 1. Authorize the reallocation of$182,693 in 2007 CDBG funds from the Santa Rosa Park restroom replacement project to the Laguna Lake Park restroom replacement project. 2. Forward the Council's funding recommendations for amending the 2007 CDBG Action Plan to.the.County Board of Supervisors; motion carried 5:0. C8. TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT(TBID) START DATE. The following speakers asked Council to consider changing the start date for the assessment collection with either a soft rollout of the assessment during the month of September or a firm effective date of October 1, 2008, because they were not aware of the August 1,2008; start date: Diane Hull, Mike Casulla, and Dean Hutton, each ' representing the Apple Farm; and Amul Soni, representing Super 8 Motel. Mr. Hull read �'DO 4 PGS City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, September 16, 2008 a statement from John King, who was unable to attend the meeting. (Mr. King's letter and Ms. Hull's statement are on file in the City Clerk's office.) John Conner, Chairperson of the Tourism Improvement District(TBID) Board, said he would support Council's direction on this matter, although he and other hotels had started collecting the assessments. Staff discussed the noticing process, noted the need to establish a start date that would be applicable to all hoteliers and that would be effective on the first of each month, and responded to Council's questions. Following discussion during which Council commented on the noticing process, Council concurred to change the start date to October 1, 2008, rather than September 1, 2008, as was recommended in the staff report. ACTION: Moved by Carter/Brown to: 1. Introduce Ordinance No. 1520 (2008 Series) amending Ordinance No. 1517 to change the start date for assessment collection to October 1, 2008. 2. Direct the Director of Finance and Information Technology to suspend collection from the period between August 1 to September 1, 2008, and to refund any remittance of assessment for that time period; motion carried 5:0. CAO Hampian recommended that the TBID Board create a communication website or ' e-mail group for disseminating information so as to avoid communication problems in the future. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR THE 2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT(CDBG) AND GRANTS- IN-AID (GIA) PROGRAMS. Community Development Director introduced Housinq Programs Manager Codron who presented the agenda report. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. No comments were forthcoming. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. ACTION: Moved by Brown/Mulholland to, as recommended by the Human Relations Commission, approve CDBG and GIA funding priorities for 2009; motion carried 5:0. P& G City Council Meeting Page 6 Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM R-3 TO R-4 FOR , PROPERTIES AT THE EAST END OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND REVIEW OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW A 16-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1310 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. (108 THROUGH 190 CRANDALL AND 1304 THROUGH 1476 FOOTHILL, GPIFV R 200-07). Community Development Director introduced Deputy Community Development Director Davidson who presented the agenda report and responded to questions. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. Carol Florence, Principal Planner with Oasis Associations, representing the owner of 1310 through 1318 Foothill, and authorized to represent 108 Crandall and 190 Crandall. She discussed the history of the project and spoke in suport of the recommendation. Jan Howell Marx, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project Mayor Romero closed the public hearing Vice Mayor Brown and Mayor Romero spoke in support of the project. In response to Council Member Mulholland, Community Development Director ' Mandeville explained how the project was designed to eliminate conversions to unauthorized additional bedroom space and how the limitations on parking will work against bringing in additional residents. ACTION: Moved by Settle/Brown to, as recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 10026 (2008 Series) amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation for the site from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density Residential and approving a tentative tract map for 16 condominium units, and adopt the Mitigated negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 2. Introduce Ordinance No. 1521 (2008 Series) changing the zoning from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3)to High-Density Residential (R-4)for the project site and remaining R-3 properties at the east end of Foothill Boulevard and the east side of Crandall Avenue; motion carried 5:0. 3. APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 4154 POINSETTIA. CAO Hampian stated that his residence is within 500 feet of the property. He recused and left the left Council Chamber at this time. Public Works Director Walter introduced Urban Forest Supervisor Pellemeier who presented the agenda report and responded to questions. ' 5��D City Council Meeting Page 7 Tuesday, September 16, 2008 Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. The following speakers opposed removal of the tree: Anna Lardon, San Luis Obispo. Ms. Lardon submitted a letter from her mother and a petition from neighbors who also wanted the tree preserved. Bob Morgan, San Luis Obispo David Mark, San Luis Obispo Devin Langley, representing the Summerhills Garden Homes Owners' Association, appellant, explained that the Association is requesting removal of the tree because: 1)of the highi costs to maintain the tree, 2) root pruning is a short-term alternative, and 3)the Board has obtained four recommendations from arborists to remove tree because of its surface roots. Jim Amdt, San Luis Obispo, Vice President of Association, spoke in support of removal of the tree. He explained that the tree in question is an alder, which is not on the Master Street Tree List. He also discussed the costs for preserving the tree and submitted photographs reinforcing his position that the tree should be removed. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing.- ' Council Members spoke in support of retaining the tree. ACTION: Moved by SettleBrown to adopt Resolution No. 10027 (2008 Series) upholding the Tree Committee's decision to deny the tree removal request at 4154 Poinsettia Street, thereby denying the removal of the tree; motion carried 5:0. CAO Hampian returned to the Council Chamber at this time. 4. APPEAL OF TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO ALLOW TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AT 1374 PISMO. Public Works Director Walter introduced this item, following which Urban Forest Supervisor Pellemeier presented the agenda report and responded to questions. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. Steve Camintii, representing Howard Nicholson, owner of this project, concurred with the Tree Committee recommendation and offered to respond to questions. Ron Rinell, Bunyan Bros. Tree Service, discussed the past removal of a supporting tree and discussed the hazard which would exist if the trees are allowed to remain. 1 5� � City Council Meeting Page 8 Tuesday, September 16, 2008 Howard Nicholson, owner/builder, spoke in support of the'recommendation. He referred to a letter(on file in the City Clerk's office)from the adjacent property owner, Brad Bilsten, ' who also supported removal of the trees. Steve Delmartini said he was speaking as a proponent of infill housing. He encouraged allowing removal of the trees and noted that enhancement to the site that would occur with the planting of sycamore trees. Robert Mueller, San Luis Obispo, said that at the applicant's request he looked at the trees. He said that while he did not disagree that the trees may need to be removed .sometime in the future, he disagreed with comments that the trees.are currently unhealthy and said that he couldn't find a stress crack. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing, Council Member Muholland disagreed with the Tree Committee's decision. She pointed. out that the trees are skyline trees, noted that because a tree is non-native does not mean that.it does not have value, and said that she could not make the findings to remove the trees.- Council rees:Council Member.Settle spoke in suportof the recommendation, particularly because he agreed that-once euctalyptus trees have been pruned, they are not as stable as they were previously. He commented on the enhancement to the neighborhood with the t planting of sycamore trees. Vice Mayor Brown concurred with Council Member Settle. Council Member Carter explained that while he concurred with some of Council Member Mulholland's comments, he recalled:that several years ago several of the euctaplytus trees in Johnson Park fell down during a storm. Therefore, he supported the Tree Committee's decision. Mayor Romero expressed concern regarding having euctalyptus trees in close proximity to housing and supported the.Tree Committee decision. ACTION: Moved by Settle/Carter to adopt Resolution No. 10028 (2008 Series) denying the appeal of the Tree Committee's decision to allow the removal of two Eucalyptus trees and planting of four Sycamore trees at 1374 Pismo Street, thereby allowing removal of the trees; motion carried.4:1 (Mulholland opposing). Council recessed from 9:25 to 9:35 p.m. and the meeting reconvened with all members present: f rt ft Lr' tf M ni i q hG City Council Meeting Page 9 Tuesday, September 16, 2008 ' PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A 0-FOOT SETBACK FOR A 9-FOOT TALL DECK IN THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS,WHERE 5 FEET IS THE NORMALLY REQUIRED SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 128 TWIN RIDGE IN THE R-1-PD ZONE. This item was continued to a date uncertain, but no later than February 17, 2009. BUSINESS ITEMS 6. SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT SPECIFICATIONS NO. 90803. Public Works Director Walter introduced this item, following which City Engineer Lynch presented the agenda report and responded to questions. Public Comments Trudy Lindaman, San Luis Obispo, asked Council to reconsider this project because the park serves as a "yard"for the neighborhood and because she had concerns about expending funds on this project. Jan Marx, San Luis Obispo, also asked Council to reconsider this project. Her concerns included the need for the park space, the cost of the project, potential damage to the heritage tree, and her belief that there needs to be an environmental assessment done on the project. Agatha Reardon, San Luis Obispo, noted that she had spoken in support of this project previously. She referred to the staff report.and said.that she had concerns that children may climb on the boulders that will provide one of the buffers to the parking area. She also expressed concern that there would be a break in the chain link fence between the driveway and playground. She suggested that with the change in seasons it might be feasible to delay the installation of the barbeque. Marcia Nelson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project. She suggested, however, that Council consider making access onto Santa Rosa Avenue a right-tum only. —end of public comments— Discussing ensued during which Council Member Carter, Vice Mayor Brown and Mayor Romero spoke in support of proceeding with the project. Council Members Mulholland and Settle opposed the project because of its cost in light of the current budget situation, including the need to reduce the funding for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. � �3 f_TA e�i MrrJ7 4 P6 lU City Council Meeting Page 10 Tuesday, September 16, 2008 During the discussion, a majority of the Council concurred on the following design issues: • A wrought iron fence should be installed between the driveway and park(playground area) in lieu of a gate. • The barbeque pit should be installed as part of the project rather than deferring it.. • Access onto Santa Rosa Avenue should be restricted to a right-hand tum._ • The boulders will be removed from the project. . .. • The seven decorative pedestrian lights should be used in the parking lot. • Asphalt surfacing should be used in the parking lot. ACTION: Moved by Carter/Brown to: 1. Approve plans and specifications for the Senior Center Parking Lot Project Specification No. 90803 with conditions recommended by the Architectural Review Commission with the exception of the chlorine building removal, bicycle parking, barbeque location, and pavement material. 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the.CAO to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is less than or equal to the Engineer's Estimate of$220,000. 3. Approve the transfer of$181,000 from completed projects to fund the project; with changes noted previously; motion carried 3:2 (Mulholland/Settle opposed). 7. BUENA VISTA& GARFIELD AT MONTEREY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.'SPECIFICATION NO. 90676. Public Works Director Walter introduced this item, following which Senior Traffic Engineer ' Hudson presented the agenda report .They and Deputy Public Works Director Bochum responded to questions. CAO Hampian commented on the achievement of getting property owner agreement on this project. He pointed out that this project is not be included in the recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project cuts and discussed how this project will be funded. Public Comments Terry Mohan, San Luis Obispo, explained that he would prefer the installation of stop signs on Monterey Street to slow traffic and expressed concern about the cost of the project. He suggested that savings could be made on landscaping and that a lighted crosswalk should be installed. —end of public comments— Council Members supported proceeding with this project in part because it involves public safety and because this is the gateway to the City. 6/41 • ' i� fTflC+�,MEN� 4 PC II City Council Meeting Page 11 Tuesday, September 16, 2008 ACTION: Moved by Mulholland/Brown to: 1. Award a contract to Brough Construction, ' Inc. of Arroyo Grande, CA, in the amount of$362,463 for traffic safety improvements at Buena Vista & Garrield at Monterey, specification No. 90676. 2. Approve a transfer of $134,463 from CIP Reserve account to this project account; motion carried 5:0. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Council Member Mulholland reported on the County's Water Resources Advisory Committee meeting on September 3rd and the Integrated Waste Management Authority Board meeting on September 10d'. Council Member Carter referred to his written report (included in the packet)on the status of the Chamber's Economic Visioning Committee. He also said he is continuing to attend the Downtown Association meetings on a volunteer basis. Council Member Settle reported on the activities of the Student Community Liaison Committee. Vice Mayor Brown reported on his attendance at a recent Homeless Services Advisory Group meeting. Mayor Romero reported on the recent Regional Transit Authority and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments meetings COMMUNICATIONS CAO Hamoian announced that the new trolley, purchased with grant funds, has arrived and would be in the parking lot on Friday at 10:00 a.m. Council Member Settle said he was selected to serve at least for the next two years on the Cal-LAFCO organization, which will be following what the State legislature is doing related to financial and land use policies. There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Romero adjourned the meeting at 10:12 p.m.. Audrey Hndther City Cle APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 10/21/08 Page 1 of 1 From: Hampian, Ken Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 7:05 AM To: Chippendale, Sue; Hooper, Audrey From: John B. Ashbaugh [mailto:jbashbaugh@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:58 PM To: Hampian, Ken Subject: FW: Mitchell Park parking lot Another communication from one of the attendees at our Saturday meeting... From: Rose Marie [mailto:rose@susanpolk.com] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 2:10 PM To: John B. Ashbaugh Subject: Re: Mitchell Park parking lot Thanks for the update and all you did to make that meeting possible...I will look over what you wrote again but I think I want to emphasize a few more things... Option of not relocating the BBQ...keep it as is close to the existing Senior Center. (Keeps more open space in the park) The present service location between the play ground and the Senior Center can still be used for trash pick up and also as drop off service for events when the trash not being picked up, which is most of the time...(makes for less traffic where children play) Options open that in the future this site could be used by other populations...even serve as a children's center With the size of SLO senior population I think there should be something offered at several locations to serve their needs. Oust as the needs of all populations use the other locations) I would like to see a few spots for the Senior volunteers parked all day to be off site at one of the Garages and a trolley or whatever bring them in and back. I know it went over like a lead balloon...but think about it...if a car is parked there all day freeing that for limited timed parking could serve many more seniors who otherwise wouldn't have options...9 spots in an 8 hour day...limiting 2 hours each...at least 36 cars could use it instead of 9. 1 felt like alot of it was that the volunteers want to have free parking convenient to the center...perhaps something could be negotiated? Also for events less than 1.5 hours there is free parking in the public garage already...just need to make sure times and trolleys are not at peak use...right? Thanks...Rose Marie Er'i�2D COPY E%IT/�/L COUNCIL p'CDD DIR RED FILE deAC crniIW< p'FIN DIR p'AGAG A.,55rer4,w-e ="FIRE CHIEF - MEETING AGENDA ErATTORNEY Z PW DIR DATE W949'8' ITEM #-B5- _ 131CLERK/0RIG n�PCILICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS L,.�Ir/ol8c biA fit'« LuTIL DIR ✓1 T2�8LtnJ/ capR On iC�c,vecL. 11/26/2008 RED FILE — MEETING AGENDA RATE % -LP—Lor. ITEM # L From: Agatha Reardon [mailto:agathar@charter.net] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 12:59 AM To: John B. Ashbaugh Cc: Hampian, Ken Subject: Re: Mitchell Park parking lot John, I would like to add a couple of comments. 1. I believe that the parking area as proposed could accommodate loading and unloading of service vehicles as they drive through and.stop near the back entrance to the building. 2. When the concern was raised about the Heritage Tree there was an option offered to protect the tree, which was to use permeable materials that would allow moisture to the roots. This would preclude having to change the current design configuration. Also, at one time I believe the city engineer indicated that with the current design, the distance from the tree would be 15 feet away but the boundaries that were marked on Saturday were closer than 15 feet, so I'm not sure which is correct. Thanks, again, for your efforts to facilitate some dialogue among the parties. Agatha Reardon On Nov 23, 2008, at 11:12 PM, John B. Ashbaugh wrote: L7-000NCIY. � p ' 138A0 CA1,64 'I.IND!i IrA9AQtk1 ;,t ['tet I�c CJhp< To: Ken Hampian 13 ATTORNEY Zpw Di From: John Ashbaugh ppEP;HORfF � �:-�77zrtgF' E:a�ii c ; Re: Mitchell Park/ Senior Center Parking Lot L H�bi F�' �Coic.ic u. On Saturday,November 22 I met with a number of leaders of the Senior Center as well as j several community members (see attached list) at Mitchell Park. I had invited several community members who had contacted me in the weeks since the election to express opinions or to seek information about the parking lot proposal. I asked these individuals to meet with me on the site, so that I could listen to their concerns, and I also invited the Senior Center leaders to hear directly from them, so as to gain some context before the December 2 Council hearing on this matter. Six attendees had been active in the Senior Center and supported the parking lot proposal; seven community members had been strongly opposed to the parking lot, and two persons were undecided. They ranged in age from 14 to... well, advanced "maturity." In many respects, this group was representative of the competing interests that have generated so much controversy over the proposed parking lot to serve the Senior Center. Before I begin to summarize the results of the meeting, I'd like to commend the Public Works Department for responding to my request to stake out the boundaries of the parking lot prior to this meeting. Jay Walters was very helpful in this matter, and the staking helped all of us to visualize the proposal. We also had a set of the plans and specs provided to me by Jay's staff for the meeting. I'm forwarding this summary of the meeting in the hope that it will advance the dialogue among the Council and the public on December 2. Please feel free to forward all or part of it it to other Council members or staff. The attendees are each receiving a"cc" of this e-mail, and I invite them to share with us their own perspectives of the Saturday meeting. My recollection of the meeting reveals the following points: 1. Attendees heard, and (in my opinion) most of us agreed, that the Senior Center is likely to stay in that location for the foreseeable future. Agatha Reardon reported on the extensive services that the Senior Center volunteers provide there, and she and the other Senior Center leaders related some of the history of their efforts to provide improved on-site parking for their members. 2. There is also substantial agreement that the Center needs on-site wheelchair parking separate from the curb parking now available, especially due to the fact that the ADA no longer permits wheelchair spaces to be designated at street curbs. 3. There is also some agreement, although not as much, that the Senior Center needs additional standard parking stalls on-site. Curb parking on adjacent streets does not appear to be suitable for seniors who are mobility-impaired. I also made the point that every time we set aside curb parking for the exclusive use of seniors using the Center, it diminishes the availability of those spaces to the general public. 4. The proposed lot represents a professional design response to the problem, but it might be improved in order to gain a wider acceptance in the community if certain key features are incorporated into the design. Specific concerns that were raised during the meeting, and which might be addressed by a revised design, include the following: 1. Continued risk to the Heritage Tree, even though the tree protection measures recommended by the City Arborist have been incorporated into the project. 2. Location of the new BBQ and picnic area within the historic turfed area of the park. 3. Unmet need for a loading area for the Center that is separate from either the curb or the lot parking. In order to address these concerns, the meeting progressed to a set of possible design changes to the parking lot design. These changes generally focused on configurations that might reduce the disturbance to the Heritage Tree, relocate the proposed replacement BBQ and picnic area, and improve overall aesthetics of the park while still providing a significant increment of new parking for the Center. Here are two options that were discussed—Please note that both options would involve re-aligning the proposed lot so that ingress and egress are both obtained from Buchon Street, thus eliminating the exit driveway onto Santa Rosa. O t� ion 1: This option would involve a looped driveway around a small lot, making use of the existing curb cut (slightly enlarged)that is used for access to the maintenance shed. This shed would need to be re-located; if located nearer to the playground, it could be accessed by a northerly extension from the new parking lot's access aisle, which would also provide access to relocated trash receptacles. My preliminary investigation shows that such a design could possibly include a total of 9 spaces (five standard and four HC), assuming that the north leg of the loop driveway would maintain a 20' buffer from the Heritage Tree (about twice the distance in the current design). This option would also potentially save one of the Buchon Street curb spaces that would be eliminated with the current design. Additionally, since it eliminates the exit driveway to Santa Rosa Street, there would be no need to red-paint the existing HC space to the right of the proposed exit drive as in the current design. Finally, the existing driveway from Santa Rosa Street that now serves the maintenance staff parking could be maintained for that purpose, and since it would no longer be needed for access to the trash receptacles, this driveway could also serve double-duty as a loading space for the Center. It should be noted, however, that this option could entail risks to the 18"magnolia near the building's southwest comer, depending on the location of the exit driveway on Buchon. Option 2: This option would resemble the current lot in its basic alignment and configuration, except that the driveway and access aisle would be widened for two-way traffic and 90-degree parking. The connection to an exit driveway on Santa Rosawould be deleted, and additionally one standard stall on the west side would be eliminated in order to reduce the disturbance to the Heritage tree. This proposal would also maintain the existing driveway from Santa Rosa for maintenance and loading purposes, and it would thus preserve the wheelchair space now proposed for elimination to the right of the proposed exit driveway. In this proposal, relocation of the maintenance shed to the north end of the parking lot could also enable us to eliminate the curb cut for the access driveway from Buchon Street to this shed, thus freeing up a curbside space that is lost to that existing driveway. The disadvantages of this option are: 1) Angled parking is always more convenient than 90-degree spaces; and 2) The wider access aisle and 90- degree spaces would mean more encroachment of the lot into the park area to the west. It is also suggested that another design change be considered, whether or not either of the above parking lot design options are carried forward: Relocate the proposed replacement picnic area/BBQ from the site west of the Heritage Tree instead to a location to the north of the restrooms. This would protect the integrity of the turfed area that surrounds the bandstand. In my view, Option 2 is a more realistic design alternative, since it would provide 13 spaces within the on-site lot rather than 9. Furthermore, it could be accomplished without endangering the magnolia tree. Either option would, however, reduce disturbance to the Heritage Tree. I will acknowledge, however, the distinct possibility that both of these options have been previously considered, and rejected, by your staff. The individuals who attended this meeting are listed below; as noted above, I'm also sending them a cc of this memo. Thanks for considering these suggestions; I would be willing to meet with you and other staff members to go over these options in more detail, and to get a more complete briefing on the rationale for the current design, at a mutually convenient time. Please feel free to contact me as warranted to follow up on this communication. Attendees* Boz Schrage Pat Cormick Dick Rall Jacquie Rall Cal Wilvert Rosemary Wilvert Bette Kulp Mila Vujavich-LaBarre Jan Marx Emily McBride Chuck Oldham Rose Marie Shabley Agatha Reardon Stephan Lamb Pat Harris * Note:Attendance at the meeting does not imply concurrence with any of the observations written here; individuals are free to contribute their own comments as to the content of the discussion or the design options that were discussed. � n Fax Transmittal Form To: San Luis Obispo City Council Members Date: November 301 2008 Fax: 781-7109 Honorable Mayor David Romeo Council Members: Allen Settle, Andrew Carter, Jan Marx, John Ashbaugh City Administrative Officer: Ken Hampian Subject: Proposed Mitchell Park — Senior Center Parking Lot' Unable to attend City Council Meeting scheduled for December 2nd, 2008 But wish to offer my support for the presently existing solution. My comments accompany this transmittal form. Thank you for your consideration. From: Pat Cormick EF E-n, r�['TCDD DIR244 Lincoln St L [?'FIN DIR� ,k C3'FIRE CHIEFSan Luis Obispo, 93405 Q'PW DIRRED FILE O-PoucE CHF - MEETING AGENDA Fax: 543- 5299 ErRECDIR DATE a S ITEM #- MLITILDIR'�HR DIR Cou NC1c. CIT, m6AP- Cc�ie�c 1 F November 24th, 2008 The Senior Center parking situation has been an issue for a long time. It has been in front of the City Council many times and has finally sifted down to its present concept. Much time and effort has gone into trying to find a workable solution. The solution seemingly is at hand and ready for final approval and should go forth as presented. To continue debating alternatives, creating delays or fantasizing about building another Senior Center seems counterproductive. I noted in an e-mail from Council Member Jan Marx that she would make"planning" for a new Senior Center"one" of her priorities"when it comes to budget goal setting". That statement indicates a measure of concern but is quite different than saying a new Senior Center is anywhere near a major priority. The cost noted in the e-mail of an estimated $220,000 would seem to be reasonable for 11 net (14 actual)parking places as I've heard that it costs about $18 to $19,000 to create a parking space these days. I have talked with several of the folks who live in the area around Mitchell Park and many would be very happy to have more available parking places in front of their homes, places that have been used by the folks attending various activities at the Senior Center consistently over the years. Pat Cormick San Luis Obispo 543-9393 Some additional thoughts about the Mitchell Park, Senior Parking Lot issue. The concern of possible damage to the Heritage Tree that will have a driveway paved over some of its root structure appears to have be taken into consideration with the present design and, as I understand, can be remedied by"bridging"the affected roots system to eliminate any serious damage. Given that a remote possible alternative to the proposed Senior Center parking situation would be to locate all senior activities elsewhere, it still remains that " Kindergarten"building would be put to some other use, i.e. administration offices or other useful endeavors. The facility would still be better served to have on-site parking. As far as the "damage" to Mitchell Park, it has survived: A war memorial entrance Way (N.E. Corner); An area converted to a playground; A Gazebo (Band Shell); A fair amount of concreted surfaces adjacent to the West side of the Kindergarten building (however, those areas would be absorbed into the proposed parking area design). And still the park functions very well. Pat Cormick From: Jan Marx To: janmarx i stanfordalumni.org Subj: 11/18 Hearing re Mitchell Park-all is not lost! I am writing to you because I believe that you share my concern about paving over part of Mitchell Park. All is not lost! Many of you were/are very upset about paving part of the park, altering the historical design, and impacting 30% of the Modesto Ash Heritage tree's root area. Like you, I would rather see the curbs in the area restriped and a vanpool for Seniors, instead of creating a private parking for a group using the old kindergarten at this time. The 9/16 staff report outlined a variety of alternatives to provide better access to the senior center for seniors. These alternatives are ALL a lot cheaper than the parking lot, which will cost around $221,000 or more fora net gain of I 1 new spaces. They are also all more sustainable, since providing inner city green space as the city becomes more dense is a key component to Smart Growth. On November 18, the item is on the City Council agenda(Consent Item #10). It will be heard early in the evening. Bids are due from contractors November 13. Right now, Ken Hampian could sign a contract, if the lowest bid comes in under the cap of$220,000. But,the issue has been placed on the 11/18 agenda, which means the residents and newly elected Council members will have an opportunity to articulate their positions before any contract is signed. In my opinion, it would be best around, if the project were slowed down at this point, so that the new Council will decide it. It is very important that as many people as possible turn out on 11/18 to speak up on this issue. Once sworn in, I plan to move that the Council reconsider and reverse the parking lot decision. I also would like to see the Master Plan returned to its prior state with a garden in back of the old kindergarten building. If there are three votes on the new Council in favor of reversal, Mitchell Park and the Heritage Tree will be saved. Your attendance, emails and letters could make all the difference. �I will make planning for a new Senior Center one of my priorities when it comes to budget goal setting. / Please forward this email to anyone you believe shares our perspective on this important issue. Thank you for anything you can do to help. Jan Marx Council Member-Elect Page 1 of 1 r , �j;f= 7'po Ly JrE TD Council, SloCity rz-,6 From: nwickers@sbcglobal.net[nwickers@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wed 12/3/2008 7:44 AM To: Council,SloCity Cc: Subject: Mitchell Park.Senlor Parking lot--vote No! Attachments: I am totally against a parking lot of any size within the historic Mitchell Park boundaries. I hope you have looked at the Tribune Website on this issue when it was last in the paper a couple weeks ago, and the web comments that people posted. The majority are against a parking lot. The seniors should be encouraged to carpool,they are retired,and can pick up each other and then find on-street parking. Park lands should not be paved over! We should not take paradise and put up a parking lot! My Great Grandparents lived in a home on Pismo Street one block from the park,and I have used that park my entire life(I am now 54). I graduated from SLO Senior High. I cannot believe that Mr. Romero wants to destroy the park to pave for parking. Additionally, many of our local seniors are not broke&on fixed incomes like the stereotype. I think they should get involved with the City on a new committee to start fund raising for a new, relocated,&larger senior center. First form a committee,find funds to hire an architect,find some existing city land that can accomodate the new center and parking(how about some of that vacant Laguna Lake property for instance)--we can spare the space out there. Then once you have the plans,start a fund raising process and include donations from the seniors themselves. They can have a tiles on the building with the names of the donors. https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/M itchel l%20Park%20Senior%20Par... 12/3/2008 _ Page 1 of 1 Tbv Z irT� 70 12c-l-.)Council,SloCity ��CE From: Matt Ritter[mritter@calpoly.edul Sent: Wed 12/3/2008 7:34 AM To: Romero, Dave; Council, SloCity Cc: Combs, Ron Subject: Ash Tree Attachments: Dear Mayor Romero and Mr. Carter, Thank you for your work last night at the city council meeting and the work you did leading up to the meeting. I am very glad to see that there is a possibility of a compromised parking lot plan the does not involve any construction under the heritage tree. One point is worth making. There is a large difference in the effect of pavement on a tree between one that has grown in pavement its entire life and one that has grown in a lawn its entire life, whose roots are then subjected to subsurface grading and construction. For the two of you to find many ash trees in town (most of which are a different species)that are living completely in pavement is irrelevant to the Mitchell park issue. This may be a technical point, but one worth making. The subsurface grading was the crux of my concern for the future health of the tree. It is grading during construction that kills mature trees, not the pavement over the roots. You can ask Ron Combs about this. We do not disagree on this point, as was alleged by you during your comments in last night's meeting. I love this town, its people, and the many trees that are found here. Students and I are currently conducting much needed surveys of tree species in town with the hope, among other goals, of identifying more heritage tree candidates from our many beautiful and stately specimens. I look forward to working with Ron, other members of your staff, and you in the future. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there is anything I can do to help. Warm regards, Matt Matt Ritter, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biology Cal Poly Plant Conservatory Director Biological Sciences Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 (805) 756-2775, mritter@calpoly.edu htt):J/www_._ca1pol eduL—bioLacuIt StaJFacuItyLRitter.htmI www.plantconservatory.calpoly.edu https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciL/Inbox/Ash%20Tree.EML?Cmd=open 12/3/2008 Page 1 of 1 Coundl SloC' _ frT /off?C?' d -Ili o OFrom: Linda Groover[slolag@sbcgiobal.net] Sent: Tue 12/2/2008 4:36 PM 'Ie To: Council, SloCity A h @c: Subject: Mitchell Park Attachments: Dear Mayor and city council members, have been ill this week(heart attack) and am confined to my home. I am sending this e-mail in place of speaking tonight. . I would like to address the subject of the parking lot at the senior center. As I understand it there are 12 proposed parking spaces. In order to get to these spaces it will be necessary to take out 2 parking spaces along the curb on both Buchon Street and Santa Rosa St. My math tells me that would make 8 spaces in actuality. The bid at present is at$220,000.00. 1 believe the cost will be much higher as they try to save the designated"Heritage Tree" in back of the center which is huge, old and magnificent. Why make a designation labeling it significant if you do not honor and respect that label? As a side note, Mitchell Park was first landscaped in 1928 by the Monday Club so it is probably that old. Please, do rethink this project. Please consider a new senior center with good, available parking and handicap accessibility. Sincerely, OLinda Groover 1225 Kristy Ct. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 O https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciL/Inbox/Mitchell%20Park.EML?Cmd=open 12/2/2008 Page 1 of 2 Council,SloCity From: Wendy Knight[wmfknight@gmail.com] Sent: Wed 12/3/2008 12:46 AM To: Council,SloCity Cc: Subject- Mitchell Park decision Attachments: Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am so disappointed in the outcome of the December 2 meeting regarding the Mitchell Park parking lot decision. I feel as if community members who support seniors, but not a parking lot, are not being heard. In the many meetings I have attended on this issue in the past year, I have never heard about the suggested alternatives being looked into. How is it that even tonight at least 10 alternatives were suggested and the parking lot is still going ahead without further consideration? Did the public comment period mean anything?When was the meeting held that said "we looked into A, we tried B, we really thought C would work and the data show that the parking lot is the best solution". During the comment period,even seniors associated with the senior center spoke to say that the parking lot will not solve the problem. I am also concerned about the proposed project graphic that was shown on the screen during the Council meeting that showed Buchon (and maybe Santa Rosa)as a one-way street with angled parking. Is this part of the proposed plan? This would increase the amount of parking dramatically and would seem to be a viable alternative to the parking lot. I have never heard this discussed as an alternative yet res-triping and re-signing the road would be considerably cheaper than the$195,000 parking lot. Could this please be tried before committing $195,000 to a parking lot? In this downward economy, you owe it to the community to spend wisely. I appreciate Councilwoman Marx and Councilman Settle's sensitivity to fiscal responsibility. If angled parking is being considered as a future parking solution, please implement it now and revisit the parking lot issue only if this does not solve the problem. Remember,the proposed parking lot is a permanent solution to a temporary problem and should be implemented if other reasonable alternatives do not work. We all want to see the seniors happy, but the parking lot is not a wise solution at this time. Here are some of the suggested alternatives that I would like to have addressed. 1) Implement Gabriel's handicapped parking suggestion in addition to one-way traffic on Buchon Street and angled parking on Buchon Street. Santa Rosa St. could also be included depending on the traffic flow report and how much parking is created. Make it all two hour parking with no limit for seniors. 2) Have a new downtown trolley shuttle that operates during the week with stops at the 3 downtown parking garages, the transit center, Scolaris and the Mitchell Park Senior Center. The stops should be at the elevator doors and the senior center door to reduce the need to walk long distances. Make sure there are benches at the stops. Ideally this circuit will take about 20 minutes so people won't have to wait long for shuttles. This would serve seniors and families who want to access Mitchell Park. It would also likely result in increased business downtown since seniors and kids might visit downtown businesses or stop for ice cream of coffee during their trip rather than just driving straight to and from the park. In addition to the $194,000 from the parking lot, perhaps the downtown association would provide additional funds for the trolley. This alternative provides for lots of parking where parking is abundant and easy to find and eliminates the need for seniors to have to walk even one block. Get input from the seniors on where the trolley stops should be located around town. Tailor it to suit their needs and interests. 3) Move the seniors to the Ludwig Center. Take out the basketball court and move basketball programs to the adult school gym (Covering gym floor and not enough floor space was cited as a problem with the Ludwig Center by seniors). Or renovate the outdoor basketball courts above the adult school parking lot if additional outdoor space is useful. Please address these community-proposed alternatives before you put a parking lot in the park. A shuffle board court and a parking lot are not the same thing. I count on the City Council to hold San Luis Obispo to a higher standard so it will continue to be a unique and vibrant place to live. https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/sloc itycouncil/Inbox/Mitchell%20Park%20decis ion.EML... 12/3/2008 Page 2 of 2 I look forward to your responses. Sincerely, Wendy https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Mitchell%2OPark%20decision.EML... 12/3/2008 RED F"a MEETING AuEN©A Et COUNCIL 7F15-RECOIR t DAT /v ; $'ITEM 4L SL B�*n+ �Ce 21�A�?/*y/'rIEF From: Ursula Bishop [mailto:ub_slo@yahoo.com] 0 ATTORNEY Sent:Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:41 AM 13 CLERK/ORIG 2t-POLICECHF To:jbashbaugh@charter.net; jashbaugh@slocity.org ❑ DEPTH EAOS Cc: Settle, Allen; Marx, Jan; Hampian, Ken; Jan Marx DIR C�T2J Subject: L=:-- ���. 2—HR DIR Council Member Ashbaugh. — ( /iY /WC CG�ruc Congratulations on your election to City Council. Our household voted for you! I am a neighbor of Mitchell Park. I consider myself a friend of the environment. I hope that I will live a healthy life and become a senior member of our community. But I don't want any of that to be used as labels of who I am when I ask you: Please reconsider adding a parking lot to Mitchell Park. I am asking because the parking lot does not make common sense and it is an unnecessary expense. Please follow the recommendation of three City advisory bodies who voted virtually unanimously to not amend the Mitchell Park master plan to add a parking lot. (There was one no vote amongst all the committees. ) That three members of the previous City Council chose to ignore recommendations of three Council appointed bodies, chosen to serve based on experience, training and skills, and who advise, provide recommendations and leadership for the Council, was a travesty of the advisory body system. Please acknowledge these well thought-out recommendations and reverse the decision to add a parking lot at Mitchell Center. TO CONSIDER: *There are around three hundred members of the Mitchell Senior Center, according to their own report. This number has remained constant over 20 years .of reports and data collection. However, the number of seniors in SLO has grown by thousands over the last 20 years, and there are more every day. Invest in creating a larger Center, or a group of centers situated around the city, with accessible locations and creative programs to serve all our seniors, who have extremely diverse needs and interests. *Mitchell Senior Center is small center, in a dense residential neighborhood. It is not and will never be The Center that will serve the needs of the large senior population of San Luis Obispo. That's an absolute fact. No getting around it, and should be reason enough not to spend this huge amount of money on a parking lot for so few. *Acknowledge and then follow the votes and recommendations of the council appointed advisory bodies who more than strongly recommended against the parking lot. ii 7 **Support the suggestion put out by previous council: try reserved parking for seniors using the Center at currently metered spaces around the Pismo/Osos/Toro/Buchon block for one year and see how that works. *Consider the economy and the cost of this parking lot which will serve a bare fraction of the senior community. The current number of the core group of seniors who regularly use Mitchell Senior Center is extremely small, no where near the 300 they claim as members. And, as we learned at previous council testimony from the public, many of them are from Atascadero, Paso, etc. Not SLO City seniors. *Move services that attract a large number of people (many of whom are not senior's) such as food distribution, to more appropriate sites in non-residential neighborhoods or with built in parking like a church. *Do not dismiss the importance of a community garden over a parking lot! This was what was planned for the park, for a reason: Community gardens improve lives by stimulating social interaction, providing opportunity for recreation, exercise, therapy and education. They beautify neighborhoods and preserve greenspace. There is currently a' waitlist of 70 for a garden plot, possibly a larger number than the core group of seniors using Mitchell Center. Please put an end to this parking lot issue which has wasted city time and money for over 20 years. Put the money towards providing better services for more seniors. This is so much like the General Hospital Issue: I served on the County Health Commission and recall the years of votes by the supervisors to keep General Hospital open despite unanimous recommendations from several Blue Ribbon Committees, the Health Commission and even the supervisors own budget staff to close the hospital and open clinics that would serve many more people. Sentiment ruled the heart and the supervisors consistently ignored the dire budget information and the fact that people who needed services were not getting them and in many cases, were not able to get to them. Long story short, what did we learn? The educated vote was finally made, the public was behind it, and the vocal few were proven wrong: The hospital had not been meeting needs and the clinics are overwhelmingly successful. They are accessible, spread out geographically, and they provide a variety of needed services to a diverse population. Please make an educated vote and vote no on the parking lot at Mitchell Park. Thank you. Ursula Bishop /l From: bndwms@sbcglobal.net [mailto:bndwms@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 5:41 PM To:jbashbaugh@charter.net Subject: SLO Senior Center Parking Hi John, Congratulations on your election and on your thoughtful comments at the Council swearing-in today. As we discussed, here are my comments on the parking at the SLO Senior Center: The first argument I hear is that the City is paving over Mitchell Park,which is totally incorrect. As you know,the area to be used is inside a fence and away from the park itself. Once the project is completed,the park will actually gain a bit of usable land-about 1,000 sq.ft. Since the park master plan calls for a community garden in that area,which could be vegetables,flowers or xeriscape,that's hardly "paving it over." Also, it makes a nice break between parking and Mitchell Park. Neither the shuffleboard court nor horseshoe pit has been used for years, and maintenance has not been kept up,so using that area for parking does not deprive anyone of activities. The senior community,which is a growing population, has been requesting a small parking lot behind the senior center on Santa Rosa St.for years. A very large group plays bridge there several times each week, and they have to carry their supplies a fair distance, due to the shortage of nearby parking. Also, a few handicapped spaces would allow some who might not otherwise be able to get.there to attend activities. As the City has extended it's meters beyond the downtown,the two-hour time limit makes it extremely difficult for the seniors to use them, even if one were available. If we cannot provide this small area of parking for our seniors,then we should make longer term parking passes available to accommodate them,so they can enjoy an afternoon out. I would also remind the nearby residents that.the City streets are for all residents, not just for them. Finally,the project makes sense financially, having come in well under engineer's estimates. To postpone would only add more to the cost due to additional study,staff and Council time. And,the funds to complete the project are readily available. John,there must be a way to provide a bit more convenience to this group of people who have given -and are stil giving-so much to our City. Please give strong consideration to this project. Sincerely, Dodie Williams 544-5629 HAD COPY C Mq EI'C0UNCIL L'CDD DIR RED FILE CTEAe O'`r^'sa- C FIN DIR ff`AGAeAsr cmfitkp-FIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA 3-ATTORNEY 0,Pw DIR C�I'CLERK/ORIG 7-POLICE CHF DATEi DS" ITEM s"r aS CI DEPT HEADS DIREC DIR d �l� B'UTIL DIR EJ T Y_514 G ['HR DIR COI, foci L i CGb'l•C From: rosemary wilvert [mailto:rwilvert@sbcglobal.net] Sent:Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:57 AM To: John B. Ashbaugh; Hampian, Ken Cc: Boz Schrage; Pat Cormick; Rose Marie; 'Calvin Wilvert'; milavu@hotmail.com; 'Jan Marx'; 'Agatha Reardon'; Mary Ellen Gibson; Pat Harris Subject:Re: Mitchell Park parking lot Dear folks, Mila called me this morning just as she was about to enter her school for work and asked if I would forward her letter to John, Ken Hampian, and those who had attended John's gathering at Mitchell Park. Here it is. Rosemary Dear John - Congratulations on your victory and ceremony yesterday. Time is precious with life, work and a family member in the hospital....So I am getting right to the point as I may need to be out of town tonight while the Mitchell Park issue is under discussion. While I appreciate the time that you took to evaluate Mitchell Park alternatives with community members, after personal study I now disagree with a compromise. Paving over any part of the park is wrong. It goes against the principles of smart growth and limits the use of the park for future generations. It was painfully obvious that all solutions to the Seniors dilema had not been discussed under the direction of Mayor Romero and the previous council. Please amend the general plan to eliminate parking in the park. There are special district parking options that can be enacted and there is already sufficient parking for catering and other events. After that day of discussion, I do think that Seniors should get a discount at ALL our local parking garages...that is a compromise that will benefit everyone, not just the limited Senior center members. I am also forwarding these thoughts to a handful of other community members. I do applaud your compassion and efforts to date! Always, Mila Vujovich-La Barre LTCOUNCIL D CDD DIR I7CA0 ctn0in6R- E= FIN DIR RED FILE 2o CHIEF 1fr W p MEETING AGENDA D'CLERK/ORIG !1POLICE CHF 0 TDATE /� o ITEM # BS D�PHEADS 27-REC DIR CT LITIL DIR G''HR DIR � GbLSgJC4L �C(� Ma � '�_j2D COPY E •Y+7ArL Lei COUNCIL ❑'CDD DIR RED FILE [fie t�CIA Mce -2eFIN DIR MEETING AGENDA aAGA&AS61-Cnt#r-.--E'FIRE CHIEF E3�iTTORNEY aPW DIR November 30, 2008 DATEITEM # 35 El CLERK/ORIG E'POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS Lf REC DIR � C�UTIL DIR r?r 'r2i tin/ ZrHR BIR To: Mayor Romero and Members of the City Council, ted,,, ^)etL John Ashbaugh, Andrew Carter, Jan Marc, and Allen Settle - cr r-q ^gee Subject: Mitchell Park Senior Center Parking Lot From: Agatha Reardon My past letters are already in the public record. I hope not to repeat very much as I attempt to respond to some misconceptions, concerns, and statements that have been voiced in recent weeks. One statement heard at a recent city council meeting is that not one square foot of any park should be paved over for any reason. However, children need to have an area of a park paved over to have a safe place for rollerblading. This item was on the consent agenda at the November 19 council meeting, and I heard no objections to it. The children's playground at Mitchell Park was upgraded and slabs of concrete were poured to place benches on, and to put in walkways, and there were no objections. Just as these projects for the youth of our community are very important, this off street parking is just as important for our aging community, not only for their safety, but also to support their ability to recreate, socialize and to serve their community. We are not altering the "historical design" of the park. The park has evolved from a park with a baseball field and a gazebo. The Mitchell Park Master Plan was proposed in 2001 and approved. It included the community garden. In 2008.the plan was revised and approved with the parking lot in it. A recent communication that was widely distributed expresses concern about the possibility that 30% of the roots of the large Shamel Ash Tree may be affected. The City Engineer has addressed this issue by including the special protective procedures that will be used with oversight by our City Arborist to assure that the process used for building the parking lot will not kill the tree. One suggestion that was made is that the parking lot is very expensive and the city should spend the money elsewhere. The bid came in under the estimate, at around $195,000. Coincidentally, the 10,483 senior center volunteer hours a year, at 18.44 per hour, adds up to a value to the community of $195.261,00 a year. 10 Subject: Mitchell Park Senior Center Parking Lot From: Agatha Reardon Page 2 We have been referred to as just " a group using the old kindergarten". We are residents of this community who happen to be seniors. We have the privilege to use a beautiful building that has evolved from a kindergarten room to a 5,800 square foot building as a Senior Center, and we respect that privilege The existing Senior Center serves many seniors who lived through the depression. Some, both men and women served their country in the three wars that ensued. A few were born in the area, actually went to the kindergarten in this building, and are members of the Senior Center today. Some worked in San Luis Obispo, and some are still employed. Some owned businesses in the city and contributed to its economy. The issue today is not the need for a New Senior Center. The issue today for the seniors is the need for a safety net of an off- street parking lot. Seniors also need you to have a better understanding of their condition. Many have become widows and widowers over the years and find solace in a familiar place. Some do not have families here anymore. Although some are impaired, they are still active, and not in need of assisted living. What they do need is to socialize exercise, and have health screening available once a month. And, to have monthly luncheons where they have a variety of speakers who present both educational, and interesting programs that keep them in touch with what is happening. These seniors are also capable, have a need to contribute to their community, and they need a comfort zone. This is what the Senior Center is all about. Thank You for Listening. Sincerely, l Agatha Reardon, President San Luis Obispo Senior Center P.S. Recently, the residents on Pismo Street brought over the attached sheet of paper with their signatures and addresses on it and said, "What is all the fuss about?" "We are the neighbors who live right across the street and we support the parking lot." Attachment: Signatures of Pismo Street Residents who support the Parking Lot We are`. -,mediate neighbors of Mitch. ..° Park. We support the addition of a parking lot behind the Senior Center, NAME ADDRESS O y ,` Iriv ip �- o s-6- ! - /B-oR 'o-ce.Kepem��-� V+`r 571 K_:Ck C7CA 2,� �hi V9 Stt eololwl 41 ,3t� to$A_ 3 �-D 540,1-k jRL �r la ilzr� CpPY G'COUNCIL BCD DIRA 12 RED I`ILI: Cl'AGAOA5'rccnra+6ep'FIR CHIEF MEETING AGENDA B ATTORNEY 13�pw IR DATE +y L ITEM # H'CLERK/ORIG [rPO CE CHF ?18 PH L''UTI DIR _(^72�BrnniG ETHR IR _,CegwO_rL �cr�N MGC Page 1 of 1 Council,SloCity From: Terry Mohan lcatsdad@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Mon 12/1/2008 11:52 PM To: Council,SloCity; Council,SloCity Cc: Subject: Business Item 5, Senior Center Parking Lot Attachments: Mayor& Council, While I really am not to involved with this issue I feel that it would be a waste of taxpayer money to build a parking lot on the pretense that it is for the use of the Senior Center when in reality there will be no restriction as to who parks there including, as mentioned at one council meeting, city vehicles working in the area. As a resident of the Sinsheimer Park area I walk through that parking lot near the swimming pools regularly. I have noticed that across from the pools there are several storage sheds and the school district is starting to park some of their buses there. After a friend mentioned locating the Senior Center near the new therapy pool, this spot with the sheds and buses looked promising. Installing a couple portable classrooms, their good enough for our kids, on these spots would allow access to the pools, the YMCA and provide more than adequate parking. The transit company could even run their Number 3 bus through the lot and right up to the front door of this center. This remedy would eliminate the confrontation between the parties and could be completed in the same time period providing the council gets behind it. I don't think we need a gigantic center like Santa Maria just one that is adequate and useful to our seniors. Terry Mohan 2416 Santa Clara San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 % 2D Copy L-mA« B-COUNCIL DO DIR RED FILE L�' Aecrr��n V FIN DIR ETAGAe4%"/,,� AFIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA ['ATTORNEY 21-PW DIR a1CLERK/ORIG O-POLICE CHF DATE i L i- ITElbri #� 11 DEPT HEADS aREC DIR Q'UTIL OR [YHR DIR Cou&;e,L i cL-C�l n16� � C l.�izac https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/InboxBus iness%20Item%205,%2OSenior... 12/2/2008 O Eugene Jud, 70 years old Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers FITE, PE Dec. 1,2008 665 Leff Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Council Meeting of December 2, 2008,Agenda Item Mitchell Park FK/oRIG NCIL O CDD DIR Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, a�ym6 [3'FIN DIR '45 u"' G`12-FIRE CHIEF RNEY I"PW DIR I respectfully submit the below comments to you. Er POLICE CHF HEADS ErREC DIR RED FILE Mitchell Park: Pave or Plant? MEETING AGENDA Er HREr ID RIR # ' 1. Are SLO seniors underprivileged?DATE ITEM 85 ca.texa- / crry 111,r2 0,64 I currently work on a $ 70 000.- research project at Cal Poly under the title "Providing Senior Citizen Mobility at Minimum Public Cost" together with Professors Nuworsoo and Mitres We produced statistics and maps, where seniors live in the whole County and what services are offered to them. The first results appear to be: 1.1 SLO seniors are relatively privileged..They have the best services in the County. We will make SLO our case study and an example for California's policies regarding senior O mobility. 1.2 The SLO Council of Governments gives individualized trip planning assistance under "Senior Transportation Options" through Cindy Blake, 7814362, www.rideshare.ore. This service is paid by our taxes but could be used much more by seniors. 1.3 The County offers a good overview and training for seniors how to use transit and paratransit (Dial-a-Rides etc.) in a 30-page brochure of March 2008 "Let's Get Going", downloadable from www.slocog.org/cm/Publications and Reports/Home.html 1.4 A 40-page study about countywide transit fares of November 2008 states that "all regional operators appear to meet or exceed federal half fare requirements" for seniors and disabled persons and proposes easier use of transit and paratransit for riders with special needs under the "perceived fairness criteria" (Majic Consultant Group: "Region Wide Fare Improvement Study, Findings and Recommendations", www.slocoe.org/cm/Publications and Reports/Home.html ). 1:5 Mobility improvements are possible through more involvement of senior volunteer drivers, better coordination of all mobility modes including taxi and technology, such as better route finding programs for van operations. 2. Have all options to paving been explored? The above options under 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 have rarely been discussed in connection with Mitchell Park. It appears that bus route 4 with a stop right in front of the senior center is O seldom used by seniors. Several alternatives exist in relation to mobility as well asto location. 1 O Partial paving of Mitchell Park should only be discussed after a two year trial of alternative options. However, a maximum of two well managed drop off spaces for disabled seniors at the edge of the park could be considered as a temporary solution. If Grace Church - at the edge of Mitchell Park and closer to downtown - with hundreds of people and dozens of elderly and disabled persons (not only on Sundays!) can manage without"paving", then a similar solution for the senior center should be possible. 3. In today's economic and environmental situation, does "paving" convey a sense of strong leadership? Instead of an investment of more than $ 200 000.- and maintenance costs of several thousand dollars per year we could probably run alternative operations for years. We could also plant the community garden as originally proposed and help low income families produce their food. The demand for such environmentally friendly activities is strong. Two years ago we discussed the Open Space Element of the City for hours in detail in the Planning Commission and in the Council. Soon after the ink on the Open Space Element was dry we were told that we should change the plan again because the "paving" had been in the minds of several Council and Commission Members for years. To my knowledge none of these persons ever brought up the "paving" in the deliberations about the open space element. Therefore, today we should urgently convey a picture of consistent economic and ecological leadership. O4. In summary we primarily need more solidarity among senior citizens and among the generations, as well as more operational creativity in transportation before we pave. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued involvement in this matter. — 6 ,an._ /O.. Eugene Jud O 2 Eugene Jud, 70 years old Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers FITE, PE Dec. 1, 2008 665 Leff Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RED FILE Council Meeting of December 2, 2008, Agenda Item Mitchell ParMEETING AGENDA bAT ; v ITEM #_85 N742o Co y Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, [a COUNCIL aCDD DIR 2-FIN DIR �AGAG ` �"YQ M-FIRE CHIEF I respectfully submit the below comments to you. CrATTORNEY aPW DIR O'CLERK/ORIG ErPOLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS Mitchell Park: Pave or Plant? ©- 0I3� �TC OIR T114141 dpi 9fR 1. Are SLO seniors underprivileged? Z!oude,L I currently work on a $ 70 000.- research project at Cal Poly under the title "Providing ecc Senior Citizen Mobility at Minimum Public Cost" together with Professors Nuworsoo and Mitra. We produced statistics and maps, where seniors live in the whole County and what services are offered to them. The first results appear to be: 1.1 SLO seniors are relatively privileged. They have the best services in the County. We will make SLO our case study and an example for California's policies regarding senior mobility. 1.2 The SLO Council of Governments gives individualized trip planning assistance under "Senior Transportation Options" through Cindy Blake, 781-4362, www.rideshare.ore. This service is paid by our taxes but could be used much more by seniors. 1.3 The County offers a good overview and training for seniors how to use transit and paratransit (Dial-a-Rides etc.) in a 30-page brochure of March 2008 "Let's Get Going", downloadable from www.slocog.orp,/cm/Publications and Reports/Home.html 1.4 A 40-page study about countywide transit fares of November 2008 states that "all regional operators appear to meet or exceed federal half fare requirements" for seniors and disabled persons and proposes easier use of transit and paratransit for riders with special needs under the "perceived fairness criteria" (Majic Consultant Group: "Region Wide Fare Improvement Study, Findings and Recommendations", www.slocoa.org/enVPublications_and_Reports/Home.html ). 1.5 Mobility improvements are possible through more involvement of senior volunteer drivers, better coordination of all mobility modes including taxi and technology, such as better route finding programs for van operations. 2. Have all options to paving been explored? The above options under 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 have rarely been discussed in connection with Mitchell Park. It appears that bus route 4 with a stop right in front of the senior center is seldom used by seniors. Several alternatives exist in relation to mobility as well as to location. 1 Partial paving of Mitchell Park should only be discussed after a two year trial of alternative options. However, a maximum of two well managed drop off spaces for disabled seniors at the edge of the park could be considered as a temporary solution. If Grace Church - at the edge of Mitchell Park and closer to downtown - with hundreds of people and dozens of elderly and disabled persons (not only on Sundays!) can manage without "paving", then a similar solution for the senior center should be possible. 3. In today's economic and environmental situation, does "paving" convey a sense of strong leadership? Instead of an investment of more than $ 200 000.- and maintenance costs of several thousand dollars per year we could probably run alternative operations for years. We could also plant the community garden as originally proposed and help low income families produce their food. The demand for such environmentally friendly activities is strong. Two years ago we discussed the Open Space Element of the City for hours in detail in the Planning Commission and in the Council. Soon after the ink on the Open Space Element was dry we were told that we should change the plan again because the "paving" had been in the minds of several Council and Commission Members for years. To my knowledge none of these persons ever brought up the "paving" in the deliberations about the open space element. Therefore, today we should urgently convey a picture of consistent economic and ecological leadership. 4. In summary we primarily need more solidarity among senior citizens and among the generations, as well as more operational creativity in transportation before we pave. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued involvement in this matter. Eugene Jud 2 o ) 4 From: Hampian, Ken Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 7:06 AM r0e_-ATTORNEY _m IL To: Hooper, Audrey; Chippendale, Sue yCDD DiR Subject: i=W: Mitchell Park parking lot 6e LIFIN DIR G�IRE CHIEF app DIR a Z' -POLICE CHF S L'TREC DIR -----Original Message----- CX-P� 1:5-REC From: John B. Ashbaugh [mailto:jbashbaugh@charter.net] 7r 'f2__ uI_ Z UTIL DIR DIR Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:55 PM To: Hampian, Ken C6uNCiL Subject: FW: Mitchell Park parking lot dlflt /nd2 Another communication on Mitchell Park from one of the attendees at our Saturday meeting. . . -----Original Message----- RED FILE From: Stephan Lamb [mailto:slamb@calpoly.edu] - Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 12 :48 PM y;. MEETING AGENDA To: jbashbaugh@charter.net A Cc: 'Mary Ellen Gibson' ; 'Jan Marx' DATEiakITEM #$S Subject: FW: Mitchell Park parking lot John - Thanks for the effort and the summary. All of these mitigating options assist in the total impact of the parking lot but what I would like to also have on the table is that the seniors are not coming to Mitchell Park they are coming to the center. They really don't care where the center is located. If the building were moved to Emerson Park or Shinshimer near the therapeutic senior pool or a vacant lot downtown they wouldn't care. So the park, the public resource for all the rest of the citizens of San Luis Obispo is what is sacrificed for the 340. I personally do not, believe that any one group of citizens has "entitlement" priority over othei�. city citizens and this is a theme that is an undercurrent of many of the conversations. ` If a parking lot is where you decide to take the conversation then I would hope that the switch out to decorative pavers and a design element that perhaps incorporates the Gazebo could be put on the table. I also would underscore that regardless of configuration a berm/fence/landscape plan that will visually ensure the disappearance of the parking lot by those enjoying the park be planned. If. Thank you for hearing my concern about keeping the integrity of the grassy expanse quadrants and not paving over still more park for a moved bar-be-cue/picnic area. Mary Ellen an I have been deeply engaged with the park issue. The reality is that there is no true middle ground on this issue. The Saturday conversation very much seemed to me like the lot was a foregone conclusion in your mind. It seemed an odd position for a leader of the Land Conservancy and Sierra Club - two credentials which indeed led those of us against the parking lot to support you. If the parking lot is to proceed please do your best to ensure that every mitigation regardless of cost is incorporated into the final plan. Thank you for all you do and will do for the city. Sincerely, Stephan Lamb -----Original Message----- From: Mary Ellen Gibson [mailto:megibson@charter.net] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:08 AM 1 T,o: ^Stephan Lamb - Subject: Fw: Mlichell Park parking lot ----- Original Message .----- From: John B. Ashbaugh <mailto:jbashbaugh@charter.net> To: 'Hampian, Ken' <mailto:.khampian@slocity.org> Cc: Boz Schrage <mailto:slotownboz@yahoo.com> ; Pat Cormick <mailto:cormick@tcsn.net> Rose Marie <mailto:rose@susanpolk.com> ; 'rosemary wilvert' <mailto:rwilvert@sbcglobal.net> ; 'Calvin Wilvert' <mailto:cwilvert@sbcglobal.net> ; milavu@hotmail.com ; 'Jan Marx' <mailto:janmarx@stanfordalumni.org> ; 'Agatha Reardon' <mailto:agathar@charter.net> ; Mary Ellen Gibson <mailto:megibson@charter.net> Pat Harris <mailto:pat@pharris.org> Sent.: Sunday, November 23, 2008 11:12 PM Subject: Mitchell Park parking lot To: Ken Hampian From: John Ashbaugh Re: Mitchell Park / Senior Center Parking Lot On Saturday, November 22 I met with a number of leaders of the Senior Center as well as several community members (see attached list) at Mitchell Park. I had invited several community members who had contacted me in the weeks since the election to express opinions or to seek information about the parking lot proposal. I asked these individuals to meet with me on the site, so that I could listen to their concerns, and I also invited the Senior Center leaders to hear directly from them, so as to gain some context before the December 2 Council hearing on this matter. Six attendees had been active in the Senior Center and supported the parking lot proposal; seven community members had been strongly opposed to the parking lot, and two persons were undecided. They ranged in age from 14 to. well, advanced "maturity. " In many respects, this group was representative of the competing interests that have generated so much controversy over the proposed parking lot to serve the Senior Center. Before I begin to summarize the results of the meeting, I 'd like to commend the Public Works Department for responding to my request to stake out the boundaries of the parking lot prior to this meeting. Jay Walters was very helpful in this matter, and the staking helped all of us to visualize the proposal. We also had a set of the plans and specs provided to me by Jay's staff for the meeting. I'm forwarding this summary of the meeting in the hope that it will advance the dialogue among the Council and the public on December 2. Please feel free to forward all or part of it it to other Council members or staff. The attendees are each receiving a "cc" of this e-mail, and I invite them to share with us their own perspectives of the Saturday meeting. My recollection of the meeting reveals the following points: 1. Attendees heard, and (in my opinion) most of us agreed, that the Senior Center is likely to stay in that location for the foreseeable future. Agatha Reardon reported on the extensive services that the Senior Center volunteers provide there, and she and the other Senior Center leaders related some of the history of their efforts to provide improved on-site parking for their members. 2 � Y 2. • There is also substantial agreement that the Center neeus on-site wheelchair parking separate from the curb parking now available, especially due to the fact that the ADA no longer permits wheelchair spaces to be designated at street curbs. 3. There is also some agreement, although not as much, that the Senior Center needs additional standard parking stalls on-site. Curb parking on adjacent streets does not appear to be suitable for seniors who are mobility-impaired. I also made the point that every time we set aside curb parking for the exclusive use of seniors using the Center, it diminishes the availability of those spaces to the general public. 4. The proposed lot represents a professional design response to the problem, but it might be improved in order to gain a wider acceptance in the community if certain key features are incorporated into the design. Specific concerns that were raised during the meeting, and which might be addressed by a revised design, include the following: 1. Continued risk to the Heritage Tree, even though the tree protection measures recommended by the City Arborist have been incorporated into the project. 2. Location of the new BBQ and picnic area within the historic turfed area of the park. 3. Unmet need for a loading area for the Center that is separate from either the curb or the lot parking. In order to address these concerns, the meeting progressed to a set of possible design changes to the parking lot design. These changes generally focused on configurations that might reduce the disturbance to the Heritage Tree, relocate the proposed replacement BBQ and picnic area, and improve overall aesthetics of the park while still providing a significant increment of new parking for the Center. Here are two options that were discussed - Please note that both options would involve re-aligning the proposed lot so that ingress and egress are both obtained from Buchon Street, thus eliminating the exit driveway onto Santa Rosa. Option 1: This option would involve a looped driveway around a small lot, making use of the existing curb cut (slightly enlarged) that is used for access to the maintenance shed. This shed would need to be re-located; if located nearer to the playground, it could be accessed by a northerly extension from the new parking lot's access aisle, which would also provide access to relocated trash receptacles. My preliminary investigation shows that such a design could possibly include a total of 9 spaces (five standard and four HC) , assuming that the north leg of the loop driveway would maintain a 20' buffer from the Heritage Tree (about twice the distance in the current design) . This option would also potentially save one of the Buchon Street curb spaces that would be eliminated with the current design. Additionally, since it eliminates the exit driveway to Santa Rosa Street, there would be no need to red-paint the existing HC space to the right of the proposed exit drive as in the current design. Finally, the existing driveway from Santa Rosa Street that now serves the maintenance staff parking could be maintained for that purpose, and since it would no longer be needed for access to the trash receptacles, this driveway could also serve double-duty as a loading space for the Center. It should be noted, however, that this option could entail risks to the 18" magnolia near the building's southwest corner, depending on the location of the exit driveway on Buchon. Option 2 : This option would resemble the current lot in its basic alignment and configuration, except that the driveway and access aisle would be widened for two-way traffic and 90-degree parking. The connection to an exit driveway on Santa Rosa would be deleted, and additionally one standard stall on the west side would be eliminated in order to reduce the disturbance to the Heritage tree. This proposal would also maintain the existing driveway from Santa Rosa for maintenance and loading purposes, and it would thus 3 preserve the wheelchair spaco now proposed for elimination to-che right of the proposed exit driveway. In this proposal, relocation of the maintenance shed to the north end of the parking lot could also enable us to eliminate the curb cut for the access driveway from Buchon Street to this shed, thus freeing up a curbside space that is lost to that existing driveway. The disadvantages of this option are: 1) Angled parking is always more convenient than 90-degree spaces; and 2) The wider access aisle and 90-degree spaces would mean more encroachment of the lot into the park area to the west. It is also suggested that another design change be considered, whether or not either of the above parking lot design options are carried forward: Relocate the proposed replacement picnic area/BBQ from the site west of the Heritage Tree instead to a location to the north of the restrooms. This would protect the integrity of the turfed area that surrounds the bandstand. In my view, Option 2 is a more realistic design alternative, since it would provide 13 spaces within the on-site lot rather than 9. Furthermore, it could be accomplished without endangering the magnolia tree. Either option would, however, reduce disturbance to the Heritage Tree. I will acknowledge, however, the distinct possibility that both of these options have been previously considered, and rejected, by your staff. The individuals who attended this meeting are listed below; as noted above, I'm also sending them a cc of this memo. Thanks for considering these suggestions; I would be willing to meet with you and other staff members to go over these options in more detail, and to get a more complete briefing on the rationale for the current design, at a mutually convenient time. Please feel free to contact me as warranted to follow up on this communication. Attendees* Boz Schrage Pat Cormick Dick Rall Jacquie Rall Cal Wilvert Rosemary Wilvert Bette Kulp Mila Vujavich-LaBarre Jan Marx Emily McBride Chuck Oldham Rose Marie Shabley Agatha Reardon 4 Stephan Lamb Pat Harris * Note: Attendance at the meeting does not imply concurrence with any of the observations written here; individuals are free to contribute their own comments as to the content of the discussion or the design options that were discussed. 5