Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/11/2002, 2 - STUDY SESSION: MISSION PLAZA DOGLEG UPDATE COUY1C11 +� June/2002 acEnaa uepoat CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIS PO FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville,Transportation Associate TTI• 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 traffic 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 fust 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 intent before 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 environmental and 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 5 2. Traffic Study. A traffic study was conducted to arialyze 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 tum 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 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 14, 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 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 commercial/residential 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 (e.g. 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. ExistinS 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. 1. 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 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 alternative 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 alternatives 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 ATTAOMW1 Alission Art Center J Mission Plaza Dogleg Location Map �J 2-10 • P :_..__.. ;'. — '1{►ter. �fi.�' (fid i �.� ....: �"�' —. C'' ' L ` / •• � � � l '/f T UVJ I`• �� r 1. t L `�•� a�°f '. .2A..�� 'lis �* - -� �� - 1. ! � E i KR ► �Ex IN `�` i� -• \ F : tit', •`' �n3.,. 40 if PA Nil 111 p e gg,WMENT 0 low v o � t� gra.« � LU v OD id �i � om � ma, ear z � w 41 U R fE p or OD OD EX 6W cc mows �r .6Q� �i iG N r0. R C7 O eo W43 �p m t4 O C a U L y y M U c q z IVU UUH Q � z c�aUU �� u C —a um 'i YF ylF V'VV w.' 'nC k Peggy Mandeville- 10 10.01 Mtg Nofes' '(s Dept doc F age 1 -- `ATTAC iWi 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 I Rich Colombo,City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department I Paul LeSage,Citv of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation.Department Linda Fitzgerald,City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department I Carolyn Goosens,City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department I' Jeff Hendricks,Citv of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department Frank Herandez,City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department / Erik Justesen.RRM Design Group 4 Debbie Lagomarcino-Rudd.RRM Design Group Debbie Jewell,RRM Design Group i r Distribution: i .Item Discussion Action 1. Issues: f • Need electrical service and outlets/hook-ups for events. 1 • Need water services and hose bibs for events/booths. • 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. i i i i I s` 2-14 _ _ i'Pe Mandeville- 10 10.01 Mt Notes <e Dept doc Psge 2" 99Y 9 ATTACHMENT 4 Meeting Minutes Page 2 III 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. • Need better surfaces 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 aftemoon/evening through Sunday/open durin rest of the week. • Create semi-permanent street closure mechanism. Make expansion areas more level. • Permanent booth locations? • Widen existing walkways. i • Add noise mitigation measures—planting/walls/fountains. Expand existing amphitheater's hardscape/seating areas. • Expand existing plaza for larger events in front of Church. '1 • 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. i i P/1401062/Product/10.10.01 Mtg Nota Parks Dept - 4 l I 2-15 i Peggy Mandeville-10.10A1 Mtg N o-te's, 'ies dot Page 2, � Nfj 4 ,I Meeting Minutes Page 2 October 10, 2001 i i 1. Issues(continued): • Plant trees away from sewer lines. • Manhole at intersection of Broad and Monterey(Can move up r 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: a 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 street closures. • Murray Adobe-potential events storage/events office retrofit. • Interview Museum and Art Center—ask how they would like t use plaza. s� • Historic granite curbs stock piled in City yards. — a r�A � • Use pedestrian scale lighting. vV4 __�V e Incorporate existing lighting creekexpansion by Niponio. • Incorporate materials from existing Mission Plaza. i • Incorporate existing creek walk features. i n/1401062/Product/10.10.01 bltg notes.Utilities . c 2_17 Reggy Mandeville- 10.10.01 MtgNotesPI Page .................. ITTAMMW 4 Meeting Minutes Page I 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 Departritent Bike Patrol Erik Justesen,RRM Design Group Debbie Lagomarciho-Rudd RRM Design Group Debbie Jewell,RRM Design Group Distribution: Contact: Officer Cindy Dunn,San Luis Obispo Police Department Bike Patrol ItefijC DiwusA6 -.Action 1. Issues: 9 Noise from events/complaints from neighbors.' * Circulation impacts(service providers and emergency vehicles) * Quick emergency access into plaza. e Restroom and adobe—transients hanging out. * Restrooms use by transients—no soap or towels due to shower use. 9 Restrooms too small(only one stall). e Visibility -walls and elements that obscure vision. * Lighting at night. * Art Center and YMCA uses lawn north of their existing buildinj * Phone—people park at red curb to use phone: e Handicapped ramp should be maintained at public parking lot.. e Ficus tree at public parking lot-roots heaving sidewalk. o Maintain 20' clear for fife trucks. -248 9 - � _ , •� -- . _ Pe Mendevdle -10 10 01 Mt NotesF ;Safe doc , AnACHMENTI 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. k • Consistent patterns of street closures(same day/hours). I • Round-about at Monterey and Broad(possibly with fountain). • Closestreets 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). e Bulb out at public parking lot to accommodate Ficus tree roots: e Expand restrooms-possibly with event portables in an enclosure. • Create permanent food stands/cafes/retail is plaza to draw \ crowds. i I I i i P11401062/Productl 10.10.01 MwingNotes u 2-19 Oct 24 01 11 :33a FridayNightLive ibi --rca . �. AW J:�3 o � d S1Cc X53 a . o IZ jj Z — ZIZ O LL o LU n U Q 1 La V cn ms= Z I n � � I it l U / 3 4 1 O ! � Z W $0 z V _ `DCa .Lid 1 v ]ff.' .'. v 1 � I jz � I 2-20 AITACHNE(R 4 �Y K J W p' *,t O K 0 c CL F O O O O O Z QS��nvg o0 `r gtt h / O ® • --- Z Cd Cd Ld C / I-- 00 00 Q� . � OhO O7M R4,t H x \ W r � W 1 -►TYM TTbM ET £ t' f►t =WED IbZ Z1 Itit w Ck VL-A h Kill Z 1.rs �i \ a 0 LK-knj l5 w u V � n 9 � 9 W u c — �` u v7 Ift a° ~ • ° ° Fo® 9 pt ar 'K 2-21 a� �� d5 -ip 11 ArTACHMENT 4 1 TI B , 1 M z •. __ p a i omo n � 1..�M IYI• h S _.., Ea.ec Q INN ss ss s ss .sS a s es n sg f! A! sl 99 tf 8Y N o€ x :c it IS Of1 b"b smi ti, fh SA A.A fA to /h Ob £ S 6. f .mss . . - -- -- � - Cie .}� •Iay. O 1 • 0 �. _ � 1 • aV � o L Ui0 Peggy Mandeville-10.10.01 Mtg Nofe `ities doc Page 1] tATfACHMENT 4 Meeting Minutes Page I October 10,2001 i 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 i 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 i 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. i • 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 astiuuie.% _ _nfei� �I 2-16 •r'7- c•�� R. p Q a> 0dL C�. O. O wC = O .Z o `� 3 O ins i' CL) ' .t C9 3y sip Z 'I G �► a 8 o x ca cca LU 32 t _J �; — CM v 7 Cid � a�•of � � ` 7� ©r, f I:• L .a ...� O r.. g R > r reJ Q G1 ma cis .8 {r �r O 0 to a '� 00ate.. O V 0 00- (n y ' lu '. r e■ cis }cc G _ v O m of y N1 • --- ` a s uo . •. • cTcza — y — a - L91% .c < �10 O � f eu a cd N . R E ms U y o v p o J to Cd •.�I O .2 O Y telQj 00 o O 66B:O O U 3 y ti O C O. O Nv y� y y c O V ti y w ca E c vje ai a, an J O •O O y V ton o o ' 3 I N `� w a. d C r a3 0 . x C CIS D � ^ .n C : 3 — 3 m 3 ° Q •+ r. r y 0 Iel Q 7 7 y �M� -- J.�po 1:>3 m a Jadz OL o7Xq LU — N /t Em me I� ay - Q Z - W a �. O n ® / C 0_ O Y :cc 0 IF LAIfK v 'NI C—�- • L.3���JJII IV Oul F • 1 N x r Vic: � � � x �- � � �• 4 y :11% YL a N 2-24 �.� 0 ��►: = , s - } i V A _ TTACHMENT IN N U ^ +r at � �q O w N ., 0O cd •� U ct a� �I o 41 3' o - 3 ^ N GJ CJ g � u Ln y O ,+ U N A "C cl +, h cc ~� rn O ct u fL Oi4 U ccs F� CC ^ •ice S."' E U E lu U M U cz n. u O z -26 l ATPACHMDM �-p Dv �v W R C N N N p V U Dfi '' *' O bG. c E i > V U'C' V C U C Cs O N •� R .0 u V •C C R K.D wN oDE4 u c o o as ° oW4 7' R o•N a N' v a, .".•. K C, ..n V C Cb R W q E KN K V� N � I+ U � N •>� U N p O '� O 4 C II. aob n U 4 N Eco E N K a 4 R'O .> N �. DK d N 7 y V V u V V �u�y 7 R 4 vi wN E « R 4. U R C Q..O M.r u -Cl eb > ao UW wCl " Noa Y Y C C V m V U K W E II• p E u c'O 'C c c° N vaR E. �« p � ccE 3 0 y Y EU•�R CLQ R ur u c ra V N NE Cl CD b., v vw t4oC C.CL> 3 u e, c� y Vc C: 'no3ccc KW o ° -70 mcK v a pox . ovo �LEcR, o 3�¢ m C4�V,aw ;::EaJU5 ® K Cd C N 1 ° a E C 4a L V O ' 7 V CL N y n.'a ® to �.i N d y K p u U Q R�.� n xD— Lu CCw k O q RT' K V �.a •D N C='! .O oi'S. �'TJ.CL N O V. GK N b 3 �o S'o� Y. o Dw o o NDE uo ° EQ 3v �..> 0 4o g Q o E y W o 4 K v U L•w''D C V y N 4 a:>s� sx 3 (J K . CJ X a L u 4 a 3 va u = u � E o c ow V �•' U W K N p I� y y0 K cVc.II L N L R, y « W C c 5 o r-'— Y v o L o R E u V p S O Q.b CC 7.t: u L O'O D > .+ D W E C aK.V„ OiC D0 c coDc v a .� E m DRn m4.. r. u� ,: c O '= aKu Y. ^ R a N m K X U U U U U 4.aU+ Q.i >� a v z� z > zcz ° � * * * a* * . * W * * W * 2-27 ATTAt 7 s Jjt CT s�E ^+ ICVC yA. 5'xi a�e Qa 'Em -- � - + Cat eS��a= Sed �� 1 " '- �[0 •,� .... i ii ilk LC9IE e.cen�'ry'eC� Eyao 2 n ,9 IGiCF fZ= +�q� >-a a .yr��.� V[ •.1 a �� � aJ txl 4NO s y E ��,::�..,: C7 C3 a.. c p n`°g m w �11 C ♦ " to yeea v7a — ��� C. R ` V E.:'e B`o`er u$• YS p, e°d j oIL .9iei goAO oS�Z;L ° Hit zazzzm pT r J+ o� 1t' V d Jd a^! of 1 I O .� JL5 -�� Y I it r � y m � e ayE i i e M1 � segs m.Onp.°C�L ��'•t r9$ p,,uEa rya QVv �8` a,p�ye,Ys >a �eETIi $e�� as a Sa$ taa nc Ef4i Z' :—sBa9 wwA 'Q.—2p mSE E'9. <SE�e'= p3 �6i.E tl�o jo�5ma � r'i 9n� _ eE-E r I N s 0. Q er(I 1 C6 0 �1 AD \ TQ 5 3 Z �� ksy �3 m� Q" y ..( ¢0.y IU0.c M aQ m-is a LL 96 Owl er � # � o l• ^ i( K�///lpp i y ;s`o, awn awQ /'� � r ! . n.�/ .IB i• r(/d L a6 . —� \). ,/�.. ` J`a• ,`�_� '�1 chi a� a +� / a LD a. p i i OL Z a a�Du YQ A rFAU UPFo : Q b I 1 2-29 ATTAGMAW 9 '-V ,•• Fri� , '/!,.^`� \ c `pY�A- LAIx CS ` Y 4 11 } •xw - � y l Vim.ol cs � - CaCS 1 s ►-' �+-- cs 2-30 ATTAOW v From: 'William S. Walter, A Professional Corporation, Counselor at Law" _ <wwalter@in-con.com> To: "Peggy Mandeville" <pmandeville@slocity.org> Date: 3/20/02 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 Mail 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 aRemative 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. S. 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 ATTAC .� s-� KATHY FREEMAN COMPANY I7 L'_� 1,ll Monday,November 05,2001 NOV - 6 �IL Peggy Mandeville City of San Luis Obispo 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: I) 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 G Kathy Freeman Godfrey Keith J.Godfrey PO Box 1424, San Luis Obispo, California 93406-1424 800.883.3232 FAX X 805.542.0101 L -32644—Ofices Century City,CA San Luis Obispo, CA ATTACNOIT I Agri] 5, 2002 APR - 9 2CC2 Peggy Mandeville Public Works Department City of San Luis 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 information and options. I was unable to stay for the discussion but 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 Lon 14 accessible from Palm Street which means I walk through the plaza at least twice a day. Although the trafficstudy dy 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 strers are closed I believe there wrnild be quite an added impact an Alipommo,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 SIA it seems 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 hest 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 same of the current design element-,into any new sections,like the trellis cc the same pattern of pavement. It would help if a different methal could be used between the brick The mortar(or whatever it is caller!)used currently doesn't seen to wear well. Another bridge connecting to Iliguera near the Art Center would be helpful. A fountain at the opposite end from the bear fountain would most likely be a draw. Something that could be seen from I-Hguera up Broad Street to lead fan traffic that way wrnild be a real asset for businesses on the section of Broad between Fliguera and Monterey. I would think it would 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 you time. Sincerely, Jean E.Reno 1255 Orc urt Reed Space A14 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 2-33 ATTAO MW 1 4 ® 1 aX r Aft . 52 / \ /..ems ,.;. .: `-"- '. .,•�" w do y i eQ6 h ro �j Wy aj i vm m 3 S G c c C v � rV MEETivwz AGENDA on DATES ITEM # A y .,y T r'.. j� Coniinued 404 June 10, 2002 JIAtje 4,� 2 0o Z RECEIVED o'CC' ' C,_ - CJD DIR Allen K. Bolds, Mayor 520'CAO 7 =IN DIR JOhnEwan jJn 1 I 20x7 [CACAO = --RECHIEF Christine Mulholland TTORNEY W DIR Jan Howell Marx SLO CITY CLERK DEPT HEAD d R=C DinOUCE HF Ken Schwartz d DEPT MEADS C AEC DIR e0M_f UTIL DIR 990 Palm Street " e'- =' HR DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 5401 Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members' This letter contains comments about the Mission Plaza dogleg closure. I apologize for the delay in writing, but I have been coping with the recent illness and death of my mother. My family is owner of commercial property on Higuera and Cho=, including The Network rind file patio b6hind it. We have 666h long-tiff sUppailers Of Mi9si6n PIWA. On April 4, 1 attended a meeting at the An Center and expressed my feeling that the Broad Street dogleg should not only remain open, but should continue with two-way traffic. Despite the visionary and highly successful closure of Monterey Street in front of the Mission, street closures with conversion into pedestrian walkways have been notorious for unintended cbfi U&Ieft failurag artd deleterious 6f OM On SUrr6Unding areas. The beauty and unique qualities of San Luis Obispo and its downtown are loved by many citizens and well known to outsiders. in this se ''rig, t! dealsion to close a street must weigh potential benefit against potential risk and I think the risk is not worth taking. In the past forty or so years, public awareness of pollution and social costs of the automobile has greatly increased. Unfortunately, that awareness has been accompanied 9b only minimal improvement in dfMiV beehavior. My unfemed OpinI&I is fl5at the me 6rity cirlvers who frequent the core area of downtown would not choose to have the dogleg closed. I suggest adding a fifth option which might read something like this.- p.,5-continues two-way traffic on Broad between Palm and Higuera; this segment is designed as a beauUM avenue with brick or stone paving, trees, planters and design features that"calm"traffic; permanent, attradive gates are placed so Oat the street can be dosed for events. Mission PI&M can be expanded Witt`tout dWiiig Broad Street Further, the WW- itself can be designed with beauty and functionality that will direct the eye to the Mission, Art Center; Museum, Creak and, most Importantly, to the Plata, Itself. I support the visionary and beautiful Conaeptual Physical Plan for the City's Center, a pian.toiled over b y many individuals. However, I urge the City Council to reconsider that part which stats: Broad and Monterey should be abandoned and converted info pedesOan ways as axVnslon to Mission Plc a, I intend to be at the Council meeting on June 11 and would appreciate the oppoKunity to make a few more comments. Thank you for your time and, again, I apologize for tine lateness of this letter. Sincerely; Leslie R. Naman, MD c: Ken Ham n, City Adminlsu&M OMC*r, Mike McCluskey,Public Works Department P Mandeville, Public Works Department ErikkJJustesen, RRM Debbie Jewell, FIRM Debbie Rudd, RRM Deborah Holley, Downtown Association RO�OUNCIL ID CDD Dip CAO O FIN DIP CAO 1: FIRE CHIC F RED FILE May 31,2002 7-f CRNEY 1: PW DIP I�LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CIT MEETING AGENDA Ms.PeggyMandeville 1 1: RTC DIA DATE_-11XITEM #SS2 Transportation Associate ❑ RTIC DIP Transportation Vr :n City of San Luis Obispo ® HR DIP Via email: RE: Council Agenda Report City of San Luis Obispo Meeting Date:June 4,2002 Subject: STUDY SESSION:MISSION PLAZA DOGLEG UPDATE 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 4`s 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 for a 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 Concems-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 topping in front of my house. Even now,when the Trolley comes to a stop at the stop sign at 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-Flag poles 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: debrahoaul@aol.com. Respectfully, Debra H Paul 664 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo,CA MEETING AGENDA DATE 6 1' °a- ITEM # CO �d-, June 11, 2002yw Z /64 r Law d-KJ MEMORANDUM fof<</pZ TO: City Council FROM: Deborah Holley, SLO Downtown Association Administrator SUBJECT: Mission Dogleg The Downtown Association supports the preliminary design for developing the Mission Plaza dogleg in concept with a multi level parking structure built at the corner of Palm and Nipomo streets as a component of the overall arts district. C?"'COUNCIL CDD DIP LRrCAO =iN DIP C'rACAO Z :'FIRE CHIEF LalORNEY 'W DIP CICLEPKORIG C POLICE CHF ❑ -rp �q� L RECUTIL DIP p' N : UTIL DIP rW 9 1 HR DIP RECEIVED JUN 1 ' 20022' SLO CITY CLERK RED FILE MEETING AGENDA From: <MaryPagel@aol.com> jTEM # 55 2 To: <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@sl ir ;-/l•oz <jmarx@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: 5/31/02 2:30PM Subject: Mission Plaza Project We would like to communicate our concerns regarding the proposed closure of Broad and Monterey streets and the 'Preferred Option" plan. We will be present at the study session on June 4th and would be happy to further discuss this with you. We have lived at 669 Palm Street for twelve years and prior to that our great aunt lived in the house. We have a two year-old child and a dog. The concerns we have include the following issues: 1.The report states that"there will not be a significant impact on vehicle circulation as a result of the closure". We take exception to this. statement. Having lived at.this location for twelve years, the traffic flow is significantly impacted by the closure of Broad Street resulting in increased traffic on Palm Street and other adjacent streets. This is clearly evident on weekends when special events are held and that area is closed off, on Thursday nights for Farmers Market and on weekdays when Mission Prep and Old Mission School parents are dropping off/picking up their children. Closure of Broad Street will significantly interrupt the flow of traffic particularly that generated by drivers coming from the southern parts of the City. 2. With young children in our neighborhood (as residents and school children),we are particularly concerned about the safety issues presented by providing more space for loiterers and the related incidents of alcohol abuse, drug use and drug dealing we have witnessed over the years (and most recently this past Sunday). 3. We feel the proposal does not adequately consider the residential quality of the neighborhood and, in fact, diminishes it. A significant portion of our block consists of parking lots. The proposed option essentially creates another parking lot on Broad between Palm and Monterey and detracts from the residential characteristics of the neighborhood particularly the residences located on this section of Broad Street. The proposal also places the Trolley stop in front of a residence on Monterey Street which already deals with continued tour bus parking and calls for dumpsters to be located adjacent to this beautiful residence. We have many questions and other concerns regarding the project specifics but at this time we would ask you to shelve this project due to the economic uncertainties of our time-the city's resources including your time are best spent elsewhere. If you feel it is imperative to proceed, weask that you go very slowly, enhance the existing area and ensure that the planning process is inclusive to those who make this area their home. Sincerely, OUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR .,AO ❑ FIN DIR Mary&Ted Pagel � AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Home 543-7125/Work 543-5034 Q ATTORNEY G PW DIR YCLERK/ORIG IC.,-POLICE CHF ❑pp''ll�P11.TRTC DIR� [I UTIL DIR �]' 0 HR DIR