Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/2002, 2 - STUDY SESSION: MISSION PLAZA DOGLEG UPDATE Council June 4.2002 j acEnaa REpoat C ITY O F SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville,Transportation Associate Tl-/\ SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: MISSION PLAZA DOGLEG UPDATE CAO RECOMMENDATION: Receive report on the Mission Plaza Dogleg project and direct staff to proceed with the development of plans for environmental review, Cultural Heritage Committee review, Architectural Review Commission review, and City Council review of the "Preferred Option" concept plan for the use of the Broad Street Dogleg (street segment between Palm and Monterey Street) as a public plaza area. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The closure of the Broad Street dogleg continues to be a public issue. Because of this, the consultant hired by the City to develop a concept plan for the Broad Street dogleg was asked to prepare a series of concept plans that demonstrate various levels of vehicle access- e.g. full closure consistent with current policy; one-way traffic flow; through traffic; and cul-de-sac options. As the City Council reviews these concept plans, it is being asked to decide whether to proceed with the design of the street closure, proceed with the design of a partial closure as a step toward the ultimate goal of closing the dogleg, or amend its current policy to allow one or two-way vehicle circulation through the dogleg as a permanent solution. Review of intersection and roadway traMc volumes indicate that there will not be a significant impact on vehicle circulation as a result of the closure. Through input received from key stakeholders and community members, the consultant has developed a"Preferred Option"concept plan that closes the dogleg and expands Mission Plaza in a series of four phases with closure occurring in the third phase. Staff is recommending that Council proceed with this option that most closely conforms to the City's current plans and policies. DISCUSSION Background On March 6, 2001 the City Council authorized the distribution of Request for Proposals(RFP's)for the Mission Plaza Dogleg project (see Attachment 1, Location Map) and the CAO to execute a contract if the proposal was within budget. The request for proposals called for the project to be undertaken in two phases: 2-1 Council Agenda Report: Mission Plaza Dogleg Study Session Page 2 1. Phase One. Work with community organizations, City staff, City Advisory Bodies and the City Council to establish a concept plan for the use of the Broad Street Dogleg (street segment between Palm and Monterey Street) as a public plaza;and 2. Phase Two. Prepare final construction plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for improvements within the targeted street areas consistent with the concept plan approved by the City Council. During the interview process, it became apparent that the cost of construction plans and specifications could differ dramatically depending on the phasing and design of the street closure. To address this issue, the consultant's (RRM Design Group) contract was revised to include Phase One services only at this time and the first phase of the project was divided into two parts: Phase One "A'_': Part "A" consisted of data collection, preparation of several concept plans, a community workshop with key stakeholders,and a study session with the City Council. Phase One "B": Part `B" will begin after direction is received tonight from the City Council and consists of preparation of a preferred design plan, environmental review, review by the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission, preparation of cost estimates, and presentation to the City Council for final review and approval. Study Session Goal Staff is seeking Council confirmation that expansion of Mission Plaza still includes the closure of the dogleg as called for in the request for proposals. Research to date indicates that there will not be any significant traffic impacts resulting from the closure, however there is not full agreement within the community that the dogleg should be closed. Staff is requesting confirmation of Council's intentbefore significant time and money is spent on the design of the closure and Mission Plaza expansion. To assist Council in making a qualified decision,.a series of concept plans have been developed that provide a varying degree of vehicular access. Although these conceptual designs are included in this report, approval of a final design is not appropriate at this time because the designs have not been reviewed by the necessary advisory bodies nor have they been adequately evaluated for potential environmental impacts. Instead, staff is requesting confirmation of a"preferred"concept plan,which will then be advanced into the environmentaland architectural review process. The Vision The City's Circulation Element adopted in November 1994 identifies the Mission Plaza Expansion project as a planned capital project and describes the project as follows: Broad Street (Palm to Higuera) Monterey Street (Nipomo to Broad): close streets, maintain service access, expand Mission Plaza. Close streets consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center. 2-2 Council Agenda Report: Mission Plaza Dogleg Study Session Page 3 The City's Open Space Element contains Policy OS 12.3:5 that states the following regarding Mission Plaza and its expansion areas: Mission Plaza should not be considered a typical creek area. Although this area should include protected natural areas (including some riparian vegetation clusters) and adequate creek setback areas for commerciaUresidential structures, Mission Plaza should allow public access along the setback area and in portions of the creek Benches, picnic areas, and other similar park facilities should be allowed within the setback area. Interpretive displays should be located within Mission Plaza documenting (1) the history of Mission Plaza, and (2) the importance of creek resources. Buildings should not overhang the setback or cause the setback area to be dark or uninviting. Expansion of this facility should not result in significant biological impacts and should allow the maintenance of existing habitat value as well as human enjoyment. If impacts occur in these areas, habitat values shall be replaced on-site or off-site (in-kind only) at a 2:1 ratio. In 1993 the City also adopted, in concept, A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center.- as referenced above. Since 1993, the City has been selectively implementing various elements of the plan. The concept plan(see Attachment 2, Conceptual Physical Plan graphics) states that: Broad and Monterey [segments referenced above] should be abandoned and converted into pedestrian ways as extension to Mission Plaza. The Conceptual Physical Plan identifies the "dogleg" as being within Area 3 that calls for the following public projects and standards: Mission Plaza should be extended along the creek on both sides from Broad to Nipomo. The corner of Nipomo and Higuera should be redeveloped into a combination of commercial uses and a park-like entrance to the Mission Plaza extension. Properties on Broad and Monterey should be acquired to allow new cultural facilities. Broad and Monterey Streets, as shown on the map, should be abandoned and converted into pedestrian ways as extensions of Mission Plaza. Limited vehicular access should be allowed (eg. emergency access, trolleys, and access for private parties as may be required under various agreements with same). A low scale parking structure should be located as shown on the map. It should not be more than 25 feet tall on the Monterey Street side. The Art Center should be expanded across Broad to the existing surface lot. The Little Theater should be located near the corner of Nipomo and Monterey. The Historical Museum should be. expanded to the north and west. The existing house at the corner of Palm and Broad, and the Hayes/Lattimer Adobe on Monterey should be preserved as historic treasures. Should private use cease, they should be acquired and integrated into the City's cultural resources. A Children's Museum should be incorporated into the Monterey Street frontage of the parking structure. Fountains or water features should be included; another public amphitheater should be located on the north side of the creek, west of Broad Street. 2-3 Council Agenda Report: Mission Plaza Dogleg Study Session Page 4 Existing historic structures along Monterey Street, identified in the Historic Resource Program, should be maintained and readapted to accommodate new cultural facilities where feasible and desirable. Relocation or-demolition should be considered only when it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council that adaptive reuse of existing structures is not economical, nor functional, nor consistent with the goals of the Mission Plaza extension. The language in these documents sets the vision for projects such as the Mission Plaza Dogleg that are pieces of a much larger vision for this area of downtown as the City's pedestrian oriented cultural facilities core. Existing Conditions Since its inception, Mission Plaza has been used for special community events that are routinely scheduled throughout the year. Events held in the plaza vary in size. For the small to moderate scale events, the Broad Street dogleg currently remains open to vehicle traffic while the plaza areas directly adjoining the Mission are reserved for pedestrian accessed activities. For larger scale events, the dogleg is closed to vehicle traffic and the roadway itself is used as a public plaza space. Event sizes have been growing and therefore there is a need to close down the dogleg more often. The City has several obligations when it closes the dogleg. These obligations include providing emergency vehicle access and access to the Mello residence on Broad Street, the public parking lot adjacent to the Historical Museum, and the private parking lot behind Jim's Campus Camera and Mission Office Supply (see Attachment 3, Access Obligations Map). To date, these obligations have been met without difficulty and staff does not foresee any problems providing this access in the future. The Process During the past nine months, the City's consultant (RRM Design Group) has performed a series of tasks (as described below) to evaluate the feasibility of closing the dogleg and expanding Mission Plaza. I. Meetings with Key City Staff. Staff and the consultant met with key staff members in the Public Works, Community Development, Parks and Recreation, Administration, Utilities, Fire, and Police Departments to discuss their department's responsibilities,_ concerns, needs and desires for Mission Plaza and the dogleg area. Minutes from these meetings and special event diagrams are included in Attachment 4. Important information gleaned from these meetings include the location of underground utilities, the requirement for a 20 foot wide emergency access route, the needs of organizations using the plaza, and maintenance requirements and concerns. 2-4 Council Agenda Report: Mission Plaza Dogleg Study Session Page 5 2. Traffic Study. A traffic study was conducted to analyze the roadways adjacent to Mission Plaza and determine the potential traffic impacts that might result from the closure of the dogleg. A comparison of the changes in traffic volumes, traffic patterns, and intersection levels-of-service with and without closure of the dogleg were used to determine any potential impacts of the closure. Based on this analysis the following conclusions were made: a. The review of intersection and daily roadway traffic volumes indicate that the study locations currently operate with relatively low traffic volumes and reserve capacity. b. Analyses of a weekend with a special event and the dogleg closure indicate that all study intersection movements operate with Level of Service (LOS B) or better in both the morning and afternoon hours. (Level of Service is categorized in a series from LOS A to LOS F with LOS A representing little or no delay and LOS F representing gridlock conditions. LOS B is described as delays in the range of 5-15 seconds per vehicle.) c. Analysis on a weekday with estimated traffic volumes due to the permanent dogleg closure indicate that all study intersections movements operate with LOS B or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. d. Permanent closure of the dogleg would provide a pedestrian friendly environment that would facilitate pedestrian activities. In addition, the closure would encourage vehicles on Broad Street south of Higuera Street to utilize the major arterials such as Chorro Street, Higuera Street,Marsh Street,and Osos Street. e. Part-time closure of the roadway segments is not recommended because it may confuse motorists with random closures creating an unsafe area for pedestrians. The traffic study identified three potential impacts that could occur if the dogleg was closed permanently. These include limiting access to the Mello residence, elimination of existing on- street parking on the dogleg, and the potential creation of"dead-ends" where the street closures occur. Mitigation measures to offset these potential impacts include: work with the owner of the Mello residence to identify a long term solution for alternate access, investigate options for the replacement of any parking removed by the closure, and construct a turn around at the Monterey Street closure. These potential impacts and mitigation measures were considered in the development of the dogleg concept plans. 3. Opportunity and Constraints Analysis. The consultant gathered information regarding the site's existing conditions (ie. the location of driveways and the number of parking spaces) and developed a listing of site opportunities and constraints (see Attachment 5). Major factors that were determined as driving the design include: a. No loss of vehicular access to private properties b. No net loss of 24 parking spaces currently located within the dogleg 2.5 ✓i �'r Council Agenda Report: Mission Plaza Dogleg Study Session Page 6 c. Minimize disruption to existing healthy trees d. Provision for emergency access e. Separation of vehicle and pedestrian circulation 4. Stakeholder Meetings. Staff and the consultant met with the following stakeholders for the Mission Plaza Dogleg project: the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Association, the Catholic Church, the Historical Museum, the Art Center, Mission College Prep., property owners on Broad Street, and property owners of businesses on Higuera Street with vehicle access through Mission Plaza. Once stakeholders were assured that access to their properties would continue to be provided, the primary.remaining concern regarding the expansion of Mission Plaza was noise generated during special events. The stakeholders recommended (and staff concurred) that given the proximity of the dogleg to residential uses, amplified music in the dogleg area be prohibited. Since these initial meetings, it has come to staff s attention that property owners on Monterey Street between Broad Street and Nipomo Street should also be included in future discussions.. Although these properties do not directly front the dogleg, this block of Monterey Street would be affected as a result of the street closure and plaza expansion. These stakeholders were invited to the community meeting held in April to discuss this project as well as tonight's Council meeting and they will be included in any future stakeholder meetings. 5. Development of Concept Plans. Utilizing all the information gathered above, the consultant synthesized the project goals and objectives (see Attachment 6) and developed a series of concept plans for the Mission Plaza expansion (see Attachment 7). As required in the Request for Proposals, the consultant was required to prepare alternative concept plans that demonstrate various levels of access- e.g. full closure consistent with current policy; one-way traffic flow; retention of existing traffic lanes; and cul-de-sac options. Since all adopted City documents call for the complete closure of the dogleg, all concept plans were proposed as possible phases of an effort to fully close the dogleg. Option 1- maintains current circulation patterns and parking. Option 2- provides two-way circulation on Monterey Street, provides one-way circulation on Broad Street, and reconfigures parking on Broad Street. Option 3- provides one-way circulation on Broad and Monterey Streets and reconfigures parking on Broad Street. Option 4- closes dogleg to through traffic and reconfigures existing parking on Broad Street to create a flexible parking area Upon review of the strengths and weaknesses of Options 1-4, a Preferred Option was developed (see Attachment 8). The Preferred Option is similar to Option 4, however, it is designed as a more open plaza area which allows for maximum flexibility for parking and plaza events within the expansion area(see Attachment 9, Special Event Booth Locations). 2-6 Council Agenda Report: Mission Plaza Dogleg Study Session Page 7 6. Community Meeting. A community meeting was held in April at the Art Center and approximately 20 people attended. The purpose of the meeting was to describe the concept plans developed by the consultant, answer questions, and receive input on the various options. Comments received ranged from"Leave the street the way it is"to "Close both street segments and eliminate the parking". Of the participants that did not object to restricting vehicular access in some manner, the overall consensus supported the Preferred Option that closes the street entirely rather than one of the other options that provides one-way or partial circulation through the dogleg. Because there was some opposition to closing the street, the consultant investigated the idea of constructing plaza paving improvements and allowing continued vehicular circulation through the plaza expansion. The consultant concluded that such a design could not ensure adequate separation of vehicles and pedestrians and would be difficult to comply with American with Disabilities (ADA) requirements significantly limiting the ability to expand the plaza-like space. The concept plans presented at the community meeting were also placed on the City's web page for the public's review and comment. Written comments received to date are included in Attachment 10. 7. The Preferred Option. The Preferred Option calls for the full closure of the Broad Street dogleg (Monterey to Palm). It creates a 24-space parking facility in the Broad Street portion of the closure area while maintaining vehicular access to the Mello property. With this design, Mission Plaza would be extended to the Monterey/Broad Street intersection creating a new entry feature at that location that would ultimately become the midpoint of Mission Plaza once the Plaza is extended to Nipomo Street. Access to the rear of the Higuera Street businesses would continue to be provided as well as access to the public parking lot next to the Historical Museum. The pros and cons of the Preferred Option are as follows: (Pros) a. Fully meets the objectives of the Circulation Element and the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center. b. Closure of Monterey Street enables significant usable area for plaza expansion. c. Dogleg closure significantly lowers the potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. d. Maintains current parking levels-no net loss of parking spaces. e. Parking spaces could be monthly lease spaces for which there is currently a waiting list for 30 permits in this area. f. The reconfigured parking area allows for good use of an otherwise potential "dead" area, and still provides a suitable space that can be used during large plaza events. .g. Full closure of the dogleg does not significantly impact vehicle traffic level of service at area intersections. 2-7 Council Agenda Report: Mission Plaza Dogleg Study Session Page 8 h. Should be most cost effective from a construction cost point-of-view because the closure itself is not phased. i. Access is maintained to the Mello residence, public parking lot next the Historical Museum and businesses fronting Higuera. (Cons) a. Closes two blocks of streets within the dogleg which will result in the rerouting of vehicular traffic and disruption of motorist's current travel patterns. b. Reduces same route delivery access to businesses in the area, although access is still maintained via adjacent streets. c. Removes eastern sidewalk on Broad Street between Monterey and Palm (adjacent to the Mission) d. Relocates trolley stop currently located in the middle of the dogleg. 8. Phasing. The consultant has taken the Preferred Option and developed a phasing plan for implementation of the design (see Attachment 11). Several factors were considered during the development of the phasing plan. a. Cost considerations b. Most benefit for least amount of disruption c. ADA requirements d. Provision of parking e. Phasing of expanded plaza f. Coordination with the Art Center Expansion Phase 1 includes improvements to the existing plaza area, namely modifications to the amphitheater and lawn areas to increase usable public space and reduce maintenance costs associated with annually reseeding lawn areas. Phase 2 includes intersection improvements (such as decorative paving and directional signage) at the Broad/Monterey and Broad/Palm intersections which will facilitate pedestrian circulation at these new entries into Mission Plaza. Phase 3 closes the dogleg to through traffic and develops the Monterey Street portion of the dogleg as an expansion to Mission Plaza. Finally, Phase 4 includes improvements to the Broad Street portion of the dogleg to convert the existing roadway into a plaza/parking area. FISCAL IMPACTS Directing staff to proceed with the development of plans for Architectural Review Commission review for the closure of the dogleg does not have a direct fiscal impact because the City Council has already budgeted $ 63,000.00 for study and design services. Funds totaling $ 75,000.00 have been allocated to the construction of this project. 2-8 Council Agenda Report: Mission Plaza Dogleg Study Session Page 9 ALTERNATIVES 1. Direct staff to proceed with the development of plans for Architectural Review Commission review for the enhancement of Mission Plaza that includes one-way circulation through the dogleg. Staff does not recommend this alternative because closure of the roadway does not result in negative impacts to the remaining circulation system and the potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts could increase. 2. Direct staff to proceed with the development of plans for Architectural Review Commission review for the enhancement of Mission Plaza not including the street rights-of-way for Broad and Monterey Streets at this time. Staff does not recommend this alterative because it would not provide a viable plaza expansion. 3. Direct staff to discontinue work on the project until sufficient funding becomes available for the project's construction. Staff does not recommend this alternative because project plans need to be developed before cost estimates can be formulated and approved project plans can be used to support requests for grant funding. 4. Other alteratives as directed by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Graphics from the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center 3. City Obligations Map 4. City staff meeting notes and special event diagrams 5. Opportunities and Constraints map 6. Project Goals and Objectives 7. Options 1-4(also available on the City's web page under What's New) 8. Preferred Option(also available on the City's web page under What's New) 9. Special Event Booth Locations 10. Letters and emails received to date 11. Phasing Plan I:\Council Agenda ReportsNission Plaza Dogleg#l.doc 2-9 jffTAONWI Mission Art Center Mission Plaza Dogleg Location Map 2-10 Alt ATTACHMENT 2 0 +Ik m CC N OD cborro w � r -- Broat Y v Q 4 ° s c Niponro U t+A o zce U ; Nr 1 V AT rk.-AENT 3 0 -8 c � �, m c, •� ce 0 cn ` i i•1„� �. � C1 h'r `Thr• Ile d � �O ..� ��, y � .��" m CA•r.J" bA � Ow ¢� Q Nw clay OU o .a � � c7w B ° •� ° � cn o y ^ovo y ^GvO � p5 muu u � a z muu ' �r V9 ,� '13 Peggy.Mandeville- 10.10.01 Mtg Nott Sks Dept.doc _ Fage 1 LATTACHN�Ntj 4 Meeting Minutes Page 1 October 10,2001 MEETING minutes Date: October 10.2001 Job Name: Mission Plaza West Job No.: 1401062 Topic: Parks Department. 11:00 a.m. . By: Erik Justesen,ASLA Company: RRM Design Group Debbie Jewell In Attendance: Peggy Mandeville.City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department Larry Tolsen,City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Terry Sandville,City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Rich Colombo,City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department Paul LeSage,City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department Linda Fitzgerald.City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department Carolyn Goosens,City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department Jeff Hendricks,City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department Frank Herandez.City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department Erik Justesen,RRM Design Group Debbie Lagomarcino-Rudd.RRM Design Group Debbie.Jewell,RRM Design Group Distribution: Item Discussion Action 1. Issues: • Need electrical service and outlets/hook-ups for events. • Need water services and hose bibs for eventsibooths. • Noise from events—no amplified sound in expansion areas. • Need better lighting. • Walkways too narrow for major events. • Pine trees are dying—need to replace with large trees. • Amount of events(35—40 weekends+25 Fridays of use). • Currently approximately 1.500-person capacity. • Booths are generally 10'by 10'. • Need space for carousel(35'to 40'diameter),pony rides.Santa's House,booth and open market events. • Seeding lawn in fall is limiting use of plaza • Amphitheater too small(200),aisles narrow,grass area is too steep. Peggy.Mandeville- 10.10.01 Mtg Not tks Dept.doc Page 2 j ATT CHMEN ' 4 Meeting Minutes Page 2 October 10,2001 1. Issues(continued): • Need spaces/screening for dumpsters in plaza area • Need more restrooms/places for portable flush toilets for events. • Need places to sit down and eat. • Tiles crack and are slippery. • Needbettersurfaces for sweeping/cleaning. • Need storage for event and maintenance(approx. 15'by 20'). 2. Ideas: • Talk to San Luis Obispo tourist promotions for potential uses. • Close streets Thursday afternoon/evening through Sunday/open during rest of the week. • Create semi-permanent street closure mechanism. • Make expansion areas more level. • Permanent booth locations? • Widen existing walkways. • Add noise mitigation measures—planting/walls/fountains. • Expand existing amphitheater's hardscape/seating areas. • Expand existing plaza for larger events in front of Church. • Close intersection at Monterey and Chorro for events? • ADA accessibility into existing amphitheater. • Extend existing plaza paving into expansion areas. • Benches—make skateboard proof/durable. • Permanent enclosure for portable restrooms(fence with trellis,etc.). 7 • Use stamped concrete for tile look where vehicle traffic is expected. • Use plants that are long-lived,durable,and not invasive (Not ivy,juniper,pines or eucalyptus). • Highlight this artistic.cultural and historical hub of the community. P/1401062/Produet/10.16.01 Mtg Nota Parks Dept s Peggy Mandeville—10:10.01 Mtg Note �ities.doc � �� _�i Page 2 �A7TACFi11 4 Meeting Minutes Page 2 October 10, 2001 1. Issues(continued): • Plant trees away from sewer lines. • Manhole at intersection of Broad and Monterey(Can move up or down Monterey). • Broad Street highway off-ramp are proposed to close in near term. • Trolley access/stop/drop-off at Brand/Monterey intersection. • Art Center drop-off.. 2. Ideas: • Check sewer and water laterals(get from Peggy). • Expand plaza hardscape to lessen impacts on lawns. • Phase activities that will possibly use lawns. • Create an environment that will enhance the plaza. • Vertical elements may help to draw people into expansion area • Public art walk/Art Center outdoor exhibits. • Expand Museum exhibits into outdoor exhibits. • Look at full and partial.streetclosures. • Murray Adobe-potential events storagelevents office retrofit. • Interview Museum and Art Center–ask how they would like t use plaza. • Historic granite curbs stock piled in City yards. • Use pedestrian scale lighting. �V, • Incorporate existing lightin m creek expansion by Nipomo. • Incorporate materials from existing Mission Plaza. • Incorporate existing creek walk features: n/1401062/Product/10.10.01 Mtg notes Utilities Peggy Mandeville- 1'0.10.01 MtgN'otesl' ESafety.doc Page 1 ATTACHMENT 4 Meeting Minutes Page 1 October 10,2001 MEETING minutes Date: October 10,2001 Job Name: Mission Plaza West Job No.: 1401062 Topic: Public Safety,9:00 a.m. By: Erik Justesen,ASLA Company: RRM Design Group Debbie Jewell In Attendance: Peggy Mandeville,City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department Betsy Dejamette,City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department Tim Bochum,City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Department Captain Dan Blanke,San Luis Obispo Police Department Sergeant Rocky Miller,San Luis Obispo Police Department Officer Erik Lincoln,San Luis Obispo Police Department Bike Patrol Erik Justesen, RRM Design Group Debbie Lagomarcino-Rudd,RRM Design Group Debbie Jewell,RPM Design Group Distribution: Contact: Officer Cindy Dunn,San Luis Obispo Police Department Bike Patrol Item Discussion Action 1. Issues: • Noise from events/complaints from neighbors. C Circulation impacts(service providers and emergency vehicles) • Quick emergency access into plaza. • Restroom and adobe—transients hanging out. • Restrooms use by transients—no soap or towels due to shower use. • Restrooms too small(only one stall). • Visibility-walls and elements that obscure vision. • Lighting at night. • Art Center and YMCA uses lawn north of their existing buildin . • Phone—people park at red curb to use phone. • Handicapped ramp should be maintained at public parking lot. • Ficus tree at public parking lot-roots heaving sidewalk. • Maintain 20' clear for fire trucks. i 1-18 Peggy Mandeville_- 1 0.f 0.01 MtgNotes' �cSafety.doc Page 2 ATTAWMWi 4 Meeting Minutes Page 2 October 10,2001 2. Ideas: • Control access with removable bollards. • Partial wall on both sides of new plaza access streets with gate and signs to notify entrance. • Police parking/turn around areas. • Consistent patterns of street closures(same day/hours). • Round-about at Monterey and Broad(possibly with fountain). • Close streets completely on weekends only. • Bike police at night. • One-way traffic with expanded plaza. • Relocate flag pole(possibly new one-like flag at recreation center). • Bulb out at public parking lot to accommodate Ficus tree roots. • Expand restrooms-possibly with event portables in an enclosure. • Create permanent food stands/cafes/retail in plaza to draw crowds. P/1 401062/Productli 0.10.01 McetingNous Oct 24 01 11 :33a FridayryightLive IauSiia�-Ycar r• � � � E- 8 O X r uj J O m $ o ;1 E �� S I.i O` •� 00 2 ,o0 r m m P ✓. 1 � ��LI II ° 1 wv Mil ago H < _ n o� cl oto so_ v Q V _ LnZ _ - a t _ g - T O_ lIL CIA 2-20 ATTaCHN�R� 4 �>7 T ��o O o O �O N tna0 � M 9 � R CA R rn ti o S 3snoH Y O .0 O .Y.. i7 ¢ O O ^ QN rA RCP) ® • rA 0 A m0Mci / U VnOanC • C) * M wA O h O O It M R�t > 9 Q 1 1 I Y• ` J 1 o ' � LU t AWA riYM C o o v' \ v > 610 at, ii, hh 5 �+, 7'a 2 �5 f11C rz a�Y 2-21 I j A{ Y/1fN•Q K V lr A TACHMENT 4 N o ® �> < p y L , 1 S � r 4 q p A _ g eon• ss ES SSS sS SS LS o! h T9 f! A9 59 99 fN 7 :99 o! 1t E , coV �J X,� o+T ft. oS 6f+ " th 9Ai SA I.A fA th /h ob A4 t£ 9 fE hE Et sE h f M y i (.Q WOE Peggy Mandeville- 10.10.01.Mtg Nott ities. oc ; Page 1 ATTACHMENT 4 Meeting Minutes Page 1 October 10,2001 MEETING minutes Date: October 10,2001 Job Name: Mission Plaza West Job No.: 1401062 Topic: Utilities Department, 10:00 a.m. By: Erik Justesen,ASLA Company: RRM Design Group Debbie Jewell In Attendance: Peggy Mandeville,City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department Luke Marden,City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Dan Gilmore,City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Jerry Kinney,City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Larry Tolsen,City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Terry Sandville,City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Erik Justesen,RRM Design Group Debbie Lagomarcino-Rudd,RRM Design Group Debbie Jewell,RRM Design Group Distribution: Contact: Bridget Fraiser,Historic Museum Project Item Discussion Action 1. Issues: • Types of plaza uses vs.street closures. • New sewer at Broad from Palm to Mello Property. • Sewer line under existing plaza needs to be lined? • All curb flows along streets. • Only natural rain water can drain into creek-no`clean up" water. • All street cleaning and fountain drainage must go into sewer. • Museum and Mission roofs drain to street. • Lawns get too much use,need reseeding. • Parking spaces(10)behind Cisco's need regular access. • Need to draw people into proposed plaza extension. • Granite curbs on Broad in front of Museum. • Historic Murray Adobe being restore for seismic a4iWIL- — 5prfet Q /as ) �`^ W ~ W ` 12 IL 't 141 CL cis Ir O X U U H Z S l J E Z J p •r C .0 u " to W 'L al b d s rz y ca C L" Y Ny -�.• E 0 � � c q o o A I o m ami o a °" a Q.� �_ � >, fl E e Z t� c era o w z �" "'. O • 8 i a a b m ca el W .... 0 O to d � U .a �. N r•r •� 41 U 04 '�, CCVV r C q '+.�' 4+ i 1 ` :ik�� CrO226 37 38 39 CLOn < rm Y QI U .A _ Vl O � a. :: w G coo v O y - 1►771 c to O C O . of i, .G O t O � -- - � O O O U gyp; O �. > >+ V O y I CL L ° ami s d cd ou 1>1 ca p ,OW� G = b L. Ia.W O 8 °' cd 3 •• m F m a •Cc :I =OOL � z LI O L1 � pct .r W Wit= � L� Qy3L < IN . 01 W Emu w I N .c 0 W ¢ s x ¢ o r ,J N �� � � � o _ aILI / Q .onam` E { C (J of s ,t�• '! Ja Ira' N I u' '7� 17C IZc o C2 T- cn cn ..... . z _ } , lift . ul LTT =. LL— Q_ Ilil _ 13 J _ y 7 v cc N 2-24 c r ■ f . �11b•'� i TTACHMENT G E U U x N U 0 o N 0 C U U o bL ® 0 rocn 4-4 4-1 L+.4 0 1� U cz -� 14 u E U4.4 U U N E cis 4? v� cd cz "Q u0 cei 0 cti a J iV ~cl u Ov 0 o ct U �O cn U o 7 .� � cn y ® 0 E u ^d u m co lc� bo b .O cit u E Q (n03 4-4 u b u c� U 0 � � a: U4 'd � a� z u c O C u c2p X � E U �° Eu -o >, � ° � 4 u ® x u W 0 r kc cd u U bA tiJ O 0 z -26 I AITACHMEff 6 �b c v Y U Y U .0 N � L CnJ V tYd .O _' .a v •N u �. Nm > uY Y C b N'ytEz o � cy � a4Ero Ei3o R O= C- x = Q3 cRi u-c u � Ya- G= R N r O Q R s .E C m N v+C u U V•' V U O O > N CYC C.a R CL 7 'y O u v^O v o o ' .-R�.- Y N..y E y R YU R II...N. p v C to v C C A N cRi m p v u [ o ELY c u ro.= �W �'bacYo � R. a..aw •y° �� Rc R °c�� 0 'ao•a v v 40'M a OD W Q 3 u �. C .a 3 cye.R cp no u c 3 _u .D C '� b •v u OYA"C O-C _% m y u .D m N Y ti 4J CV •7••O r•11 y R E.�' •ryi�l C j U E"O C u Y R C u ® � CC�"O•� v vi u W ° Y R 'C U � N� �F' U C j L to Pape r c 3 o v .R 2 E- .OA O O cE-gyp X" G•a O D- +�"+_� O > = ale¢ e7 � � [_ 0 N rtiqp M 0.0 cYe L u 0 u Bl 7 N C O..•Dtc . N N Oba u O, m 7•D u C R " u Y C c3e v O Y Y %o M.0 v �o� yoo Ong uy� � ac - off eco Off. S R ...•..�7 u O C c-E b 140072 E NXU-OM Mr- E ° �° o w eAaa ua> ci O R A.b .0 N.0 R L «u v W ='0 V u 3 R r.R 0 O-- C� y� J^DA¢ o > c Ol C C L Cr d co y C M-C -� r -pucw Raj Er p Y N ctl 7 V R L4G0 v .' u R C R E O p•C 'D E p o c R a u c �R u v .° c u CA J a u 0 oci c°Ac ° a cv e �•u E m � 3 u` ° y>+ u R GR RL x vL ►m.0 .. O E Rt .� v vL .y.. MAP '�' .u.. u.9 �'O «'O c 4 0 C C O -y ,D R v rvi, uO v O u m G x o u > 0.000 „U2ZaZ > ZQZ vC t37C Q * * * * * * * * * w * * * a * 2-27 Ii 8 3 q� q C 3 °• --i R(CpJc f �• = Q Q Y - o ® � Jj4 rr '' mmc Ya E wa ! �J A OD 9 ii S 0<a w`c i -------------- d� ►? =O yo a as V 7 n y1� ° &uu mss<y t3c cel �} g �e paa��.,y' FuEyq I• V a ' '� f E E yr�t Faa. i�s •• c°° '5u 3 Lrk�liat, 9 s� �ioa;�S et E a t s ys ;i�I jJ M C4 "t: _` •rQry` s c Sam �5 h p. E >fH M hzazzzm a'1 9- � tl ui !(pad Ty y ".I � •�� V G a C • q ♦ C 1 q 3u - -� { E o �o !•+• V_ p Err eklags zi as° 9� y y st } �� �q OEO Yee •°� �$ j Q'O • ro � :i6y�'2°ao �<o hl E= ry uy m LI<<ga�` y'�.JV' Epz Q m WSE Ecm •me evt3`3 4y e �;% o LIES 03• D. Q� til��`,w " �i••�s;F ATTA cHJW 8N N a o gy v eel F� M �� ",,U> 3 v Q a z Wit V Tam s �s C3 q:U L � sc L ♦\��f` � V Q 0 cl , " T7 a CL m o a I mat LD 3 O a tL a . IS • N Shy v y o +, TP, TN s � X10 Z o aJ2(OW aQ F aa, aLU 2-29 ATTAC 9 cs -zs O� c ; 0 _• x A.CS I M kA kA A- Tj rAA wd•u v i CSCD p- e cs 2-30 Peggy Mandeville-Mission Plaza Dog Page 1 From: 'Wiliam S. Walter, A Professional Corporation, Counselor at Law" AUAI� <wwalter@in-con.com> To: "Peggy Mandeville" <pmandeville@slocity.org> Date: 3120/02.4:25PM Subject: Mission Plaza Dogleg I received the Notice of,Public Meeting regarding the Mission Plaza Dogleg for April 4, 2002. Unfortunately, I will be out of the county during that meeting. My office is at 679 Monterey Street, which would be severely and adversely impacted by circulation pattern changes, parking impacts, impacts upon the historical character and ambiance of the area, the aggravation of existing loitering and vandalism problems(e.g. consider the Broad Street public bathroom closure/fiasco), consistency with the Circulation Element, the lack of an EIR discussing impacts, project alternatives, project segmentation (e.g. relationship to the badly outdated and non-general plan conformed "Downtown Concept Plan"), evaluation of the relationship to all reasonably foreseeable development within the area (Mission School expansion and traffic/circulation impacts, Art Center and Children's Museum expansion, cumulative impacts. The project appears to be a first step in mimicking the deadzone created by the downtown Fresno Mall and could severely take away from the existing balance and amenities of the Mission Plaza. Sometimes more is not better, but worse. In order to perfect the administrative record and to have an opportunity to exhaust administrative remedies, could you please provide, under the California Public Records Act: 1. All project documents and alternative plans. 2. All environmental review documents upon which the project and alternatives are being evaluated. 3. General Plan consistency analyses (if any). 4. Timeline for project implementation. 5. Correspondence regarding the project with other agencies(e.g. Caltrans), stakeholders, and property owners. 6. Data base (e.g. traffic, historic resource inventories)studies which provide a basis for the evaluation of this project. 7. Precedents/experience in other communities with this type of project. 8. Any clear and precise statements of the tangible goals of the project, use characteristics and levels. (This looks like a project that may not have considered what it is to be used for during the weekdays, weekends, evening, nighttime, frequency of special events offsetting circulation impacts). 9. Documents reflecting current use and overcrowding of the Mission Plaza and park improvements which require further permanent expansion (as opposed to appropriate temporary closures). 10. Anticipated levels of increased use if it were successful—where would people park?what would they do? in what quantities would they do it? (e.g. a recreational demand study). 11. Coordination with.Hy. 101 access. 2-31 ATTACW = ,� KATHY FREEMAN COMPANY r- jl Monday,November 05,2001 NOV - 6 2 Peggy Mandeville City of San Luis Obispo I C -` ! 1.U15 OBISPD 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Dear Peggy: In response to your queries about our preferences for the change in use for Broad Street,my husband and I would like to state the following: 1) We would support the complete closure of the street with wrought iron gates at the entrance to give the Mission Plaza a nicer entrance. 2) We don't see the purpose in the one way street idea. If you want to extend the Mission Plaza,you might as well close the street. If for some reason this idea one way street idea sticks,our preference for a direction would be South bound. 3) Closing the street Thursday through Sunday is fine but it seems like in doing a partial closing,you wouldn't be able to change the look of the street to enhance the Plaza. 4) We are adamantly opposed to making the street a parking lot. There wouldn't be sufficient landscape screening available for us to support having the front of our property be facing a parking lot. Please keep us posted on any further developments as they come along. We appreciate being asked our opinion. We have spent a lot of money on renovating our property and we'd like to ensure that any changes that the City wants to initiate are mutually beneficial. cerel Kathy Freeman Godfrey Keith J.Godfrey PO Box 1424, San Luis Obispo, California 93406-1424 800.883.3232 FAX 805.542.0 101 ���� *4Z— 17-13-Z- Offices: Century City, CA / San Luis Obispo, CA EE 1 IL U April 5,2002 APR 9 2002 i'- Ir WQ�'�KS HPikn-', T Peggy Mandeville Public Works,Department City of San Ws Obispo 995 Morro Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Dear Peggy, I attended the Mission Plaza Expansion Meeting last night RRM did a great job of presenting the infrmnation and options. I was unable to stay for the discussion bin wanted to send my comments to you. My two biggest concerns about the street closures are potential loss of parking spaces and increased traffic on alternate routes. It is my understanding that all the options retain the 24 parking spaces currently available in the area. I was pleased to see that. I do have reservations regarding the closure of the streets to vehicle traffic. I work in the 800 block of Monterey and park in City Lot 14 accessible from Palm Street which means I walk through the plan at least twice a day. Although the traffic study may not have shown any marked differences to the intersections in close proximity it is evident to me that the dogleg area is highly traveled. If the streets are closed I believe there would be quite an added impact on.Nipomo,Chorro and Palm as drivers try to find alternate routes to get from one side of town to the other. In my 30 years living in SLO it seen-,that given time most ideas,like this one come to pass. Personally I would like neither of the streets closed but I don't think realistically that will happen. So to me Preferred Option 4 is the best alternative- The idea of making the plaza more accommodating for booths used during events is good. It is a shame to have the grass ruined each year. I like the idea of incorporating some of the current design elements into any new secticns,like the trellis or the same pattern of pavement. It would help if a different method could be used between the brick. The mortar(or whatever it is called)used,currently doesn't seem to wear well. Another bridge connecting to Fliguera near the Art Center would be helpful. A fountain at the opposite end from the bear fattatain would most likely be a draw. Something that could be-A=from K,guera up Broad Street to lead foot traffic that way would be a real asset for businesses an the section of Broad between 1-iguera and Monterey. Iwould think itwould be imperative to have trolley stops as near to the core of the Plaza as possible. I have no doubt that whatever additions and changes are made will be nice. I do ask though that consideration be given to all involved not only tourists,or pedestrians but to residents and drivers.. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, I o� 6L, Jew E.Peno, 1255 C=m Road Space A14 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 2-33 ATTACHW 1 � � a ,. p� � r ..•,mac. . 1 � My \ � /�_ � ✓ Yy r .. � !! _ vp ; cc «+ A f6 fA C3 �j � �' 1• .0 61 .� N m v :c :a c L m C O r. N C v r\\ MEETING y uAGENDA a . DATE i ITEM # 2 June 4, 2002 Dear Ms. Mandeville: As a property owner of three land parcels on both Monterey Street and Palm Street, I am very much against the Mission Plaza dogleg plan. I'm wondering why the City of San Luis Obispo would want to spend money on a permanent closure of Broad Street, between Monterey and Palm, as the existing system seems to work quite well. I am also opposed to flag poles in front of my property as this would bring more loiterers and would be a bother to my tenants. I'm opposed too,to a trolley stop in front of my property because of the noise and again the loiterers in my driveway and yard and the litter that they generate. Temporary toilets in the parking lot, adjacent to my property, would be unsightly and bring noxious oders to the neighborhood, so I am also opposed to this issue. Thank you for allowing me to take this opportunity to ask you to please reconsider your plans for Mission Plaza. Sincerely, Michalyn Simpson 2641 Harbor Blvd. Ventura, CA 93001 805-654-0962 COUNCIL G CDD DIR �AO C FIN DIR �AO FIRE CHIEF TTORNEY C C PW DIR Z LEMORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS C REC DIR Pf �td- u DIR ElHR HR DIR MEETING AGENDA June 4, 2002 DATE 'L4 al ITEM # 2- RE: RE: Council Agenda.Report ........ _.. City of San Luis Obispo Meeting Date: June 4, 2002 Subject: STUDY SESSION: MISSION PLAZA DOGLEG UCouNCIL 7-1 COD DIR CAO ❑ FIN DIR ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Dear Ms. Mandeville; ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR PI CLERK/ORIG ❑ POUCE CHF DEBT HEA S ❑ REC DIR My 89 year-old mother; Marie Morganti lives at 658 Monterey Street he as m 1: uTIL DIR made her home in that location for over 65 years and my family hash ❑ HR DIR home in that location for over 100 years. In April, my niece and I spoke to you at the counter in the Public Works office and voiced some of our concerns regarding the proposed Mission Plaza Dogleg. It was quite informative to speak with you and you suggested that we put our concerns in writing. Not only does my mother live at 658 Monterey, but my sisters and I also own residences at 664 Monterey Street and 659 Palm Street: Both of these properties were built for family members and now serve as rental properties, with my niece living at 664 Monterey. Therefore, I believe it is important for that I communicate my concerns about the proposed Mission Plaza Dogleg as it affects the quality of life for my mother and perhaps the value of our properties.. On behalf of my mother, I am most concerned about any elements in this proposal that would create more loitering in the area and specifically in front of her house. Last year, a gentleman (with a past history of criminal activity) attacked my mother while she was standing in front of her home awaiting a friend to pick her up. She was pushed to the ground and her purse snatched. As you can imagine, we are quite concerned for her safety in a home she has lived in most of her life. Simply creating a larger Mission Plaza closer to her home will bring that undesirable element closer to her home. The current situation allows for extended loitering in the Plaza, specifically around the flagpole next to the Art Center. Locating a Trolley stop right next to her home would appear to be a problem. It will create a place where many people will be waiting for the trolley or dropped off, practically in her front yard. The Trolley stop will bring excess people, noise and the potential for property damage and litter to her home. We ask, that the Trolley stop not be placed in front of a residence. The entire issue of why the streets would need to be permanently closed is one that does not seem to be answered. All of the public comment that has been available thus far seems to oppose such a closure.. Who in the community is asking the council to do this? Additionally, it would appear that there are many questions open regarding the impact on traffic if the street closures were implemented. As I noted, we also own a residence at 659 Palm Street, which I lived in for many years with my family and I know firsthand the amount of traffic Palm street currently has.and what happens when there are limited closures of the proposed streets. Given the children in the neighborhood and the children attending Old Mission School and Mission Prep, it would appear to be prudent, if the city really felt it must proceed with these closures, to have a very thorough detailed study of the impact on traffic at all hours and days of the week. Other items of concern would be bringing flagpoles closer to my mother's home. They are noisy (clanging in the wind) and currently have the loitering issues discussed above. Portable toilets placed in view of our homes is also of concern; not only would they be unpleasant to look at, but they also bring odors, noise and more loitering problems. The use of the dogleg during special events seems to work well in its current form. A project to enhance the beauty of the street would be supported. Given the current economic situation and budget issues facing our city, is this the time to spend limited resources on a project that does not seem to have community support? Our family, our tenants and our friends and neighbors in the area ask that the council consider these points and proceed slowly and carefully on any plan to close streets and bring pubic use elements closer to these homes. I was able to attend the April meeting regarding this issue, but I will not be able to attend the June 4th meeting due to a prior commitment. It is my hope that before this project goes any further, the council will seek and listen to the concerns of the families who live and work in the neighborhood. Regards, Leslie M. Menges 4627 Snapdragon Way San Luis Obispo, Ca 805-544-1715 Council Meeting T,June 4,02 = Q E r- 1� L, MEETING AGENDA Subject: Council Meeting T,June 4, 02 DATE j '4 Z- ITEM # 2`.} Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 16:44:30 -0700 From: Eugene Jud<ejud@calpoly.edu> To: Christine Mulholland<cmulholland@slocity.org>, Allan Settle<asettle@slocity.org>, John Ewan <jewan@slocity.org>, Jan Marx<jmarx@slocity.org>, Ken Schwartz<kschwartz@slocity.org> CC: ecoslo<info@ecoslo.org>, Steve Crandall <cranlaw@aol.com>, Steve Peterson<petersonsg@aol.com>, Mike Boswell<mboswell@calpoly.edu>, Orval Osborne<oosborne@fix.net>, Babak Nafici <edcbn@west.net>, Larry Allen<lallen_apcd@co.slo.ca.us>, Leo Pinard<lpinard@calpoly.edu>, Margot McDonald<mmcdonal@calpoly.edu>,ppinard<ppinard@co.slo.ca.us>, Richard Kranzdorf<rkranzdo@polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu>, Richard Lee<rwlee@calpoly.edu>, Richard Schmidt<rschmidt@calpoly.edu> BCC: Brett Cross<brettcross@hotmail.com>, Carla Sanders <csislo@aol.com>, Dick Kreisa<rkrejsa@calpoly.edu>, Ira Winn<iawinn@pacbell.net> ¢OUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR Dear Council Members, SrPAO ❑ FIN DIR ��CAO 0 FIRE CHIEF You got correspondence from Arch. Richard Schmidt. about items n7TORNEY(WCLERK/ORIG C1❑.P,4N DIR POUCE CH - Mission "Dog Leg" pedestrian zone M= E&AC) REC DIR Housing Policy ❑ AEC DIR - "Fast Tracking" of Copeland Project incl. P-Garage (agenda 7/8) 0 HR UTIDIR LDI I agree with Richard and I thank him for his professional remarks: 1. "Dog Leg" is certainly not of high priority. I am all for pedestrian zones, but first they should be where the people r e a 1 1 y are, namely in Higuera Street, e.g. between Chorro and Morro Streets. 2. Housing Policy Just implement higher densities (transit oriented developments) ! 3. Copeland Project incl. Palm/Morro Garage. This "fast tracking" is against common sense, due process and it may be a violation of laws, e.g. CEQA. It is an insult towards the Planning Commission and towards the citizens, who just started to write their comments about the DEIR! Do you want them to stop their work, because it is already a d o n e deal? We ask you to please 3.1 Organize a public hearing on the DEIR, pursuant to CEQA recommendation (Appendix 1, which will follow to Council in hard copy) 3.2 Put this garage on the November ballot. We have statistical proof, that the garage is unneeded and not the preferred solution of the public (Appendix 2) . As written to you two years ago by "SAVE SLO", Prof. Richard Lee and myself are willing to debate you and your experts anytime on this subject. The garage is not at all consistent with the Circulation Element (Goals p,. 6/7 modal split objectives p.10) . According to statistics in a parking handbook by ITE and the National Trust for Historic Preservation San Luis Obispo Downtown is "overparked" not "underparked". We are concerned that the Council intends to repeat the unfortunate scenario that lead to the Marsh Street Garage expansion: - Voted down by the Planning Commission (5:2) - Voted down by the Cultural Heritage Committee (5:0) - Approved by a City Council (4 : 1) , who tends to listen mostly to lobby 1 o172 6/3/20024:48 PM Council Meeting T,June 4,02 i groups, with many members, who do not even live within the City Limits. Hundreds of citizens are now waking up: They see the ugliest downtown parking garage west of the Mississippi being erected along our Pacific Street. And we were told, that this is g o o d architecture! 3T.3 Suggestion: Could the Council please organize a public tour through this structure in September? Guide: Architect Ken Schwartz. Last concern: Why is the Council so afraid, to discuss the basic downtown transportation issues with his citizens, to the point where this Council simply shelves the respective ECO SLO petition with 1050 signatures (Appendix 3) ? Thank you for considering (and maybe even answering) the above points. Sincerely Eugene JUD, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers At: Faculty Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Phone: (805) 756-1729 Fax': . .02 Or: Jud Consultants POB 1145 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1145 Phone and Fax: (805) 545-5919 http://www.judcons.com 2 of 2 6/3/2002 4:48 PM Figure 2-1. Three Phases of the GEQA Process Phase 1Preliminary Review ♦ Pre-application consultation ♦ Application submitted to Lead Agency O Application determined to be complete 130 days from submittal,start of EIRrNegative Declara!ion time limits) ♦ Determination that project is subject to CEQA ♦ Review for exemptions Phase 2 , ♦ Checklist completed ♦ Consultation with responsible and trustee agencies O Decision to prepare EIR or Negative Declaration (30 days from acceptance of complete application) Phase 3 orNegative Declaration ♦ Notice of Preparation sent to responsible O Contract for Negative Declaration and trustee agencies preparation executed (45 days from O Responses to Notice of Preparation sent decision to prepare Negative Declaration) to Lead Agency(30 days from acceptance) ♦ Mitigation measures identified and O Contract for EIR preparation executed agreed to by project proponent (45 days from decision to prepare EIR) ♦ Draft Negative Declaration prepared ♦ Preliminary Draft EIR prepared O Public notice and review ♦ Independent review by Lead Agency (20-30 days) ♦ Draft EIR completed and submitted for review ♦ Responses to Negative Declaration received ♦ Notice of completion filed ♦ Comments considered P �~ ♦ Public notice and review of Draft EIR O Negative Declaration completed / ;180 days Irom acceptance) O Public hearing on Draft EIR(optional)(30-45 days) ♦ Commenting agencies notified D ♦ Written comments received of date of hearing on project ♦I Responses to comments prepared ♦ Negative Declaration adopted O Responses sent to commenting agencies 1 O Mitigation reporting and 10 clays before decision) monitoring program adopted Q Final EIR certified by Lead Agency O Lead Agency makes determination (1 year from acceptance) project O Lead Agency makes decision on project Negative Declaration months from Negative adoption) I i (6 months from final EIR certification) ♦ Findings written and adopted O Notice of Determination filed 15 days from project approval) ♦ Mitigation reporting and monitoring program adopted O Notice of Determination posted Legend I (24 hours from filing) Legen O Notice of Determination filed O Responsible agency makes decision on (5 days from approval) project(180 days from Lead Agency decision) ♦ "`"" O Notice of Determination posted �, ,__c.•- - (24 hours from filing) h"—::- :.-•: O Responsible agency makes decision on � I project(180 days from Lead Agency decision) 1 ' Process Complete CAL POLY CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC ST+rE U- IVERSITI' S,\N Li.Is 0RU ro.CA Q3407 June 21, 1999 Twenty-three students of Civil Engineering 222 (labs in Transportation engineering,) conducted eight hundred and sixty four interviews near the Marsh St. Parking Garage and the Palm St. Parking Garage, along with extended traffic surveys and downtown design exercises. The interviews were taken between Wednesday May 19, 1999 and Monday May 24, 1999 during the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Survey results, in the appendix, include the data taken as well as a comparison with a similar survey in March 1996. It should be noted that the recent survey covered the weekend while the 1996 survey was administered only on workdays. The recent survey covered a more car oriented crowd as it was taken near garages, while the 1996 survey covered a less car oriented crowd as it was taken throughout the whole downtown. Although it should be recognized that this is a student exercise the results should still be of interest. They can be summarized as follows: • Two thirds of the people who came by car did not have any difficulty finding a parking space. This number has been proven through several surveys, including the Meyer Mohaddes study. Since 1996 more thaotwo thousand people were interviewed in downtown on this subject. • On a workday, thirty percent of downtown visitors came by alternative transportation while on weekends the percentage is considerably lower as bus service is reduced. • The average visitor(who came by car)walks nearly five blocks through the downtown. • Nearly two thirds of the people interviewed would like to see the downtown more pedestrian friendly. • Nearly sixty percent oppose the idea of the double twin garages (Alternative A), namely Marsh II and Palm II. Theywould rather see two new garages on opposite sides of the doo (Altema People are highly sensitive to our cultural heritage. Around eighty percent object to the destruction of Palindromes and the Antique Shop in connection with a possible Palm II garage. Anyone interested in further processing the interviews is welcome to contact me. Sincerely, Eugene H. Jud, Cal Poly 756-1729 Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers S. Cal Poly, CE 222 Summary of Survey Results, May 19,-24, 1999 864 interviews were conducted from the hours of 11: 00 am to 4: 00 pm near the Marsh Street Garage-and the Palm Street Garage. 1. Are you a resident of San Luis Obispo? 2. How did you get to downtown today? Yes 70% Car 76 % No 30% Bike 7% Bus 6 % Tot. 24% Walk 9 % Other 2 % 3. Did you find it difficult to parkin downtown today? 4. Please estimate how far you will walk in the downtown today ' Yes 35% No 65% <2 blocks 24% 2-6 blocks 46% >6 blocks 30% 5. Would you like to see the downtown more 6. if more garages were needed,which plan would you pedestrian friendly? prefer Yes 64% Expansion of Marsh and Palm(Alt. A)? 41% No 36% Two new garages on the opposite sides of Downtown(Alt. B)? 59% 7. If you are for the additional Palm Street garage, 8. If you are for the additional Marsh Street garage, do you support the destruction of the"Palindromes" do you support the pedestrian bridge proposed and the"Antique Shop"as proposed with this garage? with this garage? Yes ' 22% Yes 50% No 78% No 50% Comparison with Survey of March 1996 How many people surveyed were residents of San Luis Obispo? 1999 70% 1996 80% Form of transportation to reach downtown. 1999 Car 76% Alternative Trsp. 24% 1996 Car 70% Alternative Trsp. 30% ' 6 Did you experience parking difficulty? Walking Distance: 1999. 35% 1999 <2 blocks 24% 1996 40% 2-6 blocks 46% >6 blocks 30% 1996 <2 blocks 20% 2-6 blocks 50% >6 blocks 30% Plan in connection with question 6: City Council Plan:T "A9 PAL " 8,usfiM1y P- '• e PRL M ST. PALM ll MuNrcFcT sT• � N MAPESit 1 5r Cis+h.� P- '. a ppos a „MARSH p u I Alternative Plan:: ��z N `y TI a ti k ti 4 P' e i PALM 57. 1� i nfoNTEILL' ST, O � Pio/°v fro/-O 2 1 P t nnt,C C 7 "EAYT 'WE-57" s First Name: Last Name: Section California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Civil and Environmental Engineering Department How much parking space do people need? Homework, due in one week In transportation planning, a lot is just common sense. But there are paradoxes. For example in an official brochures)published in the year 1979 the city of San Luis Obispo, says the following, based on recommendations of a traffic consultant: "There are 4300 parking spaces in Downtown... a) About 400 spaces are needed right now to serve downtown stores and county government offices. b) If more stores and offices are built downtown (which was done), possibly as many as about 900 more spaces will be needed by 1990. c) If new county government offices are built downtown (which was done), about 700 more spaces may be needed by 1990." Therefore (4300 + 400 + 900+ 700=) 6300 spaces would have been needed by the year 1990 (and even more by now!) in order to avoid economic loses for the merchants etc. In reality, according to another report, in 19972)we had only 3700 parking spaces in Downtown. j Therefore Downtown should be in miserable shape economically. However,the contrary is true. l� Downtown sales are growing 4% annually or more and rents are climbing higher. ' A) Explain this phenomenon in 10 lines B) Give your recommendation to,the City Counsel about the future transportation policy for Downtown SLO. C) Mention on which official documents you base your conclusions. d o � Averwie toe a/c « 7D G C Ci iaa y h 2 d .h tiy, cn•. ,�..a " °tea �\ OYC/'G (O —P' I ss�,,. 4K 22— IN O p C R � F VLL r rime 8� d Tlmc �) "Goals for Downtown," Oct. 1979, p.6, Department of Community Development, 990 Palm St., SLO (still available) 2) "Downtown Access and Parking Study," Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. !st Report, Spring 1997, Figure 89 (shown above) n a a SAVE THE DOWNTOWN ! Downtown Parking and Transportation: A Petition For Real Public Participation (see plans'for alternatives "A" and "B" on back page) The City's plan to'build additional parking garages on Marsh Street and Palm Street (Alternative "A") has alarmed citizens and neighborhoods. The proposed Marsh Street addition will route increased traffic through the downtown and adjacent neighborhoods and the proposed Palm Street garage (directly across the street from the old one)'will also bring new traffic to the downtown and farther impact historic Chinatown. What is at.risk is the pedestrian atmosphere of our friendly downtown. Professional planners, citizens,and students have worked hundreds of hours attending hearings, analyzing reports, and designing Alternative "B".-This alternative places new parking garages east of downtown, in the area bordered by Santa Rosa, Toro, Marsh and Monterey, and west of downtown, within 3 blocks of the Marsh Street freeway interchange. Alternative "B" routes traffic around the downtown and maintains a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere like in Santa Barbara or Santa Monica. Pedestrians will never havetoclimb stairs to use an ugly overpass as currently proposed by city staff in an area with 3 histone buildings. We; the undersigned, petition the City to suspend current plans for new parking garages until public workshops on downtown transportation have been held and the public given the opportunity to participate in the process. Such real public participation must include: • Assistance by outside experts on pedestrian-friendly and eco.nomicadly viable downtowns • A "traffic walk" with citizens and decision makers through downtown • Design groups where people can draw up their own visions for downtown • A citizen's recommendation fora preferred alternative • Funding for citizen participation and design For more information, or to return signed petitions contact: Eugene Jud, businessman, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers at 545-5919 • ;�ECOSLO at 544-1777, 864 Osos Street, SLO, 93401 Name Add ress Phone Richard Schmidt 'x 544-4247 M0613/2 02:04 PM D 1/4 MEL.ANG AGENDA RICHARD SCHMIDT DATE 6" Z ITEM # _ 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail: rschmidtQcalpoly.edu June 3, 2002 City Council, City of San Luis Obispo A o COUNCIL 0 coo DIR 990 Palm St. VIA FAX — CA [2 FIN DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 W�TTORNEY 0 FIRE CHIEF p U<LERClK/ORI4 ❑ PO DIR E3 DEPT HEADS POLICE CHF Re: Item 2, June 4 Agenda -- Mission Plaza Dogleg D REO DIR AIDA -HRDIR Dear Council Members: Please pull the plug on this project before you waste any more public funds pursuing it. There are many good reasons for pulling the plug, and no good ones for continuing. 1. The project's name says it all -- Mission Plaza Dogleg. One wonders why sIp aza," which is a large open public space, needs which is an out of the way byway invisible from the main plaza? As a public space, the dogleg makes no functional sense whatsoever. 2. Closing Broad will create a traffic hassle downtown, and we don't need any more downtown traffic hassles. Broad is a through street, from the airport to the freeway. With this closure, any thm gh traffic on Broad will have to jag-an- iguera or Marsh over to Chorro or Ni omo. This will create congestion and slowing down of traffic. This is dumb traffic management. Any of you ever been on the "dogleg" when school lets out and seen the bumper to bumper cars there and on down to the freeway? So, are you going to force this standstill congestion onto Palm, and thereby clog up another artery? 3. With the city's tightening fiscal condition -- plus all the other spendthrift plans now being touted -- it makes no sense to invest scarce public funds on this frivolous boondoggle. 4. The only use for the "dogleg" is as exhibit space on those handful of times per year when such space is needed. On those occasions, for the past 30 years, we've functioned just fine by closing the street for the day. That is a least cost alternative which works very well. Leave it be. 5. Closing this portion of the city's circulation grid is antithetical-to hew urbanist-principles so many council members claim to support. The new urbanist paradigm encourages a complete traffic grid. The "dogleg" closure will cut off part of a well-functioning grid which provides a new urbanist web of ways to cross town. It should be left open. Sinerely, RECEIVED Richard Schmidt `JN 3 , 200' SLO CITY CLERK MEETING AGENDA. DATE 6P- .._._.ITEM # May 31,2002 Ms.Peggy Mandeville Transportation Associate rh�.n City of San Luis Obispo [5OUNCIL _ CDD DIR ©,CAO = =1N DIR Via email: MACAO = IRE CHIEF GkI&ORNEY _ PW DIR RE: Council Agenda Report DL-2tERKlORIG E PCUCE CHF City of San Luis Obispo LO DEPT iJWS _ REC DIR Meeting Date:June 4,2002 ❑' _ = JTIL DIR Subject: STUDY SESSION: MISSION PLAZA DOGLEG UPDATE RE = R DIR Dear Ms.Mandeville, My name is Debra Paul and my husband,Clinton,and I live at 664 Monterey Street. In April,I spoke to you at the counter in the Public Works office and voiced some of my concerns regarding the proposed Mission Plaza Dogleg. I appreciate your time and the information provided. I have now received notice that there will be another meeting regarding this topic on June 4th and I am putting my concerns in writing to you with copies to all city council members. The home at 664 Monterey has been in my family for close to 100 years. My grandfather and mother were raised in this home and I lived there as baby. I intend to live here fora very long time and hope to see future generations of my family live in this home. Therefore,I am extremely concerned about certain components of the proposed dogleg,as it will definitely affect our ability to the quiet enjoyment of our home. Listed below are my concerns arising from your report referenced above and my review of the different plans of the extension prepared by RRM Design Group and made available by your office: 1) I have significant concerns regarding several items listed under the sub section titled"The Vision." It is my impression that the descriptions provided therein are based on"conceptual'plans only. I am not aware that sufficient study has been undertaken of any issues that would result from implementing these"conceptual'plans. I am not an attorney,but Mr. William Walter raised several points in his 3/20/02 email (Attachment 10 to above referenced report)to you regarding the studies and reports that may need to be done for all parties to understand what the impact will be. Therefore,it would be prudent for all parties to exercise caution when referring to these"concepts"and not assume that such a conceptual plan is ready to be implemented. 2) I support the fact that Mission Plaza is used for community events. With the exception of a few amplified music problems,the existing program for closing Broad and parts of Monterey Street works very well during the times these events spill over into the `dogleg". 3) I support adding elements that would unify Broad and Monterey with Mission Plaza. However,I am not convinced that the streets need to be permanently closed to achieve the needs of the community and visitors to our community. Who in the community is pushing for this project to be implemented? All of the public comment I have seen appears to have concerns about the project. 4) The issues listed below are specific concerns I have regarding the proposed extension after reviewing the plans prepared by RRM Design Group: a) I am strongly opposed to a Trolley stop in front of my house due to: i) Safety Concerns-a Trolley stop will leave significant numbers of people right in front of my home. Loitering is already a significant issue in this locale and this has the potential to increase that problem. My 89-year-old grandmother was assaulted and had her purse snatched just last year at Broad and Monterey. ii) Noise-the Trolley is noisy. The engine noise and vibration will be unbearable if the Trolley is RECEIVED top, ing in front of my house. Even now,when the Trolley comes to a stop at the stop sign at v i� 3 2002 SLO CITY CLERK w Broad,all the windows in my house vibrate! Additionally,there will be noise from the people using the trolley service. iii) Potential property damage and litter-Currently there is tour bus parking in front of my house (which I am not too happy with,either-but at least there is less frequent use of the space)and I constantly have to pick up garbage left behind by their patrons. It is not unusual to find people on my steps or on the rock wall in front of my home. b) I strongly object to the construction of a cement pad with a trellis in the parking lot next to my home. It is my understanding that this would be used for portable toilets during events. Problems would include: i) Odor-Would you or any council member want public portable toilets in your front yard? That is what this would be like. ii) Loitering-this always an issue. iii) View-Who should have to look out from their window at public portable toilets? iv) Trees-What would happen to the trees that are there? I believe the pepper tree and the palm tree have been there for many years. c) Flag Poles-One plan indicated that flag poles would located near my home. The intent is to draw people to the plaza. Flag poles raise a couple of concerns and I do not think there is a problem with people finding the plaza: i) Noise-Flagpoles are very noisy in the windy situations. Metal parts clang against the metal pole in the wind and create a noise nuisance. I currently experience this issue with the single flagpole and it is several hundred feet away. ii) Loitering-this is a problem with the current flagpole as noted in Attachment 4. Why would this problem not just relocate to the front of my home? 5) Stakeholder Meetings: you noted in the report that meetings had been held with the stakeholders and that now you recommend the residents of Monterey Street be included as part of that group. Not only do I agree that all the residents of the area,Monterey,Palm and Broad streets should be considered stakeholders,I think it needs to go beyond inviting us to these study sessions. The same type of meeting that where held with other stakeholders should be held with those residents and business owners. These meetings should be set up a time that is agreeable to all parties. I do not understand how any plans that have significant impacts to my home could have been developed with out soliciting any input from me. In summary,I would support a plan that incorporates Mission Plaza design elements in the dogleg area. The Trolley stop needs to be located away from residences and I believe it currently stops right in front of the restrooms,which seems to be the best location. I am unclear for the need to close streets,as I see the current system working quite well and think that an enhancement of the area blending in treatments from the plaza and adding other design touches would be the most prudent. Given budget restraints and required capital improvements in our community,it seems to me that the most fiscally responsible course would be to do the limited types of improvements,which must be much more cost effective than the full street closure and improvements in the plans submitted. I appreciate this opportunity to share my concerns. I am traveling out of town on business on June 4 and will not be able to attend the meeting. Due to my travel schedule,the best way to reach me is via email: debrahr)aul@aol.com. Respectfully, Debra H Paul 664 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo,CA �� �ilaflill�I�II�H�I�) p�lllllllll ® City � ��1 l�,ll� OBISPOi 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 MEETING AGENDA: May 23,2002 DATE /oz ITEM # AZ CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION NOTICE MISSION PLAZA DOGLEG UPDATE The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a study session to receive a report on the Mission Plaza Dogleg project and will direct staff regarding the development of plans for environmental review,Cultural Heritage Committee review, Architectural Review Commission review, and City Council review of a concept plan for the use of the Broad Street Dogleg(street segment between Palm and Monterey Street)as a public plaza area. The study session portion of the meeting will be held on Tuesday,June 4,2002,beginning at 4:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at City Hall,990 Palm Street. The public is welcome to attend and comment.Written comments are encouraged. Applicants and appellants,or their designated representatives, are allowed to present testimony to the City Council. The time permitted for this testimony is ten minutes. All other public comments are limited to three minntPc Other items may be discussed before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at,or prior to,the public hearing. The agenda report,including recommendation by staff,will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk(Room#1 of City Hall)the Wednesday before the meeting(May 29,2002). For more info 2'o please contact Peggy Mandeville in the Public Works Department at 781-75 0. r Lee Price,CMC City Clerk Mission as z� Art 41'(A�e4 Center �P TT'e City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and,activities. a ecommupications Device for the.Deaf(805)781-7410. GZp RECEIVED MAY 3 0 2002 SLO CITY CLERK COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR AO [IFIN DIR ACAO [I FIRE CHIEF foRNEY El PW DIR LERIK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF I3 DEPT HEADS ❑ REC DIR pl TQtI5wA a ® HR DIR council 914'�: a2 j acEnas Report C2 C I T Y O F SAN LU I S O B I S P O FROM: Ann Slate,Director of Human Resources Prepared By: Karen Jenny, Risk ManagerA� SUBJECT: FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE NO. 1416 TO IMPLEMENT ONE- YEAR FINAL COMPENSATION WHEN CALCULATING RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR POLICE SAFETY EMPLOYEES CAO RECOMMENDATION Grant final passage to Ordinance No. 1416. DISCUSSION On May 7, 2002, the Council voted 5-0 to introduce Ordinance No. 1416 to print, which authorizes an amendment to the City's contract with the California Public Employees' Retirement System to implement one-year final compensation when calculating retirement benefits for Police safety employees. Ordinance No. 1416 is now ready for final passage and will become effective thirty days after the date of its final passage. ATTACHMENT Ordinance No. 1416 C2-1 ORDINANCE NO. 1416 (2002 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM WHEREAS, the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law; and WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to amend this contract is the adoption by the governing body of the public agency of an ordinance authorizing the amendment and. directing the Mayor to execute said amendment. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That an amendment to the contract between the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A', and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full. SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the names of the Council members voting for and against it, shall be published at least five days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance will go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 7' day of May,2002, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 2002, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: C2-2 Ordinance No. 1416 (2002 Series) Page 2 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: G. rge n, Attorney C2-3 i, Exhibit A Page 1 of 4 IIS,, Ca1PERS California Public Employees' Retirement System Aa- AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration. California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council City of San Luis Obispo The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective July 1, 1952, and witnessed June 9, 1952, and as amended effective October 1, 1962, October 3, 1963, October 1, 1974, June 1, 1976, December 1, 1976, December 20, 1978, January 16, 1980, May 1,1980, July 1, 1980, July 1, 1983, July 1, 1986, July 23, 1987, November 16, 1989, August 8, 1993, November 5, 1999, January 7, 2000, July 6, 2000, September 21, 2001 and March 28, 2002 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective March 28, 2002, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members, age 55 for local fire members, and age 50 for local police members. 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after July 1, 1952 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. C24 PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" Exhibit A Page 2 of 4 3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members); C. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: a. CROSSING GUARDS. 5. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 55 Full). 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local police member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 50 Full). 7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local fire member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21363.1 of said Retirement Law (3% at age 55 Full). 8. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 21573 (Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local fire members only. b. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local miscellaneous members and local police members only. C. Sections 21624, 21626 and 21628 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance) for local safety members only. d. Section 20965 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave). e. Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation) for local miscellaneous members and local police members, and for those local fire members entering membership on or prior to July 1, 1986. C2-5 PLEASE DO NOT SIS "EXHIBIT O�N " xiitA Page 3 of 4 f. Section 20475 (Different Level of Benefits Provided for New Employees). Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation) is not applicable to local fire members entering membership after July 1, 1986. g. Section 20903 (Two Years Additional Service Credit) for local miscellaneous members only h. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of 1976. 9. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on June 1, 1976. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. 10. Public Agency shall contribute to' said" Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial. valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21573 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local fire members. b. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local police members and local miscellaneous members. C. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. d. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. C2-6 Exhibit A Page 4 of 4 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effectil� on the day of BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION QCT CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIRE,,%- T SYSTEM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBfS ``�� ,Oj- BY BY �. KENNETH W. MARZIOI�,rGHIEF PRESIDING Q CER ACTUARIAL & EMPL R SERVICES DIVISION \� PUBLIC EMPLOYE RETIREMENT SYSTEM � C�� Wi *t s Date �<<YAest: Clerk AMENDMENT PERS-CON-702A(Rev.8198) C2-7