HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - Parks & Rec Master Plan Update Parks and Recreation Commission
Agenda Report Meeting Date: 11/04/2020
Item Number:
DATE: November 4, 2020
FROM: Greg Avakian, Parks and Recreation Director
Prepared By: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner, Community Development
SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update
RECOMMENDATION
1. Provide feedback to staff regarding the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan
Element Update
DISCUSSION
At the October 7, 2020 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting,1 staff requested responses from the
Commissioners on the following three questions:
1. What are the amenities that are most important to prioritize, understanding operation
and maintenance costs? Consider near-term (0 to 5-year, 5 to 10-year) and long-term (10
to 20-year) timeframes.
2. What are the parks and facilities that are most important? What parks and facilities
should be our highest priority to improve? What spaces?
3. What is the right fit between amenities and parks (what amenities should be where)?
The Commission’s responses to these questions were informed by their consideration of information,
analysis, and public testimony and correspondence provided throughout the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan and Element Update process to date. The summary presented below does not specifically reflect a
consensus determined by vote, but rather the overall feedback that staff is incorporating into the Update
for further consideration by the Commission and the public. Notes from the meeting are included in
Attachment 1. Any clarifications or additions are both welcomed and encouraged as our team is moving
towards preparation of the first draft of the Update to be presented to the Commission and the public for
discussion at the December 2, 2020 Commission meeting.
1 PRC Agenda Report, October 7, 2020 available here:
https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=130641&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update
Page 2
Overarching Philosophy Regarding the Update
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Element Update should further activate the Parks and
Recreation Department’s Mission Statement, to Inspire Happiness by creating Community through
People, Parks, Programs, and Open Space, and identify parks and recreation as an essential service for
the community of San Luis Obispo. The Update should support and facilitate this by providing for
community health, wellness, security, and safety; design excellence; and environmental stewardship.
The Update shall be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Active Transportation Plan, and Climate
Action Plan, including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility, safe multi-modal access to parks
and facilities, and maintenance and expansion of our City’s urban forest.
Parks, facilities, amenities, and programs should be decentralized, and provided throughout the City to
serve the full community equitably. Recreational and community gathering opportunities should be
located within safe walking or accessible distance of each neighborhood and promote community
organization and a sense of ownership by residents. Neighborhood parks should include amenities for
both active and passive recreation, and depending on the location, include a focal gathering point such
as a gazebo. Gathering spaces would provide opportunities for local-level programming, such as
concerts, events, educational opportunities, fitness classes, and food trucks in collaboration with local
residents, businesses, non-profits, and faith organizations. The Update should provide for sufficient
facilities for all and consider flexibility in both space design and opportunities to re-envision community
spaces (i.e. vacant buildings, shopping centers, rooftops, parking lots, and schools). The City Parks and
Recreation Department should have the resources and staffing, and community and corporate
partnerships, sufficient to create, support, and maintain these parks, amenities, and programs.
The Update should consider opportunities for improvements and renovations within existing parks and
facilities in the short term, while also considering long-term fiscal responsibility including economics of
scale, cost/value of new land acquisition now and in the future, new sources of revenue, and community
partnerships. Identified gaps between need and capacity should be prioritized. The Update should
identify the current inventory and condition of existing parks, facilities, and amenities, identify existing
and future community needs and deficiencies, assess the capacity and usage of existing parks and
facilities to accommodate existing and future needs, and determine a dynamic path forward to achieve
and exceed the City’s identified level of service and acreage standards for parks and amenities in both
the short-term (0-10 years) and long-term (10-20 years).
What We Heard
What are the amenities that are most important to prioritize, understanding operation and
maintenance costs? Consider near-term (0 to 5-year, 5 to 10-year) and long-term (10 to 20-year)
timeframes.
Near-term (0 to 5 years). Staff heard the need for dog parks within the City, within walkable distance
from existing and new neighborhoods, including improvements to the Laguna Lake Dog Area. We heard
a need for income-generating facilities; improvement and maintenance of existing parks and facilities;
consideration of amenities for families and small children; and community-based park activation.
Comments included re-envisioning of Laguna Lake Park and portions of Meadow Park,
renovation/reconstruction of the Ludwick Center as a multi-generational and multi-functional
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update
Page 3
community center, and addressing parking and aquatic recreation capacity at Sinsheimer. Short-term
priority recreational activities included a bike pump track, diamond athletic fields (youth and adult),
rectangular fields (adult), turf field space, and pickleball.
Near-term (5-10 years). The Commission identified near-term priorities including a sports complex,
maintenance and renovation of Sinsheimer as a multi-use and event space and expansion of the Swim
Center, renovation of the Ludwick Center, re-envisioning and activating Meadow Park through a master
plan process, and implementation of the Mission Plaza Concept Plan. Identified amenities and facilities
included diamond fields (adult), a community center at Laguna Lake Park, tennis courts, and pickleball
courts. A need for urban forestry in parks, including an inventory and cost assessment for the planting
and maintenance of trees within City park was identified.
Long-term (10-20 years). In the long-term, priorities included renovation/reconstruction and activation
of Sinsheimer Stadium into a multi-use facility and community center, expansion of fields at Sinsheimer
Park, construction of a multi-sports facility with indoor and outdoor recreation and amenities,
renovation/reconstruction/relocation of the Ludwick Center, and land acquisition for new parks and
facilities.
What are the parks and facilities that are most important? What parks and facilities should be
our highest priority to improve? What spaces?
The parks that were considered most important and our highest priority to improve included the
following, with a focus on potential, public safety, park activation, and community building: Laguna
Lake Park; Sinsheimer Park (as a whole) including the Swim Center and potential opportunities on land
currently used by the school district for bus parking; Downtown parks including Mitchell and Emerson;
Islay Park; and Meadow Park. Maintenance of the Ludwick Center was identified as a priority.
Commissioners identified a need for more local/neighborhood parks, land acquisition for new parks,
neighborhood events, and community areas (activation opportunities in the short-term and long-term).
What is the right fit between amenities and parks (what amenities should be where)?
The Commission requested additional time to think outside of the box when considering this question.
Initial feedback included consideration of the interface between park/facility amenities and residential
neighborhoods, and the specific feel, accessibility, and ownership of the neighborhood. Community
parks should be easy to access without a vehicle. Active recreation facilities could be considered in
destination parks. Smaller parks should provide activities such as bocce ball. A teen and family focused
facility could be considered at Emerson Park or Meadow Park. The Senior Center could be relocated to
the current Parks and Recreation Department building at Emerson Park, which would allow for
additional recreational or community opportunities at Mitchell Park and Emerson Park. A multi-use
community center is needed in the City. Additional amenities identified by the Commission included: a
dog park and other amenities at Johnson Park, with consideration of the adjacent neighborhood; a bike
pump track at Laguna Lake Park; a dog park, teen center, or secondary pool facility at Meadow Park;
and revisioning of Sinsheimer Park, including expansion of the stadium and swim center, parking
accommodations, and acquisition of bus parking area to provide expanded or additional amenities.
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update
Page 4
Additional Input from the Commission
The Parks and Recreation Commission should further consider the third question: What is the right fit
between amenities and parks (what amenities should be where)?
We invite the Commission to think outside of the box, as the Master Plan Update is not limited to lands
and buildings currently under ownership by the City. Policies could be identified in the Update that
would facilitate future land acquisition or partnerships to meet the needs and aspirations of our
community now and in the future. Staff looks forward to additional comments from the Commission and
the public at the November 4, 2020 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENT
1. Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, October 7, 2020 – Summarized input from the
Commission and the public
The input heard from the Commission and the public is summarized below.
Table 1. Amenity Timeframe Prioritization
What are the amenities that are most important to prioritize, understanding operation and
maintenance costs? Consider near‐term (0 to 5‐year, 5 to 10‐year) and long‐term (10 to 20‐year)
timeframes.
Near-term (0-5 years)
Dog parks
Separate areas for small and large dogs, provide fencing
First improve Laguna dog area then look for other locations
Possible phasing ‐ temporary solution with fencing then long‐term solution (with restrooms, etc.)
Locate such that people are to walk to dog park from their home
Facilities that generate income, build on community services
Re‐envision Laguna Lake
Bike pump track (with community support/partnership/volunteer labor)
Ludwick Center – cross‐generational community building; renovate for accessibility; seniors
Diamond athletic fields, youth and adult
Rectangular athletic fields, adult
Turf field space
Pickleball
Sinsheimer
Address parking
More capacity at Sinsheimer pool and associated building; need more swimming (bigger
pool/another pool)
Upgrade all existing amenities, start off with good base (safe, accessible); upgrade what we have now
before moving on
Tier 1 items, small fixes; upgrading landscaping at Eto Park; ADA access (Throop); refer to WRT
assessment; good maintenance of existing parks
Consider amenities for younger children/families with small children (Anholm Park, for example) –
provide amenities for smaller children in parks
Park activation, concerts, food trucks – community based (low‐end costs)
Meadow Park – add dog park (where softball diamond is located); softball field current location
difficult because of proximity to roadway; identify a new location for softball diamond
Near-term (5-10 years)
Sports complex (tournament‐based play), money generator
Sinsheimer
Renovation of Sinsheimer (event space/multi‐use space)
Building maintenance
Swim center expansion
Diamond fields, adult
Tier 2 items (as identified by WRT)
ATTACHMENT 1
What are the amenities that are most important to prioritize, understanding operation and
maintenance costs? Consider near‐term (0 to 5‐year, 5 to 10‐year) and long‐term (10 to 20‐year)
timeframes.
Meadow Park
Master Plan for Meadow Park (currently an under‐used facility); has good potential for exercise
programs (indoors), activation with food trucks or café in building; re‐envision this park
Add dog park where softball field is currently located; identify a new location for softball diamond
Urban forestry/trees in parks; need inventory of park trees (what they are worth/value and cost of
maintenance and establishment); invest in maintenance results in longer lifespan of trees
Mission Plaza – implement concept plan, activation
Community center at Laguna (need two in the City)
Ludwick Center renovation
Tennis courts
Pickleball courts (thinks higher demand in the future; hard to schedule multi‐use; will continue to
grow; LOS identified now is likely too low; possibly include in complex); need 8‐9 courts
Long-term (10-20 years)
Sinsheimer
Stadium; make more of a multi‐use facility (concerts, outdoor movies); activate as community
center outside of baseball
Fields expansion
Multi‐sports facility (additional); possibly south of City
Indoor recreation
Barnie Schwartz in Paso Robles (good example); diamond adult fields than can be converted to
youth fields, include snack bar, soccer fields
Complex (note very expansive, high maintenance, high parking demand)
Ludwick Center – rebuild, reinvigorate
Land acquisition for new parks
ATTACHMENT 1
Table 2. Important Parks, Facilities, and Improvements
What are the parks and facilities that are most important? What parks and facilities should be
our highest priority to improve? What spaces?
Laguna Lake Park
Great potential, consider how best to use this space; central to City
Appropriate siting; protection of natural area/open space
Good possibilities for build‐out
Sinsheimer Park (as a whole)
Swim Center – very popular
Consider trade with school district (land swap with bus area); build‐out Swim Center or
other facilities at Sinsheimer
Ludwick Center
Maintenance (reduce long‐term costs)
Community building
Downtown parks – Mitchell and Emerson, encourage people to use, achieve safety (lighting
possibly); Mitchell dark, people uncomfortable walking dogs at night; community center,
draw more people together
Islay – space for local dog park, walking path, stage/amphitheater (performances, recitals,
gatherings); get people and families to park
Emerson Park ‐ flagship park, pride (site of P&R building)
Mitchell Park ‐ activation, safety, bring more people to the park
Meadow Park – activate, add in amenities that community will appreciate, connections to
bikeways/sidewalks already present
Need for local/neighborhood parks
Two solid parks on each side of the City, then fill in
New parks/new land acquisition ‐ highest priority
Neighborhood events
Community areas, see what we can activate in the short‐term, middle‐range cost projects
ATTACHMENT 1
Table 3. The Right Fit Between Amenities and Parks
What is the right fit between amenities and parks (what amenities should be where)?
Consider interface between fields and residential area (Laguna good location; not
immediately impacting residential areas)
Consider neighborhood feel, accessibility, ownership
Community parks, easy to get to/walk to
Independent activities (tennis, volleyball), can be destination
In smaller parks – bocce ball courts, Mitchell Park (maybe move Senior Center)
Biking and walking paths (safe access without having to drive)
Senior Center
Revamp current P&R building into Senior Center (more open and inviting)
Relocate Senior Center; re‐use land at Mitchell Park
Teen center/gaming center/bowling alley/indoor activities (maybe located at Emerson or
Meadow Park)
Johnson Park – underused, near Sinsheimer, dog park; consider adjacent houses
Laguna Park – bike pump track
Meadow Park – dog park, teen center, secondary pool facility
Sinsheimer Park
Sinsheimer Park needs overlook, expansion of stadium, swim center, parking, building
itself (master plan)
Acquisition of bus barn (trading land by airport); vital land to Sinsheimer for
expansion/new amenities
Ludwick Center, relocate – need more space; need major community center (teens, multi‐
use)
ATTACHMENT 1
PUBLIC COMMENT/QUESTIONS:
1.Events/concerts in park, community building (Meadow); bicycle connectivity to parks; Bob
Jones trail connection; Climate Action Plan implementation; bicycling healthier than
vehicle/parking
2.Tournament facility – critical piece, land area/acquisition, should be 5‐10 goal (secure in short‐
term) for more options in the future
3.Islay Park – shade structures; shade structures and trees (even better) in parks
4.Good quality bike racks front and center
5.Lighting that does not disturb neighborhoods
6.Grills – encourage family attendance
7.Restrooms; Wi‐Fi; Bicycle stations; Water stations; Big pond (not Laguna); ducks, birds, reeds,
etc.
8.In regards to prioritization, I agree with commissioners/public on the following points:
a.Rick's process. The recreational activities with the largest unmet needs, however you
determine them, should rise to the top of any list as opposed to just trying to pick off
the cheapest or easiest unmet need. Please don't prioritize by cost. I think it is
important to understand where the City stands now in the efforts towards reaching the
Park Access Standards goals listed under Policies/Build Community and Neighborhoods.
The Park Acreage and Access Standards chart there shows aspirational standards but
does not tell anyone what the city has now. In my opinion it should also have a Current
Acreage column. According to the LUCE EIR it would look something like this;
Community Parks = 2.5, Neighborhood Parks = .7, plus misc parks for a whooping total
of approx. 3.47 acres of City owned parks per 10,000 residents. Not even close to the
goal. Note: The LUC EIR also noted 151 acres of Joint Use acreage (not City owned),
which work out to another 3+ acres/10,000. Example on a micro level...how many
basketball courts do we have and how many do we need, etc., then compare with other
deficiencies (baseball diamonds, soccer fields, etc.) to determine the biggest shortfalls
and prioritize accordingly.
b.Adam's & Steve Davis' remarks about 5‐year priorities. See above. If we are already
short 6.5 acres per 10,000 now, what will that look like when all the current housing
gets built. Therefore, it is, in my opinion, of the utmost importance to acquire land NOW
or the big‐ticket items on your wish lists will never get built. If the commissioner who
commented on how expensive he thinks a sports complex will be now, think what it will
be like trying to acquire land 10 or 15 years from now. If you are serious about new
facilities and land, these acquisition/CIPS should be high on your list of priorities
regardless of their costs. This is a visionary document in many ways and I think you
should wish big.
c.Finally, Bob's vision. I like the idea of not being locked into some rigid, check‐off list of
priorities/needs. It didn't work out that way with the to‐do list of last P&R Plan. The
priorities should somehow be flexibility enough to allow for completion of some if/when
unique partnering opportunities, resources and/or financing become available and/or
needs change.
ATTACHMENT 1
10/7/20
RE: Item #2 - Parks and Rec Master Plan update- High Priority for Dog Parks makes sense
Dear Commissioners,
As you deliberate on recreational priorities for the Master Plan update we want to continue sharing why making
enclosed dog parks a high priority makes sense:
1)The City of San Luis Obispo has over 13,000 dogs that have no enclosed place to go off-leash;
2)The City has 11 existing parks that could carve out an enclosed dog park (1/2 acre or larger) without hindering
existing activities within these parks;
3)An enclosed dog park caters to almost all ages (small children would need adult supervision);
4)Dog Park improvements a) have relatively low costs (see following worksheet on material costs); b) can be done
in small increments once basic components (fence, water, all weather surf ace) are installed, and c) are 'low tech'
(which can work well with volunteer organizations that are willing to provide the labor and/or materials);
5)Wherever dog parks are constructed, they will promote walkability within the immediate area, which is a long
standing City goal;
6)There is an organization (Friends of SLO City Dog Parks) willing to help the City to achieve this unmet need. This
group is also in the process of becoming a SOl(c) non-profit group to help raise funds once an enclosed dog park
is approved within the City.
Thank you for your continued support to improve the quality of life for the citizens (and canine companions) of San Luis
Obispo.
John McKenzie
Friends of SLO City Dog Parks
ATTACHMENT 1
Dog Park Amenities (based on a Yz-acre enclosed dog park)
Essential elements (following items, unless specified, are for material costs only, prices rounded up to
include tax, prices obtained from Home Depot website on 3/5/20)
Prepare Plans -cost TBD
Site Preparation -cost TBD - likely very minimal in most parks; survey/mark boundaries
Fencing (ll
•4' high Everbilt wire mesh per 100' = $80,
•4"x4"x6' pressure treated posts (8.5/100 ft@ $9 ea)= $76.50,
•2"x4"x 8'top and base pressure treated boards (17/lOOft @$6.50) = $125,
•2"x4"x4' support member (1 per 8' length= 8/ 100' @ $6.50 ea) $52;
•hardware per 100' (staples (1/2 lb $3), screws (1 lb/$7) = $10
•concrete base (8.5 holes/100' @ $4/90 lb bag) = $36
Subtotal material costs per 100 ft.= $380
Perimeter fence for Yi acre (100' by 220') = 640 linear feet=
Big/small dog separator fence -100 ft.=
Top cap (optional) 2" x 6" x 740 ft. (93 -8' boards@ $10 ea)= $930
$2,429
$380
{1} The proposed fencing here is different from the wrought iron fencing used at Laguna Lake Park and is a less
expensive option.
Entries with double gates (4 needed): each location costs (1l: -
•6' x 4' chain link fence gate -$75 x 2 = $150;
•6' x 10' concrete pad -15 cu ft. concrete /0.675 = 23 90lb bags of concrete ($4 ea) = $92;
•rebar 50' (5 [$4.50 ea] @ 10') = $22.50;
•20' wire mesh fence (see above -$380/100') = $72
Subtotal per entry= $337 x four locations=
Vehicle gates (2)-chain link 2-panel, 10' by 4' @ $130 ea=
$1,348
$260
{1} The proposed gates are different from the wrought iron work used at Laguna Lake Park and is a less
expensive option.
Ground cover -Option 1 -wood chips 3" thick over 22,000 sf= 272 cy -$350 to $600/1000 sf X 22 = $ 1, 100 to
$13,200 for material, delivery and labor {if city provides wood chips, cost could be $0 if volunteers spread)
Option 2 -grass -costs TBD -may already exist
Trash receptacles (one large at each entry (2)@ $30 ea) -
Stand alone Waste bag dispenser and disposal bin (8) @$300 ea -
$60
$2,400
ATTACHMENT 1
Signage (dog park sign -large (1), rules sign -large (2), internal info signs (8)) -cost TBD
Water spigots/water lines (2/3 for large dog, 1 for small dog) -cost TBD
Total of above items with costs -$14,577 - $20,077
Top cap (optional) 2" x 6" x 740 ft. (93 -8' boards@ $10 ea; lib deck screws ($7)) = $937
With city supervision, many of the above items could be installed with volunteer help, if allowed.
Optional elements
All of the following optional elements could be probably added at little or no cost to the City. They are mostly
independent of each other, and could be installed at anytime. All of the following are included because each will add to
the positive dog park experience for the dog and human alike. None of the following require 'specialized' people to
install beyond basic skills. Some limited oversight by the City at times may be appropriate. If the materials are provided,
volunteers with a basic DIV skill set could be used. Friends of SLO City Dog Parks could solicit such volunteers, should the
City desire. A dedication/memorial program could also be developed where an individual (usually someone who has lost
a favorite companion) would pay for one of the following items and a commemorative/recognition plaque would be
installed with the item. Also, Cal Poly construction major includes classes that look for small projects ($5,000 or less) that
a class can design and build during the quarter-long (3 months) class -most of these items would fit this criteria.
•Perimeter (and internal) landscaping including memorial trees -most would be placed outside fence, with one
or two rows of internal trees to provide shade/internal dog 'boundaries'
•Water tubs -would need to be on raised platform with good drainage all around -suggest 2 in big dog section
•Obstacle/agility equipment -one in big dog section
•Toys/balls w/ storage bins-at least one in each section
•Benches -5-6 in big dog area, 2 in small dog area; should be 'permanently installed on concrete;
•Tables -3-4 in big dog area, 1-2 in small dog area
•ADA walkway (could be combined with a fundraising effort, such as inscribing a person/ company/ dog memorial
or recognition on the individual bricks to be used as the walkway); should have one in each section
•Info kiosk (1)
•Entry Signage (1)
•Supplemental entry gate features (covered roof, etc.) (up to 4)
•Shade/wind protection structures (up to one in each section)
•Bathrooms (many existing parks already have these)
•Parking (many existing parks already have this)
•Storage shed for maintenance/other equipment (1)
•Maintenance equipment (shovels, wheel barrow, rakes, broom, etc.)
•Wash-off station -very useful if tubs are being used and/or all-weather groundcover is not grass (one in big dog
section)
•Surveillance camera (would need electricity and to be mounted on a tall pole)
•Dedication element-could be above mentioned walkway or part of other element (e.g., wind protection 'wall')
•Electrical -signage/security lighting (however, as a 'dawn to dusk' operation, this is not required)
Ongoing Maintenance -Costs will vary depending on the type of ground cover and other amenities, as well as how
much ongoing volunteer help will be available.
ATTACHMENT 1