Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6a - ADVANCE ITEM_Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future 2021-41*Advance distribution of Item 6a. The complete agenda packet will be available Tuesday, June 29, 2021. . Item 6a =1P._ Council Agenda Report Department: Parks and Recreation Cost Center: 7001 For Agenda of: 7/6/2021 Placement: Public Hearing Estimated Time: 60 Minutes FROM: Greg Avakian, Parks & Recreation Director Prepared By: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE: 2021-2041 (PARKS AND RECERATION PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE) THAT WILL SUPERCEDE THE 2001 PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Active Transportation Committee: 1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021- 2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) and adopting the associated Initial Study/Negative Declaration (GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021; Citywide);" and 2. Adopt an Initial Study/Negative Declaration; 3. Approve the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update); and 4. Authorize the Parks and Recreation Director or their designee to approve future administrative revisions to Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan) as necessary, so long as the revisions to not alter the vision and themes of the Plan, project recommendations, and substantive content of the document, and any such revisions are documented in writing, evaluated for consistency with the adopted Initial Study/Negative Declaration, and provided to the City Clerk for record keeping. REPORT -IN -BRIEF The City Parks and Recreation Department has prepared the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update "Plan Update") to guide the future of parks and recreation facilities and programs in the City for the next twenty years. The current Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Element (2001) is proposed to be replaced in its entirety by the Plan Update. Item 6a One notable and important change with the Plan Update is that the Plan addresses urban parks and recreation, and no longer includes plans or policies related to the City's Open Space, which are appropriately addressed in the City's Conservation and Open Space Element (adopted in 2006) and adopted Natural Area plans. This report provides an overview of the Plan Update, including goals, policies, and implementation. The Plan Update incorporates the comments and direction received during public input sessions on the draft Plan Update from the Active Transportation Committee (ATC), the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), and the City Council Study Session on the Public Draft Plan Update. No modifications were recommended by the Planning Commission. All specific edits incorporated into the Plan Update following release of the February 2021 Public Draft Plan are identified in Attachment D (Public Draft Plan Revisions) for reference. All advisory bodies unanimously recommended adoption of the Plan Update. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration and Plan Update are provided as Attachments B and C, and the Plan Update is available for public review at https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/parks-and-recreation/parks- and-recreation-plan-and-element-update DISCUSSION Background In 2017, the City Parks and Recreation Department initiated the update to the City's Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and the Parks and Recreation Plan (Plan Update). On November 7, 2017, the City Council approved the Project Plan for the Plan Update, and a consultant team led by WRT was selected in February 2018 to support staff. In April 2018, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) approved the Community Engagement Plan' for the project, and the Plan Update has been informed by three years of public outreach and comment, public workshops and forums, a statistically valid survey, and focused review by Parks and Recreation and Planning staff and the PRC. The Plan Update will be an essential guide for parks and recreation in San Luis Obispo, while also serving as the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element; goals and policies are embedded in the City's larger blueprint for future growth and change. Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Blueprint comprise the Parks and Recreation Plan, and Chapter 4 is the Parks and Recreation General Plan Element. ' Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission in April 2018, available here. Item 6a The Plan Update also serves to support, supplement, and advance the goals of the City's Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery2, Active Transportation Plana, and Recommendations to City Council for Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the City of San Luis Obispo4. Implementation of the Plan supports and strives to ensure that City's parks, facilities, and programs will be inclusive, safe, and accessible to all people. Specific revisions that have been incorporated into the Plan Update following review by the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) on March 18, 2021, the City Council Study Session held on May 3, 2021, and Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) review on May 12, 2021 are incorporated into the Plan Update (Attachment C) and specifically identified in Attachment D (Public Draft Plan Revisions). No amendments to the Draft Plan were recommended by the Planning Commission following their review on May 26, 2021. Summary of the Plan Update The following discussion provides a brief guide to the structure and content of the document. The Plan is divided into five chapters: Chapter 1 introduces the planning process and overarching goals of the plan. The Plan includes the following six Guiding Themes, which permeate through the Plan's recommendations, goals, and policies: • Design Excellence • Stewardship and Sustainability • Inclusion and Access • Building Community • Partnerships and Public Engagement • Good Governance Chapter 2 takes a deeper look at San Luis Obispo through demographic analysis and its parks through a detailed inventory. This information was presented to the PRC and the public in a Community Needs Assessment Report, which is included in the Plan Update Appendix. Chapter 3 provides a summary of the extensive community engagement conducted in association with the Plan Update. This information was presented to the PRC and the public in the adopted Community Needs Assessment Report, and subsequent updates presented to the PRC. 2 Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery (August 2020), available here 3 Active Transportation Plan (February 2021), available here a Recommendations to City Council for Advancing DEI (January 2021), available here Item 6a Chapter 4 consists of the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and provides the detailed policies that flow from five system -wide goals. The draft goals and policies were presented to the PRC in July 2020 and have been expanded and updated based on continued public input, continued staff review, and to maintain consistency with the adopted Climate Action Plan and Active Transportation Plan and Recommendations to City Council for Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the City of San Luis Obispo. The Plan Update is intended to support and advance the goals and programs identified in these previously adopted plans. The five goals include: • Build Community and Neighborhoods: City Parks and Recreational facilities should build and connect community through inclusive and diverse amenities and programming. • Meet the Changing Needs of the Community: Leverage regionalism and creatively increase the number of City parks, recreational facilities and amenities, to meet user needs. • Sustainability: The City's Parks and Recreation facilities will be vibrant, resilient, and sustainable. • Optimize Resources: Establish, maintain, and operate parks, facilities, and programs in a manner that is cost effective and manageable while engaging the community in a manner that optimizes involvement and support. • Safety: Provide safe, accessible, inclusive, and well -maintained City parks, recreational facilities, and amenities. In addition to the numerous policies identified under each of these goals, this chapter also identifies standards for future parkland and amenities in the City. The Plan Update carries forward the current parkland standard of 10 acres per 1,000 residents, and includes a new standard for the provision of amenities with the City based on both the resident and daytime (service) population (refer to Key City Council Study Session Comments for Discussion, below, for additional discussion regarding the City Council's comments related to parkland and amenity standards and staff's recommendation). In order to determine base needs for City park facilities and amenities, staff worked with the project consultant team (WRT and PROS) to assess the current level of service for park facilities and amenities based on the 2017 estimated resident and daytime populations, and the 2035 estimated resident and daytime populations. This assessment considered a list of key amenities based on the City's current inventory, planned amenities identified in Specific Plan areas, input from the public and the PRC and ATC, consideration of recreational trends, and recommendations identified in the Community Needs Assessment. Item 6a In addition to overall need Citywide, the Plan Update assessed needs based on identified sub -areas within the City that contain multiple neighborhoods, population density within residential neighborhoods, and identification of access gaps, with a policy directive for equitable distribution of amenities through -out the City, such that every resident would be able to access no -cost key amenities via sustainable transportation including walking, biking, rolling, or transit (Attachment C, Plan Update, Policy 1.3 Park Access Standards and Policy 1.6 Park Amenities PerArea Standard). Existing City inventory, existing needs, future needs, access gaps, and implementation timing priority are identified in Table 1. Amenity Inventory and Current and Future Needs. Item 6a Table 1. Amenity Inventory and Current and Future Needs Amenity Current Current General Plan Location Based on Priority Inventory Additional Build -out Access Gaps and Need Total Planned Amenities Additional (Sub -area) Need' ATHLETIC FIELDS Diamond Athletic 4 2 3 Downtown 0-10 Fields (Youth) Laguna Lake years Diamond Athletic 1 4 5 Downtown 0-10 Fields Meadow/Sinsheimer years (Youth/Adult) Righetti/Orcutt Stone ridge/Margarita Laguna Lake Diamond Athletic 1 2 3 Downtown 0-10 Fields (Adult) Righetti/Orcutt years Stone ridge/Margarita Laguna Lake Rectangle Athletic 4 4 6 Downtown 0-5 Fields Meadow/Sinsheimer years Laguna Lake SPORTS COURTS Outdoor 6 6 8 Citywide 0 — 20 Basketball Court years Tennis Court 8 7 10 Downtown 0-5 Laguna Lake years Pickleball Court 3 9 12 Foothill/Anholm 0 — 5 Downtown years Meadow/Sinsheimer Laguna Lake Sand Volleyball 8 3 5 Downtown 0-20 Stone ridge/Margarita years Laguna Lake Roller Sports 1 1 2 Downtown 10-20 Court Meadow/Sinsheimer years Righetti/Orcutt Stone ridge/Margarita Laguna Lake Item 6a Amenity Current Current General Plan Location Based on Priority Inventory Additional Build -out Access Gaps and Need Total Planned Amenities Additional (Sub -area) Need' Multi -generational Ludwick 27,000 sf 46,000 sf Citywide 5-20 recreation and Center years community center and SLO Senior Center Dog Park/ 1 6 7 Foothill/Anholm 0-5 Off -leash Dog Downtown years Area Meadow/Sinsheimer Playgrounds/ Tot 26 10 18 Citywide 0-20 Lot years Group 9 6 9 Downtown 0-5 Seating/Gathering Stoneridge/Margarita years Areas SPECIAL RECREATION FACILITIES Disc Golf Course 2 0 0 N/A N/A (18-hole) Golf Course 1 0 0 Citywide N/A Swim Center 1 Expansion 1 Citywide 5-20 of existing years pool Skate Park 1 0 1 Citywide 10-20 years Pump Track (Bike 0 2 3 Citywide 0-20 or Skate) years ' Includes amenities identified in approved Specific Plans Item 6a Chapter 5 provides the details around implementation and funding strategy, including phasing and priority projects. This chapter was informed by public comment and PRC feedback on project prioritization for the near term (0-5 year), mid-term (5-10 year), and long-term (10-20 year) timeframes. Park and facility improvements can be understood in three tiers: Tier 1, Critical Park Improvements (Maintenance); Tier 2, Strategic Park Improvements, Improvement of Existing Parks/Facilities; and Tier 3, "Visionary" Park Improvements, New Opportunities. Tier 3 park and facility needs and priorities identified in the Plan Update are grouped by park classification (i.e., neighborhood parks, community parks) and are then presented in alphabetical order. Project opportunities are prioritized by phase (near -term, mid-term, and long-term). For quick reference, Tier 3 park and facility opportunities and priorities are also summarized in Table 5-1 of the Plan Update (Attachment C). Implementation of the Plan Update The Plan Update will be implemented over the next twenty years, depending on funding and staffing resources. Plan Update Chapter 5 (Implementation) is intended to be aspirational and identifies opportunities that may be appropriate for existing parks based on the wants and needs expressed by the community. As amenities and parkland are constructed, the City will need to monitor implementation of the Plan Update and track progress towards meeting service standards for both park acreage and identified amenities, equitable distribution of amenities, and resolving access gaps such that all residents will be able to enjoy parks and recreation within a '/Z mile (or ten minute walk) from their home. The Plan Update is also intended to be flexible, to enable the City to conduct focused community outreach and prepare park -specific comprehensive plans for the following existing community and neighborhood parks: • Laguna Park (update Laguna Lake Plan) • Meadow Park and Meadow Park Center • Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Stadium, SLO Swim Center • Mitchell Park In addition, as noted in the plan, new parkland is needed in the following areas to address population density within neighborhoods and access gaps: • Foothill/Anholm area: in the vicinity of Grand Avenue, potentially through agreement with San Luis Coastal Unified School District; • Downtown area: along the Johnson Avenue corridor south of the high school; • Meadow/Sinsheimer area, potentially through expansion or amenitization of Stoneridge Park; • Stoneridge/Margarita area: along the South Higuera corridor; • Laguna Lake area: at the Laguna Lake Golf Course as part of potential site reuse. Item 6a Key considerations for the enhancement and redevelopment of existing parks and the development of new parkland will be striking a balance between active and passive recreational use, maintaining neighborhood character, ensuring high quality design and maintenance, and optimizing resources by incorporating multi -generational, multi -use, inclusive and accessible amenities and facilities. Incorporation of innovative universal design and continued conversations with the community will be critical to resolve and prevent any barriers5 to our community's enjoyment of the City parks, recreation amenities, public art, and programs. The Plan Update also identifies the need for park activation and building community through site planning and provision of community gathering space and associated infrastructure (i.e., gazebo, stage, improved access); supporting and facilitating community events; incorporation of public art and cultural expression; and dynamic programming to address multi -generational and multi -ability needs of our community. Implementation of the Plan Update would be funded by impact fees, the general fund, grants, revenues from services, provided, and group area and facility rentals. Potential external funding sources could include grants; "friends of parks" organization(s); corporate sponsorships; crowdfunding; partnerships with other agencies; gifts from non- profit foundations; private donations; irrevocable remainder trusts; volunteerism; and fundraisers. The Plan update identifies rough lifecycle costs for key amenities, while more aspirational projects such as multi -generational center would require a specific cost and financing assessment due to the potential variables that affect construction, operation, and maintenance costs. Previous Council or Advisory Body Action Planning Commission, May 26, 2021. The Planning Commission considered the Plan Update, and moved to recommend the City Council adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the project, and approve the Draft Plan as presented in the May 26, 2021 agenda report package. Parks and Recreation Commission (2018-2021). Over the past three years, the PRC has provided valuable input on the Plan Update. The PRC held a meeting on May 12, 2021 to receive public comment, consider Council comments during the May 3, 2021 Study Session, review staff -recommended revisions to the Public Draft Plan, and provide a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5 Potential barriers may include, and are not limited to, ability, skill level, sense of safety, monetary limitations, knowledge and/or interest in programming and/or recreational activity. Item 6a The PRC unanimously recommended adoption of the Plan Update with noted clarifications by staff. In addition, the PRC recognized that the Plan Update is aspirational, considered City Council Study Session comments and recommended retainment of the 10 acres per 1,000 resident parkland standard, retainment of the sub -area delineations, and clarification regarding the use of the Access Gap/Amenities map (amendments to Figure 4-2: Sub -Area Map), and supported additional City Council Study Session comments. City Council Study Session, May 4, 2021. During the City Council Study Session on the Public Draft Plan Update,6 the City Council provided directional items and suggestions for staff and PRC review and consideration. The City Council's comments and direction, including staff's response, are incorporated into the table below. Edits that have been made to the Plan Update are identified by showing deleted text in stFike-thmu ", and added text is underlined. All amendments to the Public Draft Plan are identified in Attachment D, and include all the specific changes including numerous edits to provide clear distinctions related to Open Space, open public spaces/places, and urban trails and replacement of references to "picnic areas" with gathering and seating areas. Table 2. City Council Study Session Comments CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COMMENTS HOW ADDRESSED Further assess if use of resident or The Plan Update identifies a parkland daytime population is appropriate for standard of 10 acres per 1,000 residents, parkland aspirations (10 acres per 1,000 and identifies amenity level of service people) and/or current and future amenity based on the daytime (service) needs. population. This approach is identified to recognize that both the resident and daytime (service) populations create demands on parks and recreational amenities and facilities. The PRC specifically recommended support for the 10 acres per 1,000 residents standard, and use of the daytime population to determine future amenities. 6 City Council Study Session Agenda Report available online: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=141546&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk City Council Study Session, video of meeting available online: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOSH3YJ12dVzLmQYuevi sw Item 6a CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION HOW ADDRESSED COMMENTS Make sure there are clear distinctions Multiple edits were incorporated into the about Open Space and open public Plan Update to ensure that the document spaces/places and urban trails. makes the appropriate and clear distinction that the Plan Update focuses on urban parks and recreation, and does not affect or serve as a policy document or plan for the City's Open Space. Specific edits are identified in Attachment D (Public Draft Plan Revisions). Remove reference to a second golf The Plan Update has been modified to course. remove the opportunity for a second golf course from the document: Page 84: Table 4-2 Park Amenity Standards, do not identify a second golf course. Page 114: Golf Courses: "Additional Need San Luis Obispo would need one additional golf course by 2035 to meet standards; however, two golf courses to serve the City is not needed. Access Gaps Laguna Lake Golf Course is in Area 6 (West). And fUtWe GG iron she ild be in a different part of the pity Priority nee arse may Dreyiding an additional golf be Gensidered a lenrv_tern; (10 20 dear) nrierity, sf ihiont tG land availability. An additional golf course is not a priority for the City." Consider dividing the Meadow/Sinsheimer Staff reviewed this comment and sub -area into two sub areas. discussed with the PRC for further direction. No changes to the sub -area Item 6a CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION HOW ADDRESSED COMMENTS delineations are proposed or recommended by the PRC; however, Figure 4-2 has been amended to show the sub -area delineations and the population density and access gaps shown in Figure 5-5, Park Access Gaps and Potential Future Park Sites (refer to Attachment C, Draft Plan and Attachment D, Public Draft Plan Revisions). The purpose of the map revision is to clarify that there are multiple factors that will drive the location of new and upgraded amenities throughout the City. Look for "quick build" projects as it relates No changes to the Plan Update are to what we already have, such as a dirt proposed; however, the Parks and pump track, dog parks, shade/cooling, Recreation Department and Public Works lighting, gardens, and community events. Department are working to identify "quick build" projects within the context of the Capital Improvement Plan, the City's Financial Plan, grant funding, and opportunities for volunteer/community collaboration. Update opportunities for Cheng Park The Plan Update includes the following improvements. additional text: Page 126: Cheng Park, Planned Improvements Added the following two bullets: "+ Provide Improved cultural expression and educational opportunities + Maintain cultural significance of original design„ Clarify if multi -generational center would No changes to the Plan Update are also be a multi -cultural center. proposed. In recreational terms, a multi - generational center focuses on activities for all ages and abilities and likely would Item 6a CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION HOW ADDRESSED COMMENTS not focus solely on cultural activities. As part of the 2021-23 Major City Goal work program for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion there is a task to support a feasibility study for a multi -cultural center via staff and/or City Liaison support. Programming will be incorporated at Parks and Recreation facilities to support Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion goals. Clearly explain and clarify community The Plan Update includes the following engagement results summarized in the edits to clarify community engagement document. responses: Page 74: Park Improvement Priorities Workshop, Your Neighborhood: "Participants were asked to state their priorities for park improvements in their neighborhood, from a list of options. Of these options, "safer access" was the highest priority, followed by walking paths, neighborhood events, and dog park. "Approximately 110 participants provided responses at this workshop station, and the average ranking for each priority is identified in Figure 3-1." Page 74: Park Improvement Priorities Workshop, Community Parks. - "For Laguna Lake Park, we asked participants to rank a list of 11 potential improvements. The most popular: a bike pump track, an adventure playground, a botanical garden, a walking path, an outdoor learning area, and additional Item 6a CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION HOW ADDRESSED COMMENTS picnic areas. "Approximately 100 participants provided responses at this workshop station, and the average ranking for each priority is identified in Figure 3-2." Page 75: Park Improvement Priorities Workshop, Fields and Facilities: "Participants were asked to rank four potential improvements to the SLO Swim Center. Of these, extended hours for recreation swim and for lap swim were the highest ranked. Approximately 85 participants provided responses at this workshop station, and the average ranking for each priority is identified in Figure 3-5." Consider park ambassadors to support No changes to the Plan Update are diversity, equity, and inclusion. proposed at this time, as consideration of establishing park ambassadors at City parks would be better identified during evaluation of resources and staffing needs, are often based on a particular amenity (such as the Santa Rosa SLO Skate Park), and would need to take equity into consideration as well as operational and financial resources. Conduct additional focused outreach The Plan Update includes the following related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. edits to further clarify outreach efforts during park -specific and facility -specific planning: Page 103: "Next, the chapter defines three types of park improvements, and documents potential im#s opportunities at each park where "visionary" changes are needed. The chapter provides the Item 6a CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COMMENTS Update Table 4-2 Park Amenity Standards by deleting "Meets Standard/Needs Exist" column and replacing it with the number of additional amenities needed to serve the future daytime population. HOW ADDRESSED flexibility to consider identified opportunities and determine the appropriate design and amenities of our City's parks and recreational facilities through focused community outreach and the preparation of comprehensive park - specific plans. The community engagement process will include direct contact with community groups and organizations to further advance diversity, equity, and inclusion at all City parks and farilitiPc " Table 4-2 Park Amenity Standards has been updated by deleting "Meets Standard/Needs Exist" column and replacing it with the number of additional amenities needed to serve the future daytime population. Note that the SLO Senior Center is an The Plan Update includes the following historic building. edits: Page 130: SLO Senior Center, Planned Improvements, Mid -Term (5 to 10 years). "+ Re -envision SLO Senior Center in the context of Mitchell Park through Planning process. Goals will include creating a strong linkage between the park and the center; and considering potential renovation or expansion or replaGemo^+ of the Senior Gentor relocation of programs and services to achieve multi - generational use of the facility. The SLO Senior Center building is a historic property, and any improvements shall be consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Item 6a CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION COMMENTS Research deed for 1445 Santa Rosa (SLO Senior Center), specific to use requirements or limitations for the building. HOW ADDRESSED Preservation Program Guidelines. Increase the City's financial and staff investment in the SLO Senior Center." In November 1962, a Quitclaim Deed was executed between the San Luis Obispo School District and City of San Luis Obispo for Mitchell Park. At that time, the building located at 1445 Santa Rosa was not managed by the City and was not operated as a senior center. In 1971, the City Council turned the building over to the Parks and Recreation Department for use as a senior center. A Notice of Assurances to the State of California of the Use of Property and/or the State of California's Right of Recapture (San Luis Obispo County Document No. 33982) was executed February 1991 and filed with the County of San Luis Obispo Clerk Recorders Office June 1991. This notice was required to be filed due to the award of $50,000 from Senior Center Bond Act Funds for renovation of the facility at 1445 Santa Rosa. As result of receipt of these funds, the facility was required to be used as a senior center for a period of five years (September 1989 to September 1994) or the State of California would be entitled to recapture funding. As this period has expired, no additional use restrictions or limitations are required. Key City Council Study Session Comments for Discussion Item 6a A majority of comments received from the City Council during the Study Session have been incorporated into the Plan Update. There are two topics that warrant a more detailed response from staff, which are discussed below. Council Comment: Further assess if use of resident or daytime population is appropriate for parkland aspirations (10 acres per 1,000 people) and/or current and future amenity needs. Staff Recommendation. The Parks and Recreation Commission considered the parkland standard following the City Council Study Session, and unanimously supported maintaining proposed parkland standards. The Planning Commission did not identify or recommend any policy modifications, and staff recommends: • Maintaining the parkland standard, applicable to the residential population, consistent with the current standard (10 acres per 1,000 residents), which is aspirational but provides a goal to strive for through future Specific Plans, General Plan Amendments, Annexations and other methods (land dedication or acquisition within the City); and • Identifying amenity needs based on the daytime (service) population, based on the recognition that both residents and the daytime (service) population use park and facility amenities. Item 6a Discussion. According to the 2021 National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Agency Review, the typical park and recreation agency manages 9.9 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents in its jurisdiction.' The City currently has 205.6 acres of parkland, including: • 99.7 acres of Community Parks • 34.7 acres of Neighborhood Parks • 7.9 acres of Mini Parks, and • 63.3 acres of recreational centers and special facilities. Current and proposed park acreage standards require a minimum of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, including five acres of Neighborhood Parks per 1,000 residents (refer to Attachment C, Plan Update, Policy 1.2 Park Acreage Standards).$ This current standard has been applied to Specific Plan and annexed areas and was addressed by either provision of parkland based on the 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, or a combination of provided parkland, improved parkland, and fees, as approved by the City Council. This Plan Update would carry forward this same standard, and this standard would continue to be applied to any new Specific Plans or annexations, which is close to NRPA statistics (9.9 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents). The City's parkland acreage inventory only includes parks and recreational facilities that are owned and operated by the City. Recreational opportunities such as Cal Poly facilities, school properties (subject to joint -use agreements for youth recreation), and El Chorro Regional Park fields (subject to a joint use agreement with the County) are not included in the parkland acreage calculations. As shown in Table 3 (Existing Parkland Inventory and Current and Future Parkland Need), an additional 220 acres of parkland is needed today to serve the current (2017) population of 46,724 residents. Looking ahead, the City would need an additional 361 acres of parkland to meet this park acreage standard for residents in 2035, inclusive of 249 acres of Neighborhood Parks, based on resident population estimates in the City's General Plan (56,686) (Attachment C, Appendix C, Community Needs Assessment Table 2-6, San Luis Obispo Park Acreage Standards and Level of Service). 2021 NRPA Agency Review available online: https://www.nrpa.org/siteassets/2021-agencV- performance-review final.pdf 8 Proposed Policy 1.2 Park Acreage Standards. San Luis Obispo shall continue to develop a park system at the rate of ten acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Aspirational standards for each park and facility type are as shown in Table 4-1. The City has demonstrated that a high -quality park system can be achieved within a smaller footprint but seeks to achieve this goal over time. Item 6a Implementation of currently approved parks within adopted Specific and Development Plans (Avila Ranch, Orcutt Area, Froom Ranch, and San Luis Ranch) would provide 54 acres of parkland9 and several new amenities. This will contribute to the total acreage of parkland in the City, resulting in total park acreage of 260, with a remaining gap of 307 acres needed to serve the estimated resident population in 2035. Eventual build -out of the Margarita Area Specific Plan, which is contingent on submittal of a development proposal by the private landowner(s), would provide a 10-acre Neighborhood Park and a 16-acre improved sports field site. Table 3. Existing Parkland Inventory and Current and Future Parkland Need City Parkland Requirement Existing New Additional Resident (total acreage parkland approved Need Population Type and Standard to meet acreage Parkland standard) Overall: 10 acres/1,000 467 acres 206 acres 54 acres 207 acres residents 46,724 (2017) Neighborhood Parks: 234 acres 35 acres 23 acres 176 acres 5 acres/1,000 residents Overall: 10 acres/1,000 567 206 acres 54 acres 307 acres residents 56,686 (2035) Neighborhood Parks: 283 aces 35 acres 23 acres 225 acres 5 acres/1,000 residents In 2018, a Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study was prepared to provide the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of updated impact fees ensuring that new development pays its fair share of the park facilities needed to serve it. The City collects two types of parkland fees, parkland in -lieu fees (pursuant to the Quimby Act) and park development impact fees (pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act). Under the Quimby Act, all cities can establish parkland in -lieu fees up to a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. Park in -lieu fee estimates are based on the existing (2018) standard for the resident population, which is 4.18 acres per 1,000 residents. `' The acreage of approved parkland has been updated to include the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Neighborhood Park. Item 6a Prior to the 2018 Nexus Study and subsequent adoption of the Master Fee Schedule by the City Council, the City only collected parkland in -lieu fees (Quimby Act), which apply only to single-family and multi -family condominium developments. The City's current park development impact fees are based on the existing (2018) standard for the service population, which is 2.69 park acres per 1,000 service population, because both residents and non-residents use City parks. As a part of the Nexus Study, park development impact fees were calculated for multi -family apartments and for commercial development at the 2.69 acres per 1,000 service population rate. While the Nexus Study identified a park development impact fee for both residential and non- residential development, the City Council adopted the impact fee for multi -family developments only (based on the 2.69 acres per 1,000 service population rate), but not for commercial development because of the overall fee burden already carried by commercial development. The maximum park development impact fees must align with the current standard (at the time of the Nexus Study) and cannot be raised to address existing deficiencies (as identified per a policy standard or objective). Similar to the Nexus Study, the Plan Update recognizes that park and recreational amenities are used by both the resident population and the daytime (service) population, and identifies amenity needs based on the estimated 2035 daytime (service) population of 88,28610 (Attachment C, Plan Update, Policy 1.5 Park Amenity Standards)." Staff's recommendation is discussed below for the Council's consideration. Council Comment: Consider dividing the Meadow/Sinsheimer sub -area into two sub areas. Staff Recommendation. As use of the sub -areas would not be the only factor considered when the City is identifying the locations for future amenities, staff recommends no changes to the sub -area delineations; however, an amendment to Figure 4-2 San Luis Obispo Sub -Areas is warranted. The proposed revised Figure 4-2: San Luis Obispo Sub - Areas and Park Access Gaps shows not only the sub -area delineation, but also population density, access gaps, and areas where additional parkland is needed to meet policy objectives (refer to Figure 1 on the following page and Attachment C, Plan Update and Attachment D, Public Draft Plan Revisions). 10 Daytime (service) population identified in the Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, 2018) 11 Proposed Policy 1.5 Park Amenity Standards. The City will seek to provide park amenities at daytime population -based levels of service shown in Table 4-2. Recognizing that the City's amenities serve City residents as well as people who work in San Luis Obispo but live elsewhere, daytime population is used to calculate appropriate service levels. In addition, Cal Poly recreation amenities available for community use are taken into account. Item 6a The PRC did not recommend revising the delineation of the sub -areas, and supported the staff recommendation to revise the map to accurately show all the factors that will be considered when considering future amenities. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised Figure 4.2, and did not identify any modifications. Discussion. In addition to identifying overall need for parkland and amenities Citywide, the Plan Update assessed needs based on identified sub -areas within the City that contain multiple neighborhoods, population density within residential neighborhoods, and identification of access gaps, with a policy directive for equitable distribution of amenities through -out the City, such that every resident would be able to access no -cost key amenities via sustainable transportation including walking, biking, rolling, or transit (Attachment C, Plan Update, Policy 1.3 Park Access Standards and Policy 1.6 Park Amenities Per Area Standard). Staff reviewed this recommendation, and brought forward this comment for further consideration by the PRC. Staff's recommendation is discussed below for the Council's consideration. Item 6a Figure 4-2 SAN LUIS OBISPO SUB -AREAS AND PARK ACCESS GAPS 0 0.25 0.5 1 J� 7Anh,hn to Park Park Ord / Mission Inane Plaza Park j� mmai IIAI[chell Ex Pion a Park c House Trian .� rtlens P Emerson — — Park / Park- Park Position Park \ ns Johon una Hills / Vista Lago- <` Park Park ! Park \\ ,I StQnen a a ake / De j Vaull I / titan ngSP 1 k, ix i hh aP rr 1 Park !\ eawa l �— h ...d Pa. 1 � � s rytt Area I �� 1 —II ma�aMaTa l� oama. 1 v paarl�Pavn Arery Ir � arts cComplplex /tam® n\< /j Las Praderas %` — — Park / Rodngue2 �i Park \ Ad b P k / \ ' Poi ttia,C4e Avila PP heighbo�M10 4 11P'�n Area I J, L... City Boundary Parks and Recreation Facilities in San Luis Obispo Rail Lines Mini - Creeks Neighborhood Specific Plans Boundary Water Community Planned Neighborhood Parks* Schools Recreation Centers & Special Features Open Spaces Service Area Population Density (people) sq mile) 1/2 mile walkshed ■ Subareas 1 mile walkshed 0 1,200 Figure 1. Revised Figure 4-2: San Luis Obispo Sub -Areas and Park Access Gaps Item 6a Active Transportation Committee, March 18, 2021. The Public Draft Plan was presented to the ATC on March 18, 2021. The ATC unanimously moved to recommend adoption of the Plan Update, with recommendations that were supported by the PRC. ATC recommendations are identified in the table below, and edits that have been made to the Plan Update are identified by showing deleted text in stroke -threwg , and added text is underlined in addition to staff's response to requested amendments. These edits are also specifically identified in Attachment D (Public Draft Plan Revisions). Table 3. Active Transportation Commission Recommendations ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Address Sinsheimer Park area connectivity, including inclusive non - vehicular access both to the Sinsheimer Park area and through the park. Identify need for a paved trail connecting the Railroad Safety Trail to Sinsheimer Park Provide stronger language in Policy 1.15 Sustainable Transportation Access and Policy 1.16 Shaded Play Areas, beyond "evaluate potential..."and "strive to". Specifically address Sinsheimer Park, Laguna Lake Park, and Meadow Park in Policies 1.15, 3.1, and 5.2. Include bicycle parking in parks, with facilities for standard and electric bicycles, and cargo bicycles. HOW ADDRESSED Page 123: Sinsheimer Park, Planned Improvements, Near -Term (0 to 5 Years): Added bullet: "+ Address Sinsheimer Park area connectivity, including inclusive non - vehicular access both to the Sinsheimer Park area and through the park. Provide for an inclusive and accessible paved trail connecting the Railroad Safety Trail to Sinsheimer Park." Page 88: Policy 1.15, Sustainable Transportation Access. 1.15 Sustainable Transportation Access. Support implementation of the Active Transportation Plan and provision of sustainable access to parks and recreational facilities including, but not limited to Sinsheimer Park area, Laguna Lake Park, and Meadow Park, and interconnected paths citywide. Bich parking should be provided in parks, recreational facilities, and community centers, and include facilities for standard. electric. and carao bicvcles." Page 88: Policy 1.16 Shaded Play Areas. Item 6a ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION HOW ADDRESSED COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to shading play areas —a high priority for the community —trees and shade structures can also contribute to distinctive identity and sustainability. Existing play areas will be assessed for need, and enhancements to both play equipment and shade will be scheduled. The City should strove fe provide shaded play areas within a short walk (1/2-mile) of all residents: this should be a core feature of all parks, including mini -parks." Policy 3.1 addresses new parks and facilities, not existing; therefore, no modifications are proposed related to these comments. Policy 5.2 states: "Create bicycle and pedestrian connections between these mainline trails and the City's community parks (e.g. Sinsheimer, Laguna Lake, Santa Rosa, Meadow) and major recreation facilities (e.g. Damon -Garcia)." Therefore, no modifications are proposed related to these comments. Policy 3.1 Access by Foot and Bike: Page 94: Policy 3.1 Access by Foot and Amend title to be more inclusive of those Bike. accessing parks and facilities by alternative non -vehicular means beyond "Policy 3.1 Access by Foot, and Bike, and "foot and bike". Roll" New parks and facilities should be located centrally to their service population, integrated with their community context, and easily accessed on foot, a -Rd by bike, and roll...." Overall, provide a more specific ties to See above. the Active Transportation Plan. Suggestion to locate pump tracks on Page 114: Bike/Roller Pump Tracks routes to schools, and locate pump. Item 6a ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS HOW ADDRESSED tracks where it can be accessed via "Priority bicycle. A bike/roller pump track has been identified as a near -term (0-5 year) priority for the City. A second track may be considered a long-term (10-20 year) opportunity. Pump tracks should be located where they can be accessed via bicycle or roll, and along routes to schools." Policy Context The recommendations of the Plan Update support and advance many of the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the City's General Plan, Active Transportation Plan, and Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery. The development and enhancement of accessible parks and facilities in the City would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and related greenhouse gas emissions. Redevelopment of parks and facilities would facilitate carbon -neutrality and provide an opportunity to educate and showcase evolving technology. The Plan Update is consistent with the General Plan, and implementation of the Plan Update would advance goals and policies of the Land Use Element, including neighborhood connectivity and enhancement (Policies 2.2.4 and 2.2.6); provision and enhancement of parks within neighborhoods (Policy 2.3.1); and increasing green space in the Downtown (Policy 4.11). Public Engagement Chapter 3 of the Plan Update (What We Heard) summarizes the extensive public engagement conducted over the past three years pursuant to the Plan Update's Community Engagement Plan, starting with foundational stakeholder interviews in April 2018. Throughout the summer of 2018, in order to reach our community, City staff conducted over 25 "pop-up" events with the Parks and Recreation "Bright Ideas" bicycle to reach and connect with residents and visitors at parks, facilities, programs, and events. During these pop -ups, the public had an opportunity to provide comments on portable white boards and comment cards and take photos with the "Bright Ideas" bicycle for sharing on the Parks and Recreation Instagram account. A statistically valid Needs Assessment Survey was conducted August to October 2018 (507 respondents). Item 6a Public Workshops and forums included the "Bright Ideas" Public Workshop in September 2018 to gain additional input from the community regarding existing parks and facilities and the future of parks and recreation in San Luis Obispo. A PRC Workshop Series was held in January, February, and March of 2019, which consisted of focused discussions and public input related to the community's values and priorities, unmet needs, and hopes and dreams. Following the Workshop Series, a Community Needs Assessment report prepared by the consultant team was presented to the PRC and the public in May 2019, and a Community Needs Assessment Workshop was held in June 2019. A Park Improvement Priorities Workshop was held with the PRC in September 2019. Community Needs Assessment report includes: ■ Demographic characteristics and population trends of the community; ■ Description of existing park system and comparison to benchmark cities; ■ Overview of recreational trends and preferences in the U.S. and in the region; ■ Summary and evaluation of existing amenities and programs; and ■ Summary of themes heard during community engagement activities and the community preferences reflected in the statistically -valid survey. Through the remainder of 2019 and 2020, the public had an opportunity to attend PRC meetings, where information was presented for public response and direction from the PRC, including draft themes, goals, and policies; lifecycle costs; and the ongoing feedback and questions provided by the public. On March 25, 2021, a Public Draft Plan Update Public Workshop was held via Zoom. The Workshop included a presentation on the Plan Update, and the community was invited an encouraged to provide feedback via poll questions conducted during the workshop, use of the "chat" function, and Open City Hall. The results of the public workshop are summarized in the April 5, 2021 PRC Agenda Report.12 Online community engagement continues to be fostered by information updates on City social media, the project website, direct communications with staff, and the Open City Hall website. Additional opportunities for public comment included public hearings with the PRC,ATC, Planning Commission, and Study Session with the City Council. Recommendations and direction from the PRC, ATC, and the City Council Study Session, and review by the Planning Commission, have informed the current version of the Plan Update under consideration by the City Council. 12 Parks and Recreation Commission agenda report, dated April 5, 2021, available here. Item 6a CONCURRENCE The Administrative Draft Plan Update was provided for internal review by several City departments, including Community Development, Public Works, City Administration, and Utilities. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force provided valuable review and input on the Administrative Draft Plan Update. In addition, the Plan Update was coordinated with the City Transportation Division and the Office of Sustainability to ensure the document supports and advances the goals, policies, and programs of the Active Transportation Plan and Climate Action Plan. Other community groups have helped shape the Plan Update including Arts Council, American Youth Soccer Organization, Cal Poly (special thanks to NR 418 class, 2018), Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers, Central Coast Soccer, Friends of SLO City Dog Parks; Downtown SLO, History Center of San Luis Obispo County, Jack House Committee, Land Conservancy of SLO County, San Luis Coastal Unified School District, San Luis Obispo Museum of Art, SLO Baseball, SLO Pickleball Club, SLO Railroad Museum, SLO REP Theatre, SLO Rugby, SLO Senior Center, SLO Soccer Club, SLO Women's Soccer Club, YMCA, and many other individuals. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study / Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Plan (Attachment B). The public review period for the Initial Study / Negative Declaration was Thursday, March 25, 2021 to Monday, April 26, 2021. The Initial Study does not identify any potentially significant impacts that would occur as a result of adoption of the Plan Update. As a policy document, the Draft Plan Update does not authorize any physical development or improvements or provide project -specific construction details that would allow for project -level CEQA analysis; instead, it is intended to provide goals and policies, and guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City. Therefore, consistent with Section 15168(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the IS/ND evaluates program -level actions that describe planned park and recreation facilities and programs and focuses primarily on the Draft Plan Update's consistency with adopted City plans, goals, objectives, and standards. Future proposed physical improvements that are subject to discretionary approval would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Policy Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. Reference copies of the IS/ND are available on the City's website at https://www.slocity.org/government/department- directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/- fnlrlPr-91.r,4 Item 6a FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: Yes Funding Identified: $160,000 Fiscal Analysis: Budget Year: 2017-19 Funding Sources Total Budget Available Current Funding Request Remaining Balance Annual Ongoing Cost General Fund $160,000 $ n/a $ $ State Federal Fees Other: Total $ $ $ $ The fiscal impact associated with fully implementing the Plan Update is significant and will extend over twenty years, requiring substantial funding commitments over multiple financial plans as well as exploration of grants, development fees and other outside funding sources. Since the Plan Update is a programmatic document, it provides only a planning level assessment of project costs, with estimates provided for line -item amenity features (i.e., seating, turf area, nets, etc.). Any larger scale projects identified in the programmatic document such as a multi -generational community center or additional aquatics center would require specific feasibility and financial assessments to determine cost based on a variety of factors such as location, size, and other specific features. Ultimately, each individual project and program expenditure would be considered and prioritized by the City Council as part of the City's two-year financial planning process. The Council included $160,000 in the 2017-2019 Financial Plan for the Plan Update. $145,000 was allocated for Contract Services, which includes $135,000 for consultant assistance with the Community Needs Assessment and Plan Update, and a $10,000 contingency. $131,622.54 has been spent on consultant services to date. $10,000 was also allocated for City operating expenditures, such as meeting notifications, outreach direct costs and document production. $5,000 was assigned for an intern to assist with the facility needs assessment. Item 6a ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review of the Plan Update with specific direction to staff on pertinent issues. 2. Recommend denial of the Plan Update, however staff does not recommend this as it would be inconsistent with the General Plan, the Active Transportation Plan, and the Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery. ATTACHMENTS A — Draft Resolution approving the Parks & Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 B — Initial Study/Negative Declaration Ca — Draft Plan Update Cb — Draft Plan Update Appendices D — Public Draft Plan Revisions E — Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-1040-21 (2021 Series) RESOLUTION NO. (2021 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PARKS AND RECREATION BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE: 2021-2041 (PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE) AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021; CITYWIDE) WHEREAS, the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) will be an essential guide for parks and recreation in San Luis Obispo, while also serving as the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element; Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future comprise the Parks and Recreation Plan, and Chapter 4 is the Parks and Recreation General Plan Element; and WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a virtual public hearing in webinar format on March 18, 2021 on the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) (Plan Update), and recommended consideration of the Committee's comments and adoption of the Plan Update (7:0); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a virtual public hearing Study Session in webinar format on May 4, 2021 on the Plan Update and provided comments to staff; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a virtual public hearing in webinar format on May 12, 2021 on the Plan Update, and recommended adoption of the Plan Update with noted clarifications, recognized the Plan Update is aspirational; the Commission considered City Council Study Session comments and recommended retainment of the 10 acres per 1,000 resident parkland standard, retainment of the sub -area delineations, and clarification regarding the use of the Access Gap/Amenities map, and supported additional City Council Study Session comments (7:0); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a virtual public hearing in webinar format on May 26, 2021 and recommended the City Council adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and approve the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) (4:0:3); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on July 6, 2021 in the City Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, for the purpose of considering GENP-1942-2018 and EID-0150-2021, which include the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) and associated Initial Study/Negative Declaration consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation of May 26, 2021; and 0 Resolution No. (2021 Series) Page 2 WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo to adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and approve the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update). This resolution is based on the following findings: SECTION 1. CEQA Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings in support of the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update). 1. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, adequately addressing potential environmental impacts associated with the project. 2. No significant adverse impacts would occur as a result of the project, and no mitigation measures are required. 3. As a policy document, the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021- 2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) does not authorize any physical development or improvements or provide project -specific construction details that would allow for project -level CEQA analysis; instead, it is intended to provide goals and policies, and guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City. Therefore, consistent with Section 15168(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration evaluates program -level actions that describe planned park and recreation facilities and programs and focuses primarily on the Plan's consistency with adopted City plans, goals, objectives, and standards. Future proposed physical improvements that are subject to discretionary approval would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 2. Project Approval with Findings. The City Council does hereby adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and approve the project, inclusive of applications GENP-1942-2018 and EID-0150-2021, consisting of the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update and associated Initial Study/Negative Declaration, based on the following findings- 0 Resolution No. (2021 Series) Page 3 Findings: The Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of persons living and working in the City by proving a blueprint for future parks, facilities, and programs, that will be inclusive, safe, and accessible to all people. 2. The Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) supports and advances many of the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the City's Active Transportation Plan, and Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery, because the development and enhancement of accessible parks and facilities in the City would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and related greenhouse gas emissions. Redevelopment of parks and facilities would facilitate carbon - neutrality and provide an opportunity to educate and showcase evolving technology. 0 Resolution No. (2021 Series) Page 4 3. The Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) is consistent with the City's General Plan, because implementation of the Plan Update would advance goals and policies of the Land Use Element, including neighborhood connectivity and enhancement (Policies 2.2.4 and 2.2.6); provision and enhancement of parks within neighborhoods (Policy 2.3.1); and increasing green space in the Downtown (Policy 4.11). Upon motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney 2021. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on Teresa Purrington City Clerk 0 {� p y INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For: Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update EID-0150-2021 March 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM.....................................................................1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED...................................................................3 FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES..............................................................................................................3 STATECLEARINGHOUSE...............................................................................................................3 DETERMINATION.........................................................................................................................4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS...............................................................................5 1. Aesthetics.................................................................................................................................................6 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.........................................................................................................7 3. Air Quality.................................................................................................................................................8 4. Biological Resources...............................................................................................................................11 5. Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................................13 6. Energy.....................................................................................................................................................14 7. Geology and Soils...................................................................................................................................15 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................................................................18 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials..........................................................................................................20 10. Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................................................22 11. Land Use and Planning...........................................................................................................................24 12. Mineral Resources..................................................................................................................................25 13. Noise.......................................................................................................................................................26 14. Population and Housing.........................................................................................................................28 15. Public Services........................................................................................................................................29 16. Recreation..............................................................................................................................................30 17. Transportation........................................................................................................................................31 18. Tribal Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................................33 19. Utilities and Service Systems..................................................................................................................34 20. Wildfire...................................................................................................................................................36 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.......................................................................................................37 22. Earlier Analyses......................................................................................................................................38 23. Source References..................................................................................................................................38 ATTACHMENTS A: DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN B: NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards AB Assembly Bill ALUP Airport Land Use Plan AOZ Airport Overlay Zone BMPs Best Management Practices Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Climate Action Plan CCRWQCB Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 methane City City of San Luis Obispo CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent COSE Conservation and Open Space Element CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan dBA A -weighted decibel(s) EFZ Earthquake Fault Zone EIR Environmental Impact Report EOP Emergency Operations Plan FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map GHGs greenhouse gas emissions GWP Global Warming Potential CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO H INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 HFCs hydrofluorocarbons IS/ND Initial Study/Negative Declaration LUE Land Use Element MJHMP Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan MRZs Mineral Resource Zones N20 nitrous oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOA naturally occurring asbestos NOA ATCM NOA Airborne Toxic Control Measure NOX nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 03 ozone P Park Pb lead PCR Post Construction Requirements PF Public Facilities PFCs perfluorocarbons PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PRC Public Resources Code PRE Parks and Recreation Element PRMP Parks and Recreation Master Plan PRP Parks and Recreation Plan REC Recreation SB Senate Bill SCCAB South Central Coast Air Basin CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO III INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SLCUSD San Luis Coastal Unified School District SLOCAPCD San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SLOMC San Luis Obispo Municipal Code SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SOz sulfur dioxide State State of California SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminant VMT vehicle miles traveled VOCs volatile organic compounds WWME Water and Wastewater Management Element CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IV INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 CPFY OF SsinL,uSOBISFO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER # EID-0150-2021 1. Project Title: San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner (805) 781-7176 4. Project Location: Citywide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Parks and Recreation Department City of San Luis Obispo 1341 Nipomo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designations: Citywide 7. Zoning: Citywide 8. Description of the Project: The City of San Luis Obispo's (City) current Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) and Parks and Recreation Element (PRE) was adopted in 2001. The PRMP/PRE needs to be updated to address the City's changing population and physical environment and the associated demands for new and/or improved community recreation facilities and programs. Therefore, in 2018, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) embarked on a process to update its Parks and Recreation Plan (PRP) and PRE, and the title of this update is Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update (Plan Update). The Draft Plan Update evaluates the condition and capacity of the City's existing parks and facilities, develops a strategy for maintaining and enhancing these facilities, and considers how new parks and facilities should be provided over the coming years. The combined Draft Plan Update revisits the City's recreational needs with fresh information about facility usage, program participation, and community priorities and preferences and then establishes goals, policies, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 and implementing actions to serve as a blueprint from which to guide the City in achieving its Parks and Recreation vision. The Draft Plan Update addresses the type, location, and timing of development of City parks and recreation facilities. Although the update retains similar policies and programs as established in the 2001 PRMP/PRE, there are also new policies and programs that address these changing conditions. Chapter 4, Goals and Policies, of the Draft Plan Update, includes over 50 policies to achieve the following five system -wide goals: • Build community and neighborhoods; • Meet the changing needs of the community; • Sustainability; • Optimize resources; and • Safety. Chapter 5, Implementation, of the Draft Plan Update, describes the need for recreation amenities within the City, provides a framework for locating these amenities, and identifies near -term, mid-term, and long-term projects. As a policy document, the Draft Plan Update does not authorize any physical development or improvements; instead, it is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City. Therefore, consistent with Section 15168(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) evaluates program -level actions that describe planned park and recreation facilities and programs and focuses primarily on the Draft Plan Update's consistency with adopted City plans, goals, objectives, and standards. Future proposed physical improvements that are subject to discretionary approval would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Policy Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Draft Plan Update is included as Attachment A to this IS/ND. Once adopted, the Draft Plan Update will be finalized and become part of the City's General Plan. 9. Project Entitlements: The Draft Plan Update would require the following entitlements: • Review/recommendation by the City Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Planning Commission; • Approval of the Draft Plan Update/adoption of the IS/ND by the City Council. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Policies and goals of the Draft Plan Update apply to the entire City; consequently, the project area or setting includes the entire City and parks and open space areas located outside the City limits within the City's planning area. 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but not limited to, Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. No tribal representatives requested consultation or provided specific requests. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Public Services ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Hydrology and Water Quality ❑ Transportation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Energy ❑ Noise ❑ Wildfire ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES [City to determine whether a No Effect Determination would be applicable to the projectl The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written a no effect ❑ determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and ® Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State © agencies (e.g., Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project ❑ proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL ❑ IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the ❑ earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE ❑ DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Shawna Scott March 23, 2021 Date For Michael Codron Printed Name Community Development Director CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site -specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 1. AESTHETICS Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, Less Than would the project: Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 7, 13, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 14 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 7, 13, limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic 14 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from 7, 13, ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an 14 urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 12,20 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a), b), c) The City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) (City of San Luis Obispo 2006a; adopted April 4, 2006, last revised December 9, 2014) identifies scenic features as creek areas, historic resources, and neighboring hillsides and surrounding mountains such as the Morros, the Santa Lucia Mountains, and the Irish Hills. Scenic corridors as identified in the General Plan include: U.S. Highway 101, South Higuera Street, Broad Street, Tank Farm Road, Johnson Avenue, Los Osos Valley Road, and Santa Rosa Street. Goals and policies in the Draft Plan Update support the preservation of scenic resources within the City, and future physical park and facility improvements envisioned by the Draft Plan Update are anticipated to enhance the existing visual character of the City through the provision of new and upgraded recreational facilities, including preserving and incorporating existing vegetation and natural features on site and, where feasible, to connect with nearby open spaces, and maintaining and providing "grand trees," or trees which cast shade and provide long-term value. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update policies are consistent with the policies within the City's General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) (City of San Luis Obispo 2014d; adopted December 9, 2014), the LOSE, and the Circulation Element (City of San Luis Obispo 2014c; adopted December 9, 2014, amended October 24, 2017), which require the preservation of scenic vistas and roadways. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific aesthetic impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and visual character or public views. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and visual character or public views, and no mitigation is required. d) Future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would introduce new sources of light to the City that are typical of parks and recreational facilities (e.g., facility and security lighting). However, future projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be required to comply with the design standards related to light and glare established in both the City's General Plan and the City's Municipal Code. Specifically, future projects would be required to conform to the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23), which establishes operational standards and requirements for lighting installations (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). Although future development envisioned by the Draft Plan Update would introduce new sources of light that would contribute to the light visible in the night sky and surrounding area, the City is located within a highly urbanized area characterized by significant nighttime lighting. As such, any new sources of light associated with future parks and recreational facilities would be consistent with the existing urbanized character of the City. The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific aesthetic impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts from light and glare. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to creation of new sources of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Less Than Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon Significant measurement methodologyprovided in Forest Protocols adopted b p p y Potentially Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant No the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ❑ ❑ © ❑ Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 11,12 ❑ ❑ ❑M ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), ❑ ❑ ❑N ❑ or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to ❑ ❑ ❑ non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, ❑ ❑ © ❑ to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Evaluation a), c), d), e) The City contains lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance (farmland). However, the City is primarily urbanized, and limited areas are used for agricultural production. Planned parks and park improvements as described in the Draft Plan Update comply with the City's General Plan LUE regarding the locations for park and recreation development, and would generally be developed within lands designated for Park (P), Recreation (REC) and Public (PUB) uses. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific farmland and agricultural resource impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts on farmland and agricultural resources. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the conversion of farmland, and no mitigation is required. b) Although there are no existing Williamson Act contracts within the City, several undeveloped hillside parcels to the east of the City and several parcels outside the Airport Area Specific Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2014a) are under Williamson Act contracts (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). However, these nearby parcels under Williamson Act contracts are not planned for park and recreation development within the Draft Plan Update. Additionally, planned parks and park improvements as described in the Draft Plan Update would generally be developed within lands designated for Park (P), Recreation (REC), and Public (PUB) uses. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts related to agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address such impacts. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflicts with a Williamson Act contract, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the Less Than applicable air quality management district or air pollution control Significant district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Potentially Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant No Would the project: Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 25 ❑ ❑ © ❑ quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 25, 26, pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under 27,28 ❑ ❑ © ❑ an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 25, 26, concentrations? 27, 28, ❑ ❑ © ❑ 29 d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) 20 ❑ ❑ ❑X Eladversely affecting a substantial number of people? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Evaluation The City of San Luis Obispo is within the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD). The SLOCAPCD is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which includes San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. As the local air quality management agency, SLOCAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Both the State of California (State) and the federal government have established health -based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM,o, [particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size, and particulate matter less than 10 microns in size, respectively]). The SLOCAPCD is under State non -attainment status for ozone and PMIo standards. The SLOCAPCD is classified as non -attainment for the federal ozone 8-hour standard (eastern San Luis Obispo County only). In March 2002, SLOCAPCD adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan (SLOCAPCD 2001). In July 2005, SLOCAPCD adopted a Particulate Matter Report (SLOCAPCD 2005), in order to update the jurisdiction's control measures for particulate matter, as required by SB 656. In 2015, SLOCAPCD adopted an Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment in order to identify and analyze its historic and current air monitoring sites. The most current Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment (SLOCAPCD 2020a) was performed in June 2020. In addition, in January 2020, SLOCAPCD adopted an Ozone Emergency Episode Plan (SLOCAPCD 2020b), in compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act, in order to provide the basis for taking action when ambient ozone concentrations reach a level that could endanger public health in San Luis Obispo County. Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is identified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant JAC). NOA is commonly found in ultramafic rock, including serpentine, near fault zones, and is released into the air when it is broken or crushed. This can occur when land is graded for building purposes, or at quarrying operations. Work in serpentine areas requires a pre -approved dust control plan by the SLOCAPCD, and may include asbestos air monitoring. In addition, projects located within the green "buffer" areas as designated by the SLOCAPCD NOA map would be required to comply with the provisions of the California Air Resources Board's Air Toxic Control Measure (NOA ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (SLOCAPCD 2021). a) An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non - attainment area. The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal and State air quality standards. As identified above, to bring San Luis Obispo County into attainment, the SLOCAPCD adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan. The 2001 Clean Air Plan calls for building compact communities to limit urban sprawl, mix complementary land uses, such as commercial services with higher -density housing, increasing residential and commercial densities along transit corridors, and increase pedestrian -friendly and interconnected streetscapes, helping to make alternative means of transportation more convenient. Consistency with the 2001 Clean Air Plan would be achieved if a project is consistent with the land use, transportation control measures, and strategies outlined in the 2001 Clean Air Plan. Planned parks and park improvements as described in the Draft Plan Update comply with the City's General Plan LUE regarding the locations for park and recreation development, and would generally be developed within lands designated for Park (P), Recreation (REC), and Public (PUB) uses. In addition, the Draft Plan Update does not authorize development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the Draft Plan Update would not result in construction or operational impacts. In addition, the five goals of the Draft Plan Update (i.e., building community and neighborhoods, meeting changing needs of the community, sustainability, optimizing resources, and safety) seek to provide a park within walking distance of every neighborhood, increase trees and shade structures, implement water efficient initiatives, modify existing parks and design new parks and facilities to support and advance the City's Climate Action Plan goal for carbon neutrality, and promote non -motorized access to the City's open spaces. Because these goals are consistent with the intent of the 2001 Clean Air Plan strategies, the Draft Plan Update would be consistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan. Further, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific air quality impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts in regard to conflicts with an applicable air quality plan. For the reasons stated above, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with or obstruction of an applicable air quality plan, and no mitigation is required. b) Future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update, including but not limited to planned improvements for the Ludwick Community Center, construction of a new multi -generational community center, and the construction of new parks and recreation amenities and facilities, would include a variety of grading, construction, and demolition activities, and could thereby CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 result in the generation of short-term construction emissions. Short-term construction emissions may include the release of particulate matter emissions (i.e., fugitive dust) generated by excavating, paving, and building activities. Short-term construction emissions from construction equipment may also include CO, nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), directly -emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PMIo), and TACs such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. The SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook identifies standard mitigation such as dust control, Best Available Control Technologies, limitations on diesel equipment idling, and other measures proven to reduce air emissions during construction. These measures would be applied to any project with the potential to exceed quantified air emissions thresholds identified by the SLOAPCD, and/or when construction would occur proximate to sensitive receptors. Long-term operational emissions are associated with any change in permanent use of a project site by on -site stationary and off - site mobile sources that substantially increase emissions. Stationary -source emissions include emissions associated with electricity consumption and natural gas usage. Mobile -source emissions typically result from vehicle trips associated with a project. Future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update is anticipated to aid in reducing long-term operational emissions within the City, as the Draft Plan Update establishes a policy for the evaluation of the current energy usage of existing parks and facilities and the establishment of energy management and sustainability features, where feasible (e.g., on -site renewable energy or battery storage). In addition, new parks and facilities envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be designed to support and advance the City's Climate Action Plan goal for carbon neutrality, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and promote non -motorized access to the City's open spaces. The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific air quality impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts in regard to a considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to criteria pollutant emissions, and no mitigation is required. c) As described above, future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would include a variety of grading, construction, and demolition activities, which would generate air pollutants. Depending on the specific location, sensitive receptors may be exposed to air pollutants; as noted above, SLOAPCD standard mitigation would be required for applicable projects, such as restrictions on diesel -equipment idling to minimize exposure to diesel particulates. Further, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific air quality impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts in regard to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and no mitigation is required. d) The Draft Plan Update would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people because it does not establish new land uses that would have the potential to generate significant odors. Individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be required to comply with the City's odor ordinance (SLOMC Chapter 8.22) and SLOCAPCD's Rule 402, Nuisance. Further, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific air quality impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts in regard to other emissions (such as those leading to odors). Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to other emissions (such as those leading to odors), and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Conclusion Less than significant impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, 7,14 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 7, 14 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, 7 14 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native 7,14 ❑ ❑ © ❑ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 7,20 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved 7,12 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Evaluation a), b), c), d) The City is primarily urbanized, and includes a mix of community parks, neighborhood parks, mini parks, and open space, in addition to a permanent open space greenbelt around the perimeter of the City. The City's General Plan LUE and COSE provide a guide for the preservation of biological resources within the City's planning area. The City's planning area includes areas within the City's sphere of influence beyond City limits. These biological resources include creeks and adjacent riparian corridors, vernal pools, marshes, special -status species, hillsides, open space and park areas, and Laguna Lake. One of the goals of the LUE is to include resource protection within the City's planning program. Resource Protection is addressed in Section 6 of the LUE. In particular, the LUE includes Policy 6.6.1 to provide recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat and Policy 6.6.2 to include lakes, creeks, and wetlands as part of a citywide and regional network of open space and parks to foster the understanding, enjoyment, and protection of the natural landscape and wildlife. The COSE's goals of maintaining sustainable natural populations of plants, fish and wildlife that inhabit the City's natural communities and in particular COSE Policies 7.3.1 and 7.3.2, which establish the protection of listed species and species of special concern, respectively, and Policy 7.3.3, which provides for the protection and preservation of wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors. The Draft Plan Update's goal of sustainability is consistent with and supports both the City's existing LUE and COSE because it includes policies that 1 seek to integrate creeks into the parks and recreations stem by providingtrails along the City's creeks CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 while also addressing natural resource preservation, (2) focus on natural features by preserving and incorporating existing vegetation and natural features on site and, where feasible, by designing and connecting these features with larger open space systems, and (3) consider habitat value and natural influences as key factors in selecting trees at park locations. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific biological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to protect those resources from both direct and indirect impacts. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to federally or State protected species, special -status or candidate species, riparian habitat or other natural communities, State or federally protected wetlands, or the movements of fish and wildlife species, and no mitigation is required. e) As described within COSE Policy 7.5.1, significant trees that make substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity shall be protected and their removal will be subject to specific criteria and mitigation requirements. The Draft Plan Update's goal to develop sustainable parks and facilities seeks to preserve and incorporate existing vegetation, including trees. Additionally, future park and recreation projects that would result in tree removals would be required to comply with Chapter 12.24, Tree Regulations, of the City's Municipal Code, which includes requirements for tree protection measures and compensatory plantings (minimum 1:1 replacement ratio for trees replanted on site, minimum 2:1 replacement ratio for trees planted off -site). Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific biological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as trees, and no mitigation is required. f) The COSE and City's Municipal Code establish land designated for habitat conservation and specify goals and policies to preserve these conservation areas. The City has eight Open Space Conservation Plans that guide protection, access, and restoration efforts within the City's greenbelt: the Agricultural Master Plan for Calle Joaquin Reserve, the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan, the Cerro San Luis Conservation Plan, the Irish Hills Conservation Plan, the Johnson Ranch Conservation Plan, the South Hills Conservation Plan, the Stenner Springs Natural Reserve Draft Conservation Plan, and the Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). Adoption of the Draft Plan Update would promote the preservation of land designated for habitat within the City. For example, three of the goals of the Draft Plan Update, in particular, would support the City's desire to promote and preserve land designated for habitat conservation and open space by focusing parks, facilities and recreation activities within the City's urban areas: build community and neighborhoods, sustainability, and optimize resources. These goals include improving existing parks, creating new parks in existing neighborhoods and specific plan areas, maintaining the City's Joint Use Agreement with the San Luis Coastal Unified School District, and coordinating with other organizations' recreation offerings to match needs and facilities/programs while not replicating services. Prioritizing the use and expansion of existing developed areas and services provided by others in order to meet the demand for new park facilities and amenities will help the City provide new and improved parks and recreation facilities within a limited footprint, which will allow for the conservation of natural areas and open space. Integrating creekside trails into the City's park system and incorporating natural features within designated parks and facilities that connect with larger open space will generate an appreciation for the City's natural areas and open space while protecting the resources by directing human activities to maintained areas. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific biological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with the City's adopted conservation plans or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with the City's adopted conservation plans or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans, and no mitigation is required. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 7, 10, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ historic resource pursuant to § 15064.5? 20 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 7,9 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 9 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ formal cemeteries? Evaluation a) The City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.01) and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (City of San Luis Obispo 2010) specify regulations for special treatment of historic resources and establish local guidance for the identification and preservation of such resources. Future projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update, such as improvements to the SLO Senior Center, a historic property located at 1445 Santa Rosa Street, would be required to be consistent with the guidelines related to historic resources established under the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and the General Plan. Specifically, as described in Section 3.4.2 of the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update, which propose alterations to historically -listed buildings, would be required to retain at least 75 percent of the original building framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and cladding, in total, and reuse original materials as feasible. Proposed alterations of greater than 25 percent of the original building framework, roof, and exterior walls will be subject to the review process for demolitions, including evaluation of potential impacts to a historic property pursuant to CEQA. Alterations do not include ordinary repair or maintenance activities that are determined to be exempt from a building permit or are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources. Sections 3.3 and 3.5 of the COSE also specify policies to protect significant historical and architectural resources within the City. In addition, future projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to comply with Policy 3.5.12, which requires developments to preserve archaeological or historical resources through easements or dedications when located on parkland. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific historic resources, and would include compliance with the City Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to historic resources. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact in regard to historic resources, and no mitigation is required. b) The City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (City of San Luis Obispo 2009) provide a guide for the identification, evaluation, and preservation of archaeological and other cultural resources within the City. These guidelines support Policy 3.5.1 of the COSE, which requires the City to protect known and potential archaeological resources. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific archaeological resources pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts to archaeological resources. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact in regard to archaeological resources, and no mitigation is required. c) As stated in Response 5 (b), above, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific cultural resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts to human remains. Further, any future projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would follow the standard procedures as outlined in Section 4.40.3.3 of the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines in the event human remains are discovered during construction or excavation activities. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact in regard to impacts to human remains, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 6. ENERGY Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to 7, 15, wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy 21 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable 7, 15, ❑ ❑ © ❑ energy or energy efficiency? 21 Evaluation The City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (LOSE) (City of San Luis Obispo 2006a; adopted April 4, 2006, last revised December 9, 2014) establishes goals and policies to achieve energy conservation and increase use of cleaner, renewable, and locally controlled energy sources. These goals include increasing the use of sustainable energy sources and reducing reliance on non -sustainable energy sources to the extent possible and encouraging the provision for and protection of solar access. Policies identified to achieve these goals include, but are not limited to, use of best available practices in energy conservation, procurement, use and production, energy -efficiency improvements, pedestrian- and bicycle -friendly facility design, fostering alternative transportation modes, compact, high -density housing, and solar access standards. Consistent with the City's goals and policies, in October 2018, the City Council committed to joining Central Coast Community Energy (formerly Monterey Bay Community Power), whereas up until that time, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) was the primary electricity provider for the City. Since January 2020, Central Coast Community Energy has been the City's primary electricity provider and strives to provide 100 percent carbon -free electricity to the City by 2023 (City of San Luis Obispo 2021b). In September 2019, the City adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which encourages new buildings to be clean, efficient, and cost effective all -electric new buildings through incentives and local amendments to the California Energy Code (City of San Luis Obispo 2021b). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 The City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) (City of San Luis Obispo 2020a) also identifies strategies and policies to increase use of cleaner and renewable energy resources in order to achieve the City's greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. These strategies include promoting a wide range of renewable energy financing options, incentivizing renewable energy generation in new and existing developments, and increasing community awareness of renewable energy programs. a), b) Typical construction activities require the use of energy (e.g., electricity and fuel) for various purposes such as the operation of construction equipment and tools, as well as excavation, grading, demolition, and construction vehicle travel. Operational energy demand is typically associated with lighting, routine maintenance activities, landscaping, turf, and vehicle travel. The Draft Plan Update does not authorize any direct physical changes and would, therefore, not generate new daily vehicle trips, electricity consumption, or natural gas usage. Furthermore, the goals of the Draft Plan Update, which seek to build community and neighborhoods and increase sustainability, include policies directed at providing a park within walking distance of every neighborhood, increasing trees and shade structures, making park locations accessible by foot and bicycle, and instituting water - efficient initiatives including working landscape features to help filter pollutants, low water use plantings and xeriscaping, and gray and recycled water systems. In addition, the Draft Plan Update includes a specific policy to design and maintain parks and facilities for carbon neutrality by strategically phasing out fossil fuel use and pursuing energy management and sustainability features where feasible such as onsite renewable energy, battery storage, and public electric vehicle chargers. New buildings and facilities shall not include fossil fuels and shall be designed to support electric or alternative fueled fleet vehicles and maintenance equipment. Therefore, future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update is not anticipated to result in increased energy demand. As discussed above, the Draft Plan Update includes goals and policies that seek to improve the sustainability of parks and facilities, and is consistent with the strategies and policies of the City's CAP. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to energy resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to energy resources. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other 6, 12 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 12 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? 8,12 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ iv. Landslides? 8 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially 6,8 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial direct or 12 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers 12 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 9 ❑ ❑ ❑ or site or unique geologic feature? Evaluation a. i) As described in the City's General Plan Safety Element (City of San Luis Obispo 2000; adopted: July 5, 2000, last revised December 9, 2014), the City is located within a geologically complex and seismically active region. The Los Osos Fault is located adjacent to the City, and is classified as an active Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) under the State of California Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act. Other potentially active faults within the vicinity of the City include the West Huasna, Oceanic, and Edna Faults, which present moderate fault rupture hazards (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). Since the Draft Plan Update is a policy document and does not directly authorize any physical improvements, its adoption would not result in impacts related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault as depicted on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Further, future individual projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to be consistent with City policies established in the Safety Element, and would be required to be compliant with current building codes. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to geological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with the risk of loss, injury or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, and no mitigation is required. a. ii) Several faults, including the Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black Mountain, Rinconada, Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas faults are capable of producing strong ground motion in the City. The San Andreas Fault and the offshore Hosgri Fault present the most likely source of ground shaking in the City (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). As with most areas within the region, damage to development and infrastructure could be expected as a result of ground shaking. However, future individual projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to be consistent with City policies established in the Safety Element, and would be required to be compliant with current building codes. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to geological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, and no mitigation is required. a. iii) The soils within the City most susceptible to ground shaking and that contain shallow groundwater are most likely to have a potential for settlement and for liquefaction(City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). Similarly to Responses 7 a i and a ii , future CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 individual projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to be consistent with City policies established in the Safety Element and City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2006b), which include policies to prevent development within areas susceptible to natural hazards, and would include compliance with current building codes. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to geological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, and no mitigation is required. a. iv) Landslides are most common where slopes are steep, soils are weak, and groundwater is present. The City contains extensive hillsides, several of which are underlain by the rocks of the Franciscan group, which is a source of significant slope instability. However, most of the City's steep hillside areas are designated as Open Space per the City's General Plan. Because future projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would generally be developed within lands designated for Park (P), Recreation (REC), and Public (PUB) uses, landslides in these areas are unlikely to occur. In addition, future individual projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to be consistent with City requirements established in the Safety Element and the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2006b), which includes policies to prevent development within areas susceptible to natural hazards, and would be required to be compliant with current building codes. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to geological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to landslides. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides, and no mitigation is required. b) As further discussed in Responses 10 (a), (c), and (i-v), future projects which require the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would implement Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize impacts related to erosion and runoff. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to geological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to erosion and loss of topsoil, and no mitigation is required. c), d) Refer to Responses 7 (a)(iv) and 7 (b) above. Future projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to be consistent with the City Safety Element and the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2006b), which include policies to prevent development within areas susceptible to natural hazards. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to geological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to unstable soils that could result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or expansion. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to unstable soils that could result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or expansion, and no mitigation is required. e) As stated in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (LUCE) (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b), with implementation of existing Water and Wastewater Element policies and completion of the City's ongoing expansion of the Water Resource Recovery Facility, the City would have adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve projected demand in addition to existing commitments, which include existing parks and recreational facility needs. Future development within the City, including projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update, would be connected to the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 municipal waste disposal system. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in no impact associated with soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems, and no mitigation is required. f) The City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (City of San Luis Obispo 2009) specify criteria to address the discovery of unique resources or paleontological resources during construction excavation. The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to paleontological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to paleontological resources. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, 15, 16 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted 15, 16 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Evaluation Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, and are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. However, over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global climate change. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human -induced global climate change are: carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CHa); nitrous oxide (N20); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulfur hexafluoride (S176). Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short- lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation. These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere ("atmospheric lifetime"). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of "CO2 equivalents" (CO2e). In 2012, the City established a CAP that identified measures and implementation strategies in order to achieve the City's GHG reduction target of 1990 emission levels by 2020. In 2020, the City adopted the 2020 CAP and established a goal of carbon CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 neutrality by 2035. The City's CAP is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, which states that if a project is consistent with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that meets the standards, it can be presumed that the project would not have significant GHG emission impacts. Therefore, a project's GHG emissions would not be considered a significant impact if the project is consistent with the City's CAP. The City of San Luis Obispo has also adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds and Guidance (City of San Luis Obispo 2020b), which establishes GHG emissions targets and analysis methodologies that are enforced during CEQA review with the intention of reducing GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of future projects and plans in the City. a), b) Future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update, including but not limited to the planned improvements for the Ludwick Community Center, construction of a new multi -generational community center, and the construction of new parks and recreation amenities and facilities, would include a variety of grading, construction, and demolition activities, and could thereby result in the generation of short-term construction GHG emissions. GHGs could be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil -based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil -based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CHa, and N20. The SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook identifies standard mitigation such as Best Available Control Technologies and other measures proven to reduce GHG emissions during construction.. Long-term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile, area, waste, and water sources as well as indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile -source GHG emissions could include project -generated trips to and from a project site. Area -source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on a project site and operation of recreational facilities. Energy source emissions are typically generated at off -site utility providers. Waste source emissions include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing project -generated waste. In addition, water source emissions are generated by the pumping of water, water distribution, and wastewater treatment. Regardless, the five goals of the Draft Plan Update (i.e., building community and neighborhoods, meeting changing needs of the community, sustainability, optimizing resources, and safety) would be consistent with and further the implementation of the City's GHG reduction strategies. For example, the policies outlined in the Draft Plan Update seek to provide a park within walking distance of every neighborhood, increase trees and shade structures, make park locations accessible by foot and bicycle, implement water -efficient initiatives, low water use plantings and xeriscaping, and gray and recycled water systems. In addition, the Draft Plan Update includes a specific policy to design and maintain parks and facilities for carbon neutrality by strategically phasing out fossil fuel use and pursuing energy management and sustainability features where feasible such as onsite renewable energy, battery storage, and public electric vehicle chargers. New buildings and facilities shall not include fossil fuels and shall be designed to support electric or alternative fueled fleet vehicles and maintenance equipment. Because these goals are consistent with the strategies and policies of the City's CAP, the Draft Plan Update would be consistent with the City CAP. Further, future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for consistency with the City's CAP and its CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds and Guidance (City of San Luis Obispo 2020b). The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts associated with GHG emissions and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to GHG emissions or conflicts with the City's Climate Action Plan. As such, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with generation of GHGs that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and no mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 6, 14, through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous 24 ❑ ❑ ❑M ❑ materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 6, 14, ❑ ❑ ❑ involving the release of hazardous materials into the 24 environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 6, 14, hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter 24 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public 11 20 airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety 22 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 20,23 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a 6120 ❑ ❑ ❑M ❑ significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Evaluation a), b), c) The City's General Plan LUE (City of San Luis Obispo 2014d; adopted December 9, 2014) and Safety Element (City of San Luis Obispo, 2000; adopted July 5, 2000, last revised December 9, 2014) are the primary documents that address potential hazards and hazardous materials within the City. Specifically, Policy 5.3 of the Safety Element requires avoidance of hazardous materials to the greatest extent practical when conducting City operations, and requires health and safety practices to be followed when hazardous materials are used. In addition, the San Luis Obispo County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) (San Luis Obispo County 2019) identifies hazards and risks related to natural disasters and hazardous materials incidents, and includes mitigation strategies to reduce impacts associated with these risks. The Draft Plan Update is consistent with the policies within the LUE, the Safety Element, and the San Luis Obispo County MJHMP. For example, one of the goals of the Draft Plan Update is sustainability, which includes replacing chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers with non -toxic alternatives such as the use of Integrated Pest Management, which focuses on pest prevention through biological controls and the use of non -toxic cleaning products. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to the routine transport, use, disposal, accidental release, or emissions associated with hazardous materials. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 significant impact related to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal, accidental release, or emissions associated with hazardous materials, and no mitigation is required. d) The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to hazardous materials listed on sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to known hazardous materials listed on sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and no mitigation is required. e) The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is located adjacent to the southern perimeter of the City. The Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (County of San Luis Obispo 2005) identifies policies to evaluate the compatibility of land uses and proposed local actions with the airport. The City's adopted Specific Plans, including but not limited to the Airport Area Specific Plan, Margarita Area Specific Plan, Orcutt Area Specific Plan, San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, and Froom Ranch Specific Plan, were all determined to be consistent with the effective ALUP prior to adoption by the City. Areas with the City that are located outside of Specific Plan areas are subject to Chapter 17.64 of the City's Municipal Code, which establishes an Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) and identifies specific regulations for land uses within the AOZ. Future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update may be located within the AOZ or located within two miles of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and could introduce new sources of lighting or other potential hazards that could interfere with overflight safety requirements, or exposure park and facility staff and users to aircraft noise as established in the ALUP. However, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts associated with the project's proximity to an airport and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing or working in a project area. Additionally, the Draft Plan Update is consistent with the goals of the Airport Area Specific Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2014a), as one of the goals of the Draft Plan Update, building community and neighborhoods, includes guiding the completion of parks planned as part of adopted Specific Plans, including Avila Ranch within the Airport Area Specific Plan. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to a site's proximity to an airport facility or any airport land use plan, and no mitigation is required. f) The San Luis Obispo County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) (San Luis Obispo County 2016) addresses the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies within or affecting the County. Individual projects would be reviewed for consistency with the EOP, City Municipal Code Chapter 15.04, Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations, and other adopted emergency response and evacuation plans. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts associated with the impairment or interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address such impacts. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no mitigation is required. g) As described in the Safety Element, the City is considered a "community at risk" due to the threat of wildfire impacting the urban community. Policy 3.0 of the Safety Element specifies that developments will only be approved when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available or will be made available concurrent with the proposed development. Policy 3.1 of the Safety Element also establishes policies for wildland fire safety. In addition, the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) provides a citywide strategic planning level framework for hazardous fuel assessment and reduction, and identifies goals to improve fire prevention and suppression efforts and to restore fire -adapted ecosystems. Future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be reviewed for consistency with the Safety Element, City Municipal Code Chapter 15.04, Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations, and the CWPP. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts associated with exposing people or structures to loss, injury or death involving wildland fire and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to wildland fire. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to exposure of people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fire, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or 20 ❑ ❑ ❑M ❑ ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project 12 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; 20 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- 20 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ or offsite; iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater 20 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 20 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of 2 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality 3 ❑ "E] ❑X ❑ control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Evaluation a), c) (i-iv) As a policy document, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would not result in impacts related to hydrology and water quality. One of the Draft Plan U date's goals is to develop arks and recreation facilities sustainabl , which includes policies CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 such as incorporating working landscapes that help filter pollutants and capture stormwater and reduce the use of chemicals, which would improve water quality and the rate and volume of stormwater runoff. Future projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would generally be required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit if construction of the project disturbs greater than 1 acre of soil. Compliance with the Construction General Permit would require preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of construction BMPs, including, but not limited to, Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs and Good Housekeeping BMPs. Any groundwater dewatering activities during excavation would be required to comply with the appropriate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) waste discharge requirements permit, which requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during dewatering prior to its release. Additionally, the City is within the jurisdiction of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB), which has established Post Construction Requirements (PCR) for development and redevelopment projects. Chapter 12.08 of the City's Municipal Code, Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control, also specifies requirements to prevent, control, and reduce pollution in stormwater runoff, and identifies local requirements for post -construction BMPs. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to hydrology and water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degradation of water quality, or alteration of drainage patterns. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, degradation of water quality, or alteration of drainage patterns, and no mitigation is required. b) The City is located partially within the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). One of the Draft Plan Update's goals is to develop parks and recreation facilities sustainably, which includes policies such as preserving and incorporating existing vegetation and natural features on site, developing working landscapes, and low water use planting and xeriscaping, and gray and recycled water systems to reduce water use. These policies promote water conservation and groundwater recharge. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to groundwater and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge, and no mitigation is required. d) Based on the County Tsunami Inundation Maps (California Department of Conservation 2019), the City is not located within a tsunami inundation zone. Additionally, the City does not have large bodies of standing body of water with the potential for seiches to occur. Future projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 17.78, Flood Damage Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) flood zone requirements to address impacts associated with flooding. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to the risk of release of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to risk of release of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, and no mitigation is required. e) Refer to Responses 10 (a) and (b). One of the Draft Plan Update's goals is to develop parks and recreation facilities sustainably, which includes policies such as preserving and incorporating existing vegetation and natural features on site, developing working landscapes, and low water use planting and xeriscaping, and gray and recycled water systems to reduce water use, which are consistent with the CCRWQCB's Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (Basin Plan) (CCRWQCB 2019) and the sustainable groundwater management. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to hydrology and water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 14 ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose 14 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Evaluation a) According to the Draft Plan Update, San Luis Obispo's Parks and Recreation Department defines its mission "to inspire happiness by creating community through people, parks, program and open space." The Draft Plan Update presents a blueprint for realizing this mission. The five goals of the Draft Plan Update (i.e., build community and neighborhoods, meet changing needs of the community, sustainability, maximize resources, and safety) embody this vision; so it could be said that the Draft Plan Update is the very antithesis of any effort to physically divide an established community, regardless of whether the "community" is defined as a neighborhood, a specific plan area, or the entire City. In addition, the Draft Plan Update is consistent with the intent of the City's General Plan LUE (City of San Luis Obispo 2014d; adopted December 9, 2014) to set forth a pattern for the orderly development of land within the City's planning area, based on residents' preferences and on protection of natural assets unique to the planning area. Similar to the intent of the LUE, the five goals of the Draft Plan Update (i.e., build community and neighborhoods, meet changing needs of the community, sustainability, optimize resources, and safety) seek to facilitate the orderly development of future parks and recreation projects within the City, and seek to preserve and protect existing vegetation and natural features at existing parks and facilities. The Draft Plan Update was also developed in coordination with City residents through a comprehensive public engagement effort, as described in Chapter 3, What We Heard, of the Draft Plan Update. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in no impact related to physically dividing an established community, and no mitigation is required. b) Planned parks and park improvements as described in the Draft Plan Update comply with the designated intent for Park (P), Recreation (REC), and Public (PUB) land uses as described in the LUE. In addition, as stated previously, the goals of the Draft Plan Update include building community and neighborhoods, meeting changing needs of the community, sustainability, optimizing resources, and safety. As stated in Response 11 (a), because the intent of the Draft Plan Update and the five goals of the Draft Plan Update (i.e., build community and neighborhoods, meet changing needs of the community, sustainability, maximize resources, and safety) are consistent with the intent of the LUE, the Draft Plan Update would be consistent with the LUE. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CE A and the State CE A Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to land use and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X specific plan or other land use plan? Evaluation a), b) In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), which, among other things, provided guidelines for the classification and designation of mineral lands. Areas are classified on the basis of geologic factors without regard to existing land use and land ownership. The areas are categorized into four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs): • MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated. • MRZ-4: An area where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone. Of the four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance. Such areas are underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by the State of California Mining and Geology Board as being "regionally significant," and require that a Lead Agency's land use decisions involving MRZ-2 areas are to be made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies, and that it consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the State as a whole, not just to the Lead Agency's jurisdiction. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology Mineral Land Classification Map (California Department of Conservation 1989), the City is located within MRZ-3. There are no areas classified as MRZ-2 located within the City. Further, because the Draft Plan Update is a policy document and does not include any physical improvements, no impacts related to CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 mineral resources would occur with its adoption. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in no impact to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion No impact. 13. NOISE Would the project result in: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of 5,20 ❑ El ® Elstandards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne 5,20 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use 20 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a), b) The City's General Plan Noise Element (City of San Luis Obispo 1996; adopted May 7, 1996, last revised May 7, 1996) establishes standards and procedures for protecting noise -sensitive uses from stationary and mobile sources. Refer to Table A for the maximum noise exposure thresholds for noise -sensitive uses due to transportation noise sources, and Table B for maximum noise exposure for noise -sensitive uses due to stationary noise sources. Table A: Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise -Sensitive Uses Due to Transportation Noise Sources Outdoor Activity Areas' Indoor Spaces La„ or CNEL, Ldo or Lcq Lmax Land Use in dB CNEL, in dB in dB' in dB3 Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing 60 45 - 60 homes Theaters, auditoriums, music halls - - 35 60 Churches, meeting halls, office building, 60 - 45 - mortuaries Schools, libraries, museums - - 45 60 Neighborhood parks 65 - - - Playgrounds 70 - - - CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Source: General Plan Noise Element (City of San Luis Obispo 1996). If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land use. s As determined for a typical worst -case hour during periods of use. ' Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road. CNEL = community noise equivalent level dB = decibel(s) La = day -night average noise level Leq = equivalent continuous sound level L_ = maximum instantaneous noise level Table B: Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise -Sensitive Uses Due to Transportation Noise Sources Duration Da 7 a.m. to 10 .m. Night 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Hourly Leq in dB',' 50 45 Maximum level in dB',' 70 65 Maximum impulsive noise in 00 65 60 Source: General Plan Noise Element (City of San Luis Obispo 1996). If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land use. s As determined for a typical worst -case hour during periods of use. ' Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road. CNEL = community noise equivalent level dB = decibel(s) Lam, = equivalent continuous sound level Noise attenuation measures identified in the Noise Element include land use limitations, separation between land uses (i.e., noise buffers), earth berms, and sound attenuation walls. Noise Element Policy 1.1 states that the City will work to minimize noise exposure based on the established numerical noise standards. City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Noise Control, prohibits operation of tools or equipment used in construction between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, or at any time on Sundays or holidays. The Municipal Code also requires that construction activities shall be conducted such that that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 A -weighted decibels (dBA) at single-family residences, 80 dBA at multi -family residences, and 85 dBA at mixed residential/commercial uses. The City Municipal Code (9.12.050.B.7) also addresses vibration impacts, if construction is occurring in a public space or right-of-way, by prohibiting the operation of any device that creates vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific noise -related impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to an increase in noise levels or excessive groundborne vibration or noise. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to an increase in noise levels or excessive groundborne vibration or noise, and no mitigation is required. c) Refer to Response 9 (e). Chapter 17.64 of the City's Municipal Code establishes an AOZ that identifies specific regulations for land uses within the AOZ, including provisions for noise sensitive land uses including neighborhood parks and playgrounds that could be affected by aircraft noise. Additionally, there are no private airstrips within the City's Urban Reserve Line. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific noise -related impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to exposure of people residing or working in an area to excessive airport noise. Future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would also be reviewed for consistency with the ALUP and Chapter 17.64 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 of the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to exposure of people residing or working in an area to excessive airport noise, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and 17 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing 17 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X elsewhere? Evaluation a), b) The Draft Plan Update seeks to address existing and future parks and recreation needs for the City's growing and changing population. According to the City's existing standards, which require a minimum of 10 acres of parkland acreage per 1,000 residents, the City is currently deficient in parkland acreage. Therefore, the Draft Plan Update is responding to the needs of the City's existing and future population by planning for additional parks and facilities; it is not inducing population growth by providing parks and facilities. The Draft Plan Update seeks to place updated and new facilities within or near either existing housing areas or within planned new housing areas. The City's approach to providing new and/or improved parks and recreation facilities is consistent with Goal 3 of the City's Housing Element, which seeks to conserve existing housing, and prevent the loss of safe housing and the displacement of current occupants, because the approach to providing new and/or improved parks and recreation facilities would not displace existing people or housing. The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in no impact related to substantial unplanned population growth or the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion No impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ Evaluation a), b) Fire and police protection services are provided to the City by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department and the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department, respectively. Individual projects envisioned by the Draft Plan Update may result in a marginal cumulative increase in demand on City services, including fire and police protection. However, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to public services and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to fire and police protection. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the provision of fire and police protection, or the construction of new or physically altered facilities, and no mitigation is required. c) The City is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD). As described in the Draft Plan Update, the City maintains a Joint Use Agreement with the SLCUSD, which establishes terms for both the SLCUSD's and the City's use of parks and recreational facilities at specified school sites. Future projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update could include expansion of this agreement to additional sites, hours, and uses. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to public services and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to schools. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to schools, and no mitigation is required. d) The Draft Plan Update evaluates the condition and capacity of the City's existing parks and facilities, develops a strategy for maintaining these facilities, and considers how new parks and recreational facilities should be provided in the future. Chapter 5 of the Draft Plan Update lays out a framework for locating parks and recreation amenities in existing and future parks and also includes a park -by -park assessment, identifying the general physical condition of each site, relevant issues pertaining to site access and use, and park -specific needs and wants. This information is provided in a table, along with planned improvements for all City parks, in Appendix E of the Draft Plan Update. As stated in Response 14(a) and 14(b), the Draft Plan Update would not induce population growth within the City. Individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would provide new and upgraded parks and recreational facilities for existing and future populations, including the City's daytime population of workers and students. The individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would benefit the community by creating greater capacity through the provision of new parks and facilities, which would thereby reduce demand on existing parks and facilities. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in CITY OF SAN L_UIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to public services and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to existing parks. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to parks, and no mitigation is required. e) Because the Draft Plan Update is intended to serve the parks and recreation needs of the existing community, it would not result in a direct increase in population and would therefore not result in the need to provide additional public facilities, such as expanding or building new libraries, whose construction would result in an environmental impact. Additionally, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update could result in an increase in the use of other public facilities such as roadways, bike lanes, sidewalks, and other urban paths; however, the increased use of sustainable transportation infrastructure is consistent with the City's General Plan and Active Transportation Plan.. Regardless, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to public services and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to other public facilities, including libraries and roadways. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with the provision of new or altered government facilities, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 16. RECREATION Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation a) The Draft Plan Update evaluates the condition and capacity of the City's existing parks and facilities, develops a strategy for maintaining these facilities, and developing new and/or improved parks and recreational facilities in the future. As future development contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would create new and/or improved parks and recreational facilities, demand on existing parks and recreational facilities would decrease, which would limit the extent of on -going physical deterioration on the existing facilities. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in no impact related to the accelerated use and subsequent deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required. b) The Draft Plan Update evaluates the condition and capacity of the City's existing parks and facilities, develops a strategy for maintaining these facilities, and considers how new parks and recreational facilities should be provided in the future. Chapter 5 of the Draft Plan Update lays out a framework for locating parks and recreation amenities in existing and future parks and also includes a park -by -park assessment, identifying the general physical condition of each site, relevant issues pertaining to site access and use, and park -specific needs and wants. This information is provided in a table, along with planned improvements for CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 all City parks, in Appendix E of the Draft Plan Update. The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to recreational facilities and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to construction, improvement, or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 17. TRANSPORTATION Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and 13 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 18 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 6 ❑ ❑ © ❑ Evaluation a) The City's General Plan Circulation Element (City of San Luis Obispo 2014c; adopted December 9, 2014, amended October 24, 2017) establishes policies and programs for multi -modal management, and identifies specific goals and requirements for transit service, roadway management, bicycle transportation, and pedestrian facilities. In addition, the Draft Plan Update includes goals and polices that seek to increase sustainable transportation access to parks and recreation facilities throughout the City including providing a park within walking distance of every neighborhood, making park locations accessible by foot and bicycle, providing multi -modal access to parks and recreational facilities, and evaluating the potential for interconnected paths citywide. Because goals and polices of the Draft Plan Update are consistent with the policies and regulations of the Circulation Element and support implementation of the City's Active Transportation Plan, the Draft Plan Update would be consistent with the Circulation Element. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to transportation and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and no mitigation is required. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 b) The City Council adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) thresholds in June 2020. Per the VMT screening criteria as described in the City's Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, local -serving public facilities, including neighborhood parks without sporting fields, may be assumed to cause a less than significant impact, and do not require a detailed quantitative VMT assessment (City of San Luis Obispo 2020d). Because the Draft Plan Update is a policy document and does not include any physical improvements, its adoption would not result in impacts associated with VMT. In addition, the Draft Plan Update includes goals and polices that seek to reduce VMT throughout the City including providing a park within walking distance of every neighborhood, making park locations accessible by foot and bicycle, and providing multi -modal access to parks and recreational facilities. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to transportation and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to emergency access. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with the City's VMT guidelines and thresholds, and no mitigation is required. c) Because the Draft Plan Update is a policy document and does not include any physical improvements, its adoption would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. Planned parks and park improvements as described in the Draft Plan Update would generally be developed within lands designated for Park (P), Recreation (REC), and Public (PUB) uses. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to transportation and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with the City's Circulation Element. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to an increase in hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use, and no mitigation is required. d) Policies 9.20 through 9.23 of the Safety Element include the safety objectives and emergency access standards considered when reviewing a development plan. Future development contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be reviewed for consistency with the Safety Element. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to transportation and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with the City's Safety Element. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to inadequate emergency access, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural Less Than landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and Significant Potentially with Less Than scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to Significant Mitigation Significant No a California Native American tribe, and that is: Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Evaluation a), b) On January 13, 2021, local Native American tribal groups that have a cultural and traditional affiliation to the City were formally noticed that an Initial Study under CEQA was being prepared for the San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update (see Attachment B). No tribal representatives requested consultation or provided specific requests. Future projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be required to comply with AB 52 and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), as applicable. Per AB 52, Native American consultation is required for any CEQA project that has a Notice of Preparation (NOP), a Notice of Negative Declaration (ND), or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) filed on or after July 1, 2015. The Lead Agency for the project must notify any Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified regarding projects within 14 days of either determining that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a project (i.e., prior to the release of the environmental document). Under AB 52, Native American tribes have 30 days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation. As written in 2004, SB 18 addresses the potential environmental impact of projects on California Native American Cultural Places. SB 18 requires planning agencies to consult with California Native American tribes during the preparation, updating, or amendment of all General/Specific Plans proposed on or after March 1, 2005. Per SB 18, Native American tribes have 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation. The purpose of the consultation is to identify and preserve specified places, features, and objects located within the City's jurisdiction that have a unique and significant meaning to California Native Americans. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to tribal cultural resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to any known tribal cultural resources that have been listed or been found eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would have a less than significant related to tribal cultural resources, and no mitigation is required. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, 4,19 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate 4 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise 20 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction 20 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Evaluation a) Future development contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be subject to review by the City Public Works Department and/or the City Utilities Department, as appropriate, to determine project -specific infrastructure needs and requirements. In addition, any utility improvements contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would consider one of the goals of the Draft Plan Update, sustainability, which includes policies aimed at reducing the use of water and energy by providing a park within walking distance of every neighborhood, increasing trees and shade structures, making park locations accessible by foot and bicycle, instituting water -efficient initiatives including working landscape features to help filter pollutants, low water use plantings and xeriscaping, and gray and recycled water systems. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to utilities and service systems and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, and no mitigation is required. CITY OF SAN L_UIS OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 b) According to Policy A 2.2.1 of the City's Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME) (City of San Luis Obispo 1987; adopted February 24, 1987, last revised May 15, 2018), the City utilizes multiple water resources to meet its water supply needs to avoid dependence on any one water source. The City's 2020 Water Resources Status Report (City of San Luis Obispo 2020e) states that the City maintains a robust water supply portfolio with greater than five years of water available. In addition, as also described in Response 19 (a), one of the goals of the Draft Plan Update is sustainability, which includes policies aimed at reducing the use of water by instituting water efficient initiatives including working landscape features to help filter pollutants, low water use plantings and xeriscaping, and gray and recycled water systems. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to utilities and service systems and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to water supply. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to water supply, and no mitigation is required. c) The City's Water Resource Recovery Facility is responsible for treating all of the wastewater within the City, and treats approximately 4.4 million gallons of wastewater daily (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). Policy B. 2.2.3 of the WWME states that new development will only be permitted if adequate capacity is available within the wastewater collection system and/or the City's Water Resource Recovery Facility. Future development contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be reviewed for compliance with Policy B. 2.2.3 of the WWME. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to utilities and service systems and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to the City's Water Resource Recovery Facility. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the City's Water Resource Recovery Facility, and no mitigation is required. d), e) Chapter 8.05, Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program, of the City's Municipal Code, requires all new development to prepare a recycling plan to reduce waste disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill, which serves the City. One of the goals of the Draft Plan Update is sustainability, which includes policies to reduce the generation of solid waste including maintaining agreements with other providers so as not to replicate facilities and services and using recycled materials whenever possible to avoid or minimize waste when replacing park materials and equipment. In addition, the Draft Plan Update includes a policy for the provision of green waste, recycling bins and services, and signage to inform correct usage by the public. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to utilities and service systems and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to reduce a project's waste disposal needs. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to federal, State, and local solid waste standards or generation of solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 20. WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as Less Than very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or 20,23 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, 20 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire 20 ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of 20 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Evaluation a) Refer to Response 9 (f). Because the Draft Plan Update is a policy document and does not include any physical improvements, its adoption would not conflict with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Draft Plan Update also includes a policy to incorporate adaptability in response to public emergencies when designing elements for new parks, facilities, and amenities. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to wildfire and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to the impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Additionally, individual projects would be reviewed by City Fire and City Police for consistency with the EOP, the City Municipal Code Chapter 15.04, Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations, and other adopted emergency response and evacuation plans. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to impairments associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no mitigation is required. b), c), d) The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to wildfire and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to wildfire prevention or management. Additionally, individual projects would be reviewed for consistency with the Safety Element, the City Municipal Code Chapter 15.04, Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations, and the CWPP. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with wildfire prevention or management, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None. Conclusion Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As described in Section 4, Biological Resources, Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site -specific impacts to biological, cultural, and tribal cultural resources, and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update does not include any policies or programs that would conflict with City policies on protecting and enhancing biological or cultural resources or preclude the City from achieving resource protection goals. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to adverse impacts to biological, cultural or tribal resources. No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As presented in this IS/ND, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for cumulatively considerable impacts, and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact in regard to cumulatively considerable impacts, and no mitigation is required. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ indirectly? The Draft Plan Update will help the City meet its parks and recreational facility needs, and would not create significant, adverse impacts on humans, either directly or indirectly. As presented in this IS/ND, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project -specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for direct and indirect CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 environmental effects on human beings, and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to effects on human beings, and no mitigation is required. 22. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions of the project. N/A 23. SOURCE REFERENCES 1' California Department of Conservation. 1989. Division of Mines and Geology. Mineral Land Classification Map, San Luis Obispo -Santa Barbara P-C Region. 2' California Department of Conservation. 2019. San Luis Obispo County Tsunami Inundation Maps. Website: h s://www.conservation.ca. ov/c s/tsunami/ma s/san-luis-obis o accessed February 17, 2021). 3' Central Coast Region Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB). 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin Basin Plan). June. 4' City of San Luis Obispo. 1987. General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element (adopted February 24, 1987, last revised May 15, 2018). 5. City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. General Plan Noise Element (adopted May 7, 1996, last revised May 7, 1996). 6. City of San Luis Obispo. 2000. General Plan Safety Element (adopted July 5, 2000, last revised December 9, 2014). City of San Luis Obispo. 2006a. General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) (adopted April 4, 2006, 7' last revised December 9, 2014). 8. City of San Luis Obispo. 2006b. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. February. 9. City of San Luis Obispo. 2009. Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. October. 10. City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. November. 11. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014a. Airport Area Specific Plan. September. 12 City of San Luis Obispo. 2014b. Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Land Use and Circulation Elements Update LUCE . September 3, 2014. 13. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014c. General Plan Circulation Element (adopted December 9, 2014, amended October 24, 2017). 14. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014d. General Plan Land Use Element (adopted December 9, 2014). 15. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020a. Climate Action Plan. 16. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020b. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds and Guidance. June 22. 17. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020c. General Plan Housing Element (adopted November 17, 2020). 18. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020d. Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. June. 19. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020e. Water Resources Status Report. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 20. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021 a. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. February 2, 2021. 21. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021b. Clean Energy Choice for New Buildings. Website: https://www.slocity.org/ government/department-directory/city-administration/office-of-sustainability/climate-action/carbon-neutral-buildings #:-:text=The%20Clean%20Energy%20Choice%20Program,to%20the%20California %20Energy%2OCode (accessed March 12, 2021). 22. County of San Luis Obispo. 2005. Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. May 18. 23. County of San Luis Obispo. 2016. Emergency Operations Plan. December. 24. County of San Luis Obispo. 2019. San Luis Obispo County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. October. 25. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD). 2001. Clean Air Plan. December. 26. SLOCAPCD. 2005. Particulate Matter Report Implementation of SB 656 Requirements. July 27. 27. SLOCAPCD. 2020a. Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment. June. 28. SLOCAPCD. 2020b. Ozone Emergency Episode Plan. January 22. 29 SLOCAPCD. 2021. Asbestos. Website: https://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php (accessed March 9, 2021). Attachments Attachment A — Draft Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update Attachment B — Native American Consultation CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Attachment A Draft Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update Available online: https://www.slocity.or2/government/department-directory/parks-and- recreation/parks-and-recreation-plan-and-element-update CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Attachment B Native American Consultation CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 9 3401 -3218 805.781.7170 slocity-org [Address] January 13, 2021 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear [Name of Tribal Representative]: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined to undertake the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update, which would be applicable Ci1mide. Below please find a description of the proposed project and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: The San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will provide a comprehensive statement of the City's goals for parks and recreation and how those goals will be achieved over the long-term. The Master Plan policies and programs will serve as a blueprint, guiding the City and its various entities in priority setting and resource allocation. It is understood that the availability of financial resources can and will affect the timing of implementation but will not change the goals and intent. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update considers 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 will 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 City Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments should have the resources and staffing, and community and corporate partnerships, sufficient to create, support, and maintain these parks, amenities, and programs. The Update considers 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. The Update will identify the current inventory and condition of existing parks, facilities, and amenities, identify existing and future community needs and deficiencies, assess the capacity 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 (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years) and long-term (10-20 years). The Public Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will be available to the public and presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission in February 2021. Parks and Recreation Agendas and Agenda Packets can be viewed online: https://www. slocity. org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/parks-and-recreation- WOU iii I'MMUGH] Additional online resources: https://www. slocity. org/government/department-directory/master-plan-and-element-update Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, S", ,, E� Shawna Scott Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott&sloci ..org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 9 3401 -3218 805.781.7170 slocity.org January 13, 2021 (Sent Via Certified Mail and Email) [Address] RE: Invitation for Tribal Consultation; GC 65352.3 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update (Citywide) Dear [Name of Tribal Representative]: I am contacting you on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning an invitation for Tribal Consultation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65352.3. As you know, you have up to 90 days to respond to this request, but we hope by reaching out to you early, we could invite your participation at your earliest convenience. Proiect Description: The San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will provide a comprehensive statement of the City's goals for parks and recreation and how those goals will be achieved over the long-term. The Master Plan policies and programs will serve as a blueprint, guiding the City and its various entities in priority setting and resource allocation. It is understood that the availability of financial resources can and will affect the timing of implementation but will not change the goals and intent. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update considers 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 will 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 City Parks and Recreation and Public Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 2 Works Departments should have the resources and staffing, and community and corporate partnerships, sufficient to create, support, and maintain these parks, amenities, and programs. The Update considers 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. The Update will identify the current inventory and condition of existing parks, facilities, and amenities, identify existing and future community needs and deficiencies, assess the capacity 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 (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years) and long- term (10-20 years). The Public Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will be available to the public and presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission in February 2021. Parks and Recreation Agendas and Agenda Packets can be viewed online: https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/parks-and- recreation-commission Additional online resources: https://www.slocity.or2/government/department-directory/master-plan-and-element- update Please contact Shawna Scott, Senior Planner for additional information or to request a virtual meeting at sscott@slocity.org or (805) 781-7176. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Senior Planner CITY OF SHR LEAS OBISPO Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscottkslocity.org T 805.781.7176 SAN LU IS OBISPO. Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 i Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update G�fi Y Off, i,ugV�ll l�f 1��$ ��Is o4 wF May 2021 'pr_. consul till -'� _x _ �- :.• Y - q ; _ .`,. �` WALL*E GROup- 46 iy(_+.+ r-,_ gyp, !Y .r i"- ���� - J7 y' `+� 1'• ..� :- - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of San Luis Obispo thanks the community members, stakeholders, elected officials, and public agencies who participated in the development of this Comprehensive Profile for the Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update. City Council Heidi Harmon, Mayor Jan Marx Erica A. Stewart, Vice Mayor Andy Pease Carlyn Christianson Planning Commission Chair Hemalata Dandekar Nicholas Quincey Vice -Chair Robert Jorgensen Michelle Shoresman Michael Hopkins Mike Wulkan Steve Kahn Parks and Recreation Commission (2017-21) Kari Applegate Adam Stowe Rick Blair Rodney Thurman Susan Olson Andrew Webber Keri Schwab Jeff Whitener Robert Spector Shay Stewart City Management Derek Johnson, City Manager Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager, Community Services Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager City Staff Greg Avakian Brian Nelson Aleah Bergam Chris Read Greg Cruce Shawna Scott Sahvanna Ettestad Lindsey Stephenson Adam Fukushima and many others Robert Hill Devin Hyfield SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Agencies, Organizations and Companies Arts Obispo AYSO Cal Poly (special thanks to NR 418 class, 2018) Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers Central Coast Soccer Cultural Heritage Committee Dog park advocates Downtown SLO History Center of San Luis Obispo County Jack House Committee Land Conservancy of SLO County San Luis Coastal Unified School District Photography Jonathan Roberts City of San Luis Obispo staff Members of the SLO Community San Luis Obispo Museum of Art SLO Baseball SLO Pickleball Club SLO Railroad Museum SLO REP Theatre SLO Rugby SLO Senior Center SLO Soccer Club SLO Women's Soccer Club Swimming advocates TenOver Studio YMCA All of you who participated in workshops, responded to surveys, and showed an interest in the future of parks and recreation in San Luis Obispo. (WRT pros consulting inc. Inspiring Communities to Action NALLACE GROUP PREAMBLE The Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future; 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) is an essential guide for the future of parks and recreation in the City of San Luis Obispo for the next twenty years. This Blueprint addresses the evolving recreational needs of our community, with a strong focus on advancing and supporting community building, sustainable transportation, carbon neutrality, resiliency in a changing climate, and diversity, equity, and inclusion, The Plan's Guiding Themes permeate through the goals, policies, and opportunities. GUIDING THEMES Design Stewardship Excellence and Sustainability Key considerations for the enhancement and redevelopment of existing parks and the development of new parkland will be striking a balance between active and passive recreational use, maintaining neighborhood character, ensuring high quality design and maintenance, and optimizing resources and inclusion by providing multi -generational, multi -use, and multi -ability amenities and facilities. Incorporation of innovative universal design and continued conversations with our community will be critical to resolve and prevent any barriers to our community's safe enjoyment of City parks, recreation amenities, Inclusion and Building Access Community public art, and programs. This Blueprint also identifies the need for park activation and building community through site planning and provision of community gathering space and associated infrastructure; supporting and facilitating community events; incorporation of public art and cultural expression; and dynamic programming to address multi - generational and multi -ability needs of our community. Partnerships and Public Good Engagement Governance SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 This document is divided into five chapters and includes an Appendix with detailed background information and data supporting identified policies, recommendations, and opportunities. Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5 comprise the Parks and Recreation Plan and Chapter 4 consists of the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The Blueprint does not include uses, goals, or policies for Open Space; the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan includes goals, policies, and programs specific to the City's Open Space. Chapter 1 introduces the planning process and overarching goals of the plan. Chapter 2 takes a deeper look at San Luis Obispo through demographic analysis and its parks and facilities through a detailed inventory. Chapter 3 provides a summary of the extensive community engagement conducted over three years during development of the Plan. Chapter 4 provides the detailed policies that flow from five system- wide goals, which include; + Build Community and Neighborhoods: City Parks and Recreational facilities should build and connect community through inclusive and diverse amenities and programming. + Meet the Changing Needs of the Community: Leverage regionalism and creatively increase the number of City parks, recreational facilities and amenities, to meet user needs. + Sustainability: The City's Parks and Recreation facilities will be vibrant, resilient, and sustainable. + Optimize Resources: Establish, maintain, and operate parks, facilities, and programs in a manner that is cost effective and manageable while engaging the community in a manner that optimizes involvement and support. + Safety: Provide safe, accessible, inclusive, and well -maintained City parks, recreational facilities, and amenities. Chapter 5, Implementation, is intended to be aspirational and identifies a range of potential opportunities for each park and facility based on the wants and needs expressed by our community. The Implementation Chapter provides the flexibility to consider identified opportunities and determine the appropriate design and amenities of our City's parks and recreational facilities through focused community outreach and the preparation of comprehensive park -specific plans. The community engagement process will include direct contact with community groups and organizations to further advance diversity, equity, and inclusion at all City parks and facilities. Fulfillment of this Blueprint will result in increased community connection within neighborhoods, the provision of equitable distribution of amenities throughout the City, the creation of safe, accessible, and inclusive public spaces for all people, and promote community investment in our public recreational spaces. Vision................................................................................................................................................................................................ page 2 Planand Element.................................................................................................................................................................... page 4 WhyUpdate the Plan?.......................................................................................................................................................... page 5 TheUpdate Process................................................................................................................page 8 TheValue of Parks.................................................................................................................................................................. page 9 GuidingThemes....................................................................................................................page 10 OverarchingPhilosophy........................................................................................................page 13 SLO's People ...................................................... SLO's Parks and Recreation ...................... Park Features and Amenities ................. Park Condition Assessment ............... Planned Parks ...................................... Recreation Programs .......................... Lifecycle Analysis ................................ Community Engagement Tools..................................................................................................................... Community Engagement Overview........................................................................................................... FoundationalMeetings........................................................................................................................................ Pop -Up Events.............................................................................................................. „Bright Ideas" Workshop............................................................................................. Park Improvement Priorities Workshop................................................................................................... Needs Assessment Survey.......................................................................................... page 61 page 62 page 65 page 67 page 69 page 74 page 76 SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 SystemwideGoals ................................................................................................................................................................ page 80 1. Build Community and Neighborhoods _-_----------------------------------. pago82 2.Meet the Changing Needs ofthe Community .............................................................. page 98 3.Suatainabi|hx...................................................................................................................... page 94 ziMaximize Resources .......................................................................................................... page 97 5.Safety ................................................................................................................................. page 99 IMPLEMENTATION Highlights ufProposed Park Improvements —_'------_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'-page103 ParkAmenity Needs ....................................................................................................................................................... page 1O4 AFramework for Park Improvements ................................................................................................................. page 116 Pad+6v'ParkNeeds and Priorities _'---------------------------------------_' page 119 FutureParks ......................................................................................................................... page 138 Understanding the Cost ofParks ....................................................................................... page 14O FundingStrategy ................................................................................................................. page 142 A:City Council Resolution B:Park Inventory and Assessment C:Community Needs Assessment D: Park Amenity Needs E: Park'6v'Park|mprovemento F:Rough Order ofMagnitude Costs H i LL 0 Tables: 2-1 San Luis Obispo Population Trends....................................................................................................................... page 18 2-2 San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Facilities........................................................................................... page 30 2-3 Core Program Areas..............................................................................................................page 52 Figures 2-1 Population Density............................................................................................................................................................. page 19 2-2 San Luis Obispo Age Distrubution, 2010........................................................................................................... page 20 2-3 San Luis Obispo County Racial And Ethnic Composition, 2010...................................................... page 21 2-4 San Luis Obispo Median Household Income (2012-16)........................................................................... page 22 2-5 San Luis Obispo Low Income and Disadvantaged Communities................................................... page 24 2-6 Market Potential Index for General Sports........................................................................................................ page 27 2-7 Market Potential Index for Fitness.......................................................................................page 27 2-8 Market Potential Index for Outdoor Activities....................................................................page 27 2-9 Parks and Recreation Facilities.............................................................................................page 31 2-10 Play Areas and Tot Lots.........................................................................................................page 33 2-11 Tables and BBQ.................................................................................................................... page 34 2-12 Baseball and Soccer Fields...................................................................................................page 36 2-13 Basketball and Tennis Courts...............................................................................................page 37 2-14 Other Recreation Facilities...................................................................................................page 38 2-15 Informal Multiuse Fields........................................................................................................page 39 2-16 Dog Areas and Community Gardens...................................................................................page 41 2-17 Trail Network..........................................................................................................................page 43 2-18 Active Transportation Network........................................................................................... page 44 2-19 Planned Parks and Park Improvements...............................................................................page 49 2-20 Downtown Parks and Open Spaces.....................................................................................page 51 Tables: 3-1 Grades for San Luis Obispo Parks and Facilities .................................................. 3-2 Programs and Activities that Should be a Focus in the Years to Come 3-3 Dreams of Parks and Facilities............................................................................................. page 69 page 70 page 73 SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figures: 3-1 Priorities for Your Neighborhood............................................................................................................................ page 74 3-2 Ranked Improvements For Laguna Lake Park................................................................................................ page 74 3-3 Support for Improvements at Sinsheimer Park............................................................................................. page 74 3-4 Support for Improvements at Sinsheimer Stadium................................................................................... page 75 3-5 Ranked Improvements at SLO Swim Center................................................................................................... page 75 3-6 Support for Other Field and Facility Improvements................................................................................. page 75 3-7 Level of Satisfaction with Facilities......................................................................................................................... page 76 3-8 Priorities for Improving, Repurposing and Expanding Parks and Facilities ............................ page 77 3-9 Priorities for Investment in Recreation Facilities.......................................................................................... page 77 Tables: 4-1 Park Acreage and Access Standards...................................................................................................................... page 82 4-2 Park Amenity Standards................................................................................................................................................... page 84 Figures: 4-1 Park Access............................................................................................................................................................................... page 83 4-2 San Luis Obispo Sub -areas and Park Access Gaps.................................................................................... page 85 Tables: 5-1 Phasing of Tier 3 Park Improvements................................................................................................................. page 136 Figures: 5-1 Distribution of Existing and Planned Athletic Fields.............................................................................. page 107 5-2 Distribution of Existing and Planned Sports Courts............................................................................. page 109 5-3 Distribution of Existing and Planned Playgrounds........................................................... page 112 5-4 Distribution of Existing and Planned Outdoor Gathering Areas ..................................... page 113 5-5 Park Access Gaps and Potential Park Sites........................................................................page 139 INTRODUCTION VISION The Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update will serve as a blueprint, guiding the City in priority setting and resource allocation to achieve the Parks and Recreation Department's mission. The City owns and maintains approximately 4,050 acres of natural preserves and open space properties (2021). The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan sets programs and policies for the City's Open Space. The San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update provides a comprehensive statement of the City's goals for parks and recreation and how those goals will be achieved over the long-term. The Plan was created in collaboration with community members, leaders, and the Parks and Recreation Commission. We believe it represents the community's vision, a vision we are inspired to realize. The Plan policies and programs serves as a blueprint, guiding the City in priority setting and resource allocation. It is understood that the availability of financial resources can and will affect the timing of implementation but will not change the goals. STARTING WITH QUESTIONS + Does San Luis Obispo have the right amount and type of parks? + Given the condition of San Luis Obispo's parks what if any changes and improvements are needed? + Does San Luis Obispo have the amount and type of indoor and outdoor facilities for organized recreation activities to meet the community's need? + Does San Luis Obispo provide recreational programming that meets its residents' needs and if not, what should change? + What are the parks and recreation priorities for residents now and over the next 20 years? + How should San Luis Obispo plan for the future, changing demographics and increased residents and stakeholders? + How should San Luis Obispo fund its parks and recreation capital investments to meet the priorities arising from this plan? 1. INTRODUCTION PLAN AND ELEMENT This Plan is two documents in one. It stands alone as the essential guide for the Parks and Recreation Department in the years ahead. At the same time, the Plan also serves as the Parks and Recreation Element in the City's General Plan. This means that the goals and policies in this document are also embedded in the City's larger blueprint for future growth and change. Parks and Recreation Plan Parks and Recreation Element READING THE PLAN The Parks and Recreation Plan is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the Planning process and overarching goals of the plan. Chapter 2 takes a deeper look at SLO's people through demographic analysis and its parks through a detailed inventory. Chapter 3 provides a summary of the community engagement work. Chapter 4 provides the detailed policies that flow from each of the system -wide goals. Finally, Chapter 5 provides the details around implementation, including phasing and priority projects. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 WHY UPDATE THE PLAN? Our Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update is meant to serve as a visionary template for adapting our system so that it meets the needs of the community. It identifies opportunities for change, and embraces emerging trends in recreation and urban life. A number Providing Athletic Fields Year - Round. San Luis Obispo relies heavily on Damon -Garcia Sports Complex for its popular programs. The plan can help us define a way to better support field sports year-round. Providing Programs for All Ages. of particular opportunities presented San Luis Obispo has a wide range of themselves as we set out to update the Plan, Making Better Use of Existing Parks. Our existing parks are well -used and loved, but they can all be enriched in various ways to better serve today's residents. Just two examples: Emerson Park will benefit from a redesign to enhance its appeal, and Laguna Lake Park has great potential to accommodate more of our recreational needs. Embracing Downtown. Downtown SLO has become a vibrant destination for community life. The Downtown Concept Plan describes future plazas and gathering spaces downtown infused with art and culture. This Plan can help realize that vision. successful programs for youth and seniors. Adding services for adults could help to bring in more revenue, while better serving a significant and highly -active segment of the community. Supporting Aquatics. The SLO Swim Center has served the community well, The Swim Center is on school district property, and community use of the pool occurs through a joint -use agreement. Would an expanded or additional aquatics center be possible? Serving the Daytime Population. While the City currently has fewer than 50,000 residents, there is a substantially larger population of workers and students who spend time here during the day and make great use of the City's facilities. The new Parks and Recreation Element and Plan Update may break ground by taking the daytime population Aligning with Active Transportation. The City General Plan has established a goal to reach 20 percent of all trips by bicycle and more than double the number of walking trips. The Plan can support these efforts by giving new attention to the recreational value of trails and urban multi -use paths, providing a safe place for people of all abilities to become more comfortable with recreational bicycling and walking before incorporating these activities into personal transportation modes, and improving urban access to parks. Advancing Sustainable Management Practices. San Luis Obispo has a strong desire to become environmentally sustainable and carbon neutral through implementation of the Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery (adopted August 2020). The Plan will play a role in advancing the environmental performance of our park system by recognizing opportunities to shift toward water -efficient planting, using recycled water, and advancing the City's goal to achieve carbon neutrality. 1. INTRODUCTION into account. Addressing Safety in Parks. How can the Plan harmonize with City efforts to serve all people regardless of housing status, and ensure that parks are available, safe, accessible, and inclusive for everyone? Funding New Parks While Achieving Fiscal Health. The Parks and Recreation Element and Plan has a role to play in helping to identify ways in which parks can be maintained and managed more efficiently, and will be a valuable source for recommended improvements. Tapping into Community Support. There is an active group of parks volunteers and a current effort to establish a "Friends of Parks" organization that can help bring resources to parks. These sources of community support can be brought into the Parks and Recreation Element and Plan. Respond to the Changing Composition of Our Population. The current Parks and Recreation Element and Plan's goals, policies and programs stand as our baseline. There are many ways in which the values that guided the current Plan remain true for the community. At the same time, nearly 20 years have passed. San Luis Obispo has matured as a city. We have grown into new neighborhoods and have others on the planning horizon. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 While many of the issues we face are long-standing, others are new or we have a new understanding of them. Recreation has changed too. The sports people play, the program preferences of people of all ages — the ways people use parks more broadly need to be understood from today's vantage point. And there is a new generation of residents whose voices need to be heard. The Plan Update has allowed us to analyze and evaluate our changing population, our physical environment, the condition of our parks and the opportunities they present. It has created a forum for community input and ideas. All of this, we hope, is reflected in the new Plan. A Fresh Look at Acreage Standards The 2001 Parks and Recreation Element and Plan calls for the City to develop and maintain a park system at a rate of 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, including 5 acres of neighborhood parks. This is achieved either through land dedication and improvement during the development of new neighborhoods in annexation areas, or by charging fees in -lieu of land dedication, allowing the City to fund park land development. The acreage ratio at the time of the 2001 Plan was 3.68. Both population and park acreage have grown very slightly since then. A Careful Look at Facilities The Parks and Recreation Department also manages numerous facilities that provide recreational and educational opportunities. These include the SLO Swim Center, SLO Skate Park, Laguna Lake Golf Course, Jack House and Gardens, Ludwick Community Center, and other sites. The Parks and Recreation Element and Plan evaluates the condition and capacity of the City's existing parks and facilities, develops a strategy for maintaining and enhancing these facilities, and considers how new parks and facilities should be provided over the coming years. Evaluate Recreation Programs and Services The Parks and Recreation Department provides a range of activities, including programs for seniors; adult and youth sports; contracted fitness and enrichment classes; aquatics; open space trail maintenance, and educational opportunities; and many other programs for youth including before - and after -school programs, and spring break and summer camps. The Plan update revisits recreational needs with fresh information about facility usage, program participation, and community priorities and preferences. 1. INTRODUCTION THE UPDATE PROCESS The Plan Update took place in four overlapping phases over approximately 3 years PHASE 1 Setting the Stage and Planning Framework consisted of project kick-off, review of background information, the development of a Community Engagement Plan, and an Initial Planning Framework report. This phase occurred during March and April 2018. PHASE 2 Determining Community Needs covers the critical work of understanding the issues relevant to San Luis Obispo's park system and its development over the next PHASE 1 Set Planning Framework decade. Community engagement is a central part of this, and many engagement activities took place during this phase, starting in April 2018 and continuing through the Community Needs Assessment public workshops in June 2019. Additional workshops and public input opportunities continued through adoption of this document PHASE 3 This phase consisted of developing the update and conducting environmental review, and community needs were translated PHASE 2 PHASE 3 Develop Determine the Plan and Community ♦ Conduct Needs Environmental Review into a Public Draft document, including background, vision and goals, policies, and implementing actions. PHASE 4 Adopting the Plan and Element included final hearings before the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council, and incorporating the input of these bodies into a final Plan for adoption. PHASE 4 SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 THE VALUE OF PARKS At the time of adoption of this Blueprint (2021), San Luis Obispo's Parks and Recreation Department defines as its mission "to inspire happiness by creating community through people, parks, programs and open space." The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan sets programs and policies for the City's Open Space, a notable change in the City's General Plan since the adoption of the 2001 Parks & Recreation Plan. An earlier version of the mission statement —from the 2001 Parks & Recreation Plan —touches on a few other important ideas: how parks contribute to the city's character and beauty, are good for the environment, and promote health. Indeed, parks are valuable for multiple reasons. Parks provide social benefits. They are places for people to walk and talk, play games, enjoy their family and friends and the natural setting they live in. Parks and Recreation programs stimulate a sense of community larger than family and friends: here is where we connect with others in athletic leagues and classes or informally at the playground or in the plaza. Parks and Recreation are valuable for public health. They give us a place to stretch our legs, to play sports, to swim laps, throw Frisbees and walk dogs. In a less obvious way, good parks and recreation services are economic development, too. They contribute to the City's quality of life and ability to attract and retain a happy, healthy workforce and employers. Not least, parks preserve space for plants and the City's urban forest, for water to drain naturally into the soil and many other ecological benefits. 1. INTRODUCTION GUIDING THEMES The City has established six guiding themes that permeate through all recommendations, goals and ultimately policies through the Plan. DESIGN EXCELLENCE The City will set a standard of design excellence by creating an engaging, long-lasting, safe, comfortable, and sustainable park system. By holding the design of the City's parks and facilities to a high standard, assets will attract and retain diverse users from the community. STEWARDSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY The City will protect and conserve natural resources while providing opportunities for the community to both support and learn from the natural environment. The design and maintenance of parks and facilities will strive to become operationally carbon neutral, will support access by foot and by bike, reduce or eliminate chemical use, and incorporate low -allergen plants and trees. INCLUSION AND ACCESS The City's parks, public spaces, recreation amenities and programs will be accessible to residents and visitors, including the full diversity of our community. The City will continue to work to create equitable access to recreation and green spaces, and to address both physical and non-physical barriers that may prevent people from having full access to the benefits of parks and recreation. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 FireZOM0� m1TLm1r BUILDING COMMUNITY Parks, facilities, and programs will encourage and support play, health, and interaction. The City will provide places to engage in a multitude of recreational activities, including supporting new trends in recreation. The physical infrastructure and amenities of parks and facilities will support and promote public health. Parks, facilities, and programs will provide opportunities for people to engage in activities together, as well as to be active independently. PARTNERSHIPS AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT The City will strive to partner with schools, California Polytechnic State University, Cuesta Community College, other public agencies, and private service providers and organizations to provide recreation services to improve efficiency and coverage. Partnerships will help reduce redundancies within the existing parks system, freeing up resources that can be directed towards assessing and meeting unmet needs. GOOD GOVERNANCE In order to practice good governance, the City will be transparent and accountable in its decision -making process, while being responsive to the community's needs and open to community participation. Good governance will aid in promoting the community's confidence in the City to not only expand the parks system, but to also manage, maintain, and improve the existing resources and programs. 1. INTRODUCTION SPOTLIGHT ON... CLIMATE Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems. In California we experience losses to Sierra snowpack and water supply, more and more intense wildfires, extreme heat events and more. San Luis Obispo has been inspired to address climate change in all our actions. In 2020, the City adopted a new Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery and a New Active Transportation Plan. These Plans will push us to achieve carbon neutrality in governmental operations by 2030, and to make 20% of all our trips by bike, while doubling our walking trips. The Parks and Recreation Plan has a role to play to help us reach these goals. INCLUSION The Plan Update has allowed us to reflect on our changing population, the condition of our parks and the opportunities they present. It has created a forum for community input and ideas. This Plan must help guide us to design and operate our parks and progams in a way that is accessible, inclusive and just. This means equitable access to the environmental benefits of green space in all neighborhoods. It means culturally relevant programming that is accessible regardless of ability to pay, parks that welcome everyone, and equipment that provides opportunities for people of all abilities. The City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation commits to provide cultural unity, through inclusivity and discovery, while developing a sense of community, and supporting healthy lifestyles. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 OVERARCHING PHILOSOPHY The Plan Update considers 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 Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan sets programs and policies for the City's Open Space. 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 sustainable transportation (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 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. 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 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 (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years) and long-term (10-20 years). 1. INTRODUCTION PEOPLE &PARKS To plan for a park system that optimally serves our community in the years ahead, we need to understand our recreational needs and the existing inventory and state of our parks. This chapter describes our people and our parks today. SLO'S PEOPLE San Luis Obispo is notable for its unique community make-up influenced by the local university and community college, being the County hub, and for its popularity for its unique geographical coastal location and mild climate. The diverse mix of demographics of families, college students, retirees, and tourists, provide an engaged and active population. San Luis Obispo is touted as one of the "Happiest Places in America," and no wonder. Tucked between the Coast Range and the Pacific, "SLO" offers all the spoils of life, from the Mediterranean climate to the thousands of acres of protected open space to a charming and dynamic downtown. This chapter summarizes the City's demographic and population trends. The analysis is based on US Census data, as well as California Department of Finance (2010) projections and the 2018 San Luis Obispo Community and Economic Profile produced by the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. It should be noted that the most detailed demographic data available dates to the 2010 US Census, and may not be fully descriptive of the City's population today. In addition, the 2010 US Census adhered to the 1997 Office of Management and Budget standards on race and ethnicity, which may not reflect current and evolving standards and guidelines. 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS a POPULATION CHANGE San Luis Obispo experienced relatively slow growth between 2000 and 2010, never exceeding a one percent annual growth rate Between 2000 and 2017, the city grew at an average annual rate of about 0.4 percent, significantly lower than the statewide annual growth rate. The San Luis Obispo Council of Local Governments 2050 Regional Growth Forecast for San Luis Obispo County assumes a slightly higher annual growth rate of 0.5 percent. The San Luis Obispo General Plan anticipates growth of approximately one percent annually, and a population reaching 56,700 by 2035. "daytime population" including students and workers who recreate here. Accounting for the City's workforce and students at Cal Poly (just outside City limits), SLO had an estimated daytime population of 72,770 in 2017, which is expected to rise to 88,300 by 2035. POPULATION DENSITY San Luis Obispo has a population density of approximately 3,500 persons per square mile Citywide. Three census tracts —two in the northern part of the City and one centered on Orcutt Road in the southeast —feature some higher - density housing and have over 10,000 people per square mile. In general, neighborhoods closer to the center are somewhat more This Plan Update considers both our densely populated than those on the resident population and the larger periphery. See Figure 1-1. Table 2-1 SAN LUIS OBISPO POPULATION TRENDS Population 44,179 45,119 46,724 56,700 Daytime Population 72,770 88,300 Sources: US Census, 2010; California Department of Finance, 2017; San Luis Obispo General Plan, 2014. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figure 2-1 POPULATION DENSITY ----ret it Natural R Waddell Ranch City Boundary Population Density (people/sqmi) Rail Lines �� 0 - 1000 Creeks 1,001 -2,000 Water 2,001 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 _ 10,001 - 16,000 O calirom'a Polytechnic State ,„` � University 707 �.. �.. �..1 N A 0 0.25 0.5 I t t t I 1 Miles 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS POPULATION BY AGE Young adults aged 18-24 comprised a remarkable 35 percent of the city population in 2010, a proportion mainly attributed to the large student population. Other age demographics, namely children, teens, and adults aged 25-44, fall below County and State averages for those age groups, In 2010,12 percent of the City's population was aged 65 and older, comparable to the State average, but lower than the County population rate. For San Luis Obispo County as a whole, changes in percentage of age cohorts between 2000 and 2010 indicate a decline in children under 14, a significant rise in young adults aged 20-29, an equally significant decline in adults aged 35-44, and Figure 2-2 SAN LUIS OBISPO AGE DISTRIBUTION, 2010 ■ 0-17 18-24 25-44 45-64 0 65 + Source: California Dept. of Finance, 2010 major growth in adults aged 50-70 and 80 and over. While the 2010 Census is now considerably out-of- date, it remains the most accurate source of demographic data for the City. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 RACE AND ETHNICITY In 2010, residents of the City of San Luis Obispo were approximately 76 percent non -Hispanic white, 15 percent Hispanic or Latino, 5.2 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, and 1 percent Black/African- American. San Luis Obispo County's 2010 ethnic makeup had a slightly lower proportion of non -Hispanic white and Asian/Pacific Islander residents compared to the City (71.1 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively), and a greater proportion of Hispanic or Latinx residents (20.8 percent). Both the City and the County are significantly less diverse than the state population as a whole. Figure 2-3 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION 2010 The City's non -Hispanic white population fell by three percent as a percentage of the total population 2025 (PROJECTED) between 2000-2010. Conversely, the Hispanic or Latinx percentage of the population grew by three percent between 2000-2010. These trends are expected to continue. The California Department of Finance projects that by 2025 the County population will be approximately 64 percent non -Hispanic white, 27 percent Hispanic or Latino, 4.3 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.8 percent Black or African American and 0.5 percent Native American. See Figures 1-3 and 1-4. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Note: Race and ethnicity category names are from the 2010 US Census and have been preserved here for accuracy. Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Native American Asian / Pacific Islander ® Other races/ Two or more races Hispanic or Latino White Black or African American Native American Asian / Pacific Islander Other races/ Two or more races 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS WX a �fo I r"el � •` ��� I Natural er ''� i •'� i r Waddell Ranch City Boundary Median Household Income ($) Rail Lines — 0 - 25,000 Creeks 25,001 - 50,000 Water 50,001 - 80,000 80,001 - 100,000 100,001 - 170,000 Figure 2-4 SAN LUIS OBISPO MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (2012-16) 1$. N 0 I 0.0.5 Miles I t t I l t t t SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 HOUSEHOLD INCOME In 2010, median household income in the City was $42,461, while the County's median household income was $56,967. Median household income in both the City and County increased significantly between 2000-2010. One-third of City households qualify as extremely low income, earning less than $24,999 annually, due in part to the student population. Figure 1-5 shows median household income by census tract. WHAT DOES HOUSEHOLD INCOME MEAN FOR PARKS & RECREATION? Parks and recreation facilities are important, low-cost resources that provides psychological, social, and physical health benefits for users. This is especially the case in areas that have lower median household incomes, where their private spaces often do not provide those amenities, therefore amplifying the importance and the use of public space by lower income residents. By providing equitable access across socio-economic groups to open space, the city is ensuring a place for physical activity, informal gathering and relaxation that may not be available in their residences and opportunities to build community across socioeconomic groups. J 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS Figure 2-5 SAN LUIS OBISPO LOW INCOME AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ILI L .�•r ej 1 10 Natural Reserve 4 101 �,- `� i .9100 900 27� Wandell Ranch J'F _�ra�k Farm Rtl 1 1 ,`. 5 N - Disadvantaged Community (SLOCOG) Water 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Low -Income Community (AB 1550) Residential Area t t t t t City Boundary Urban Reserve Area L_.._ Rail Lines Creeks SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 LOW-INCOME AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES Equity is an important value for the City and for this Plan update. State Definitions The State of California's Assembly Bill 1550 and Senate Bill 535 provide a vehicle for the State to prioritize low-income and disadvantaged communities in the distribution of certain programs and services, including resources relevant for parks and recreation. Disadvantaged communities are identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency as the top 25% most impacted census tracts in CalEnviroScreen 3.0 - a screening tool used to help identify communities disproportionally burdened by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution. Low-income communities are defined as the census tracts that are either at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income, or at or below the threshold designated as low-income by the California Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) 2016 State Income Limits. By the State's definitions, portions of SLO are considered low-income, but none of the City falls into the disadvantaged category. SLOCOG Definitions The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) provides a somewhat different definition of "disadvantaged communities" by examining socio-economic indicators, including; + Median Household Income + Minority Status + Free or reduced -price meals under the National School Lunch Program + Population of persons aged 65 and up + Housing Affordability + Educational Attainment Language Proficiency + Households with no vehicles available + Access to regular local transit service + Sidewalk completeness + Proximity to a grocery store Low-income and disadvantaged communities in SLO are shown in Figure 2-5. 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS LOCAL SPORT AND MARKET POTENTIAL Tastes around recreations change and this is especially true from 2001 to today. Sports such as pickleball and disc golf have risen in popularity across the nation but were relatively unknown 17 years ago. Therefore, understanding the market potential in San Luis Obispo specifically is important for understanding which recreational and sports programs should be prioritized. A Market Potential Index (MPI) measures the probable demand for a product or service within the City and its surrounding service area. The MPI shows the likelihood that an adult resident of the target area will participate in certain activities when compared to the US National average. Overall, San Luis Obispo demonstrates high market potential for recreation activities across the board, from general sports and fitness to outdoor activities. This becomes significant when the City considers building new facilities or starting up new programs, giving us a strong tool to estimate resident attendance. MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR GENERAL SPORTS VOLLEYBALL 102% above national average BASKETBALL 71% above national average ® FOOTBALL 68% above national average 0 DISC GOLF 64% above national average PICKLEBALL * Because pickle ball's popularity is relatively new, national averages have not been collected. However, anecdotally, pickle ball in SLO is a major recreation activity, MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR GENERAL FITNESS YOGA 43% above national average YEXERCISE EQUIPMENT 42% above national average JOGGING 42% above national average SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR OUTDOOR ACTIVITY BACKPACKING 71% above national average IA.BICYCLING (MOUNTAIN) 61% above national average BICYCLING (ROAD) 61% above national average Figure 2-6 MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR GENERAL SPORTS San Luis Obispo ---- National Average 100 200 150 100 50 0 202 Baseball Basketball Football Frisbee/ Ping Pong Soccer Softball Tennis Volleyball Disc Golf Figure 2-7 MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR FITNESS 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 San Luis Obispo ---- National Average 100 1d3 Aerobics Jogging/ Pilates Swimming Walkingfor Weight Yoga Zumba Running Exercise Lifting Figure 2-8 MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR OUTDOOR ACTIVITY San Luis Obispo ---- National Average 100 171 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Archery Backpacking Bicycling Bicycling Canoeing/ Fishing Hiking Horseback Target (Mountain) (Road) Kayaking (Fresh Water) Riding Shooting 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS SLO'S PARKS AND RECREATION Our system includes 28 city parks and 15 special features and recreation facilities covering approximately 206 acres. In addition to mini, neighborhood and community parks, the City provides recreational features including a golf course, a sports complex, a stadium, a swim center, a recreation/ community center, a senior center, a skate park, community gardens and the historic Jack House. There are also five school sites where multipurpose rooms/gymnasiums, and childcare rooms are available to the community through a Joint Use Agreement with the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD). Additional softball fields are available for community use at El Chorro Regional Park through a joint use agreement with San Luis Obispo County. Finally, San Luis Obispo owns and manages 13 open spaces and recreational trails covering nearly 4,050 acres. These open spaces are not the subject of the Plan. The park and recreation inventory, including park type and acreage, is provided as Table 2-1. The park system is shown geographically as Figure 2-1. The sections that follow describe the seven park or facility types that make up San Luis Obispo's system. COMMUNITY PARKS Community parks in San Luis Obispo have unique features and include a wide range of amenities which attract users from throughout the City. The City has seven community parks totaling approximately 100 acres. Community parks are diverse in character, ranging from downtown's Mission Plaza to the combination of active and passive urban open spaces and off -leash dog area at Laguna Lake Park. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Neighborhood parks provide convenient and accessible active and passive recreation to residents within one-half to one -mile walking distance. Basic elements typically include a turf playfield, playground equipment, and landscaped seating area. Other elements may include hard -surfaced courts, restrooms, group barbecues, incorporation of natural or cultural features, and on -site parking. San Luis Obispo has 10 neighborhood parks totaling approximately 35 acres. These include Emerson, French, and Laguna Hills parks, among others. MINI -PARKS Mini -parks, as defined in the 2001 Parks and Recreation Element and Plan, serve residents of the immediate area or those frequenting the area. Basic elements are comprised of passive amenities. Currently, San Luis Obispo has 9 mini parks totaling 7.2 acres. These parks range in size from the postage -stamp -sized Eto Park to the two -acre meandering Poinsettia Creek Walk. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC SPACES Downtown Public Spaces, while the smallest category of public parks at 3.7 acres in total, serve a large population, with regional significance. These are small parks or plazas that enable people to congregate in an urban setting. RECREATION CENTERS The Damon -Garcia Sports Complex, SLO Senior Citizen Center, SLO Swim Center, and Sinsheimer Stadium, among other sites, are classified as "Recreation Centers." See table 2-1 for a complete list. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 SPECIAL FEATURES Special Features in San Luis Obispo can range from Community Gardens to the Laguna Lake Golf Course to the SLO Skate Park. These parks provide special activities that are not easily classifiable in the other distinctions and, at times, may require specialized maintenance or staffing. JOINT USE FACILITIES The City of San Luis Obispo maintains a Joint Use Agreement with San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD), which currently establishes the terms for District and City use at specified school sites and at Sinsheimer Park. At each of the school sites where the Joint Use Agreement is currently effective, the City operates affordable childcare programs, and facilitates use of gymnasiums and financially to softball field improvements including lighting, irrigation, renovation, enlargement, paving, and planting. The City receives first priority for use of the softball fields for organized recreational use, and is responsible for supporting increased maintenance of the fields that results from that use. The facilities covered at each site currently subject to Joint Use Agreements are summarized in Table 2-2. athletic fields for youth sports At Sinsheimer, the School District may use athletic facilities (the baseball stadium, tennis courts, swim center) without a charge for maintenance, repair, or utilities, in consideration for making the land available on which these facilities are constructed. At El Chorro Regional Park, the County owns, maintains, and operates the park for recreational use, while the City has contributed r 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS Table 2-2 SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES PARKS AND RECREATION1 FACILITIES ACRES COMMUNITY PARKS , Exposition Park 7.2 Laguna Lake Park 140.0 Meadow Park 116.0 Santa Rosa Park 11.0 Sinsheimer Park 21.7 SUBTOTAL 95.9 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Anholm Park 0.1 De Vaul Park 10.9 Emerson Park 3.3 French Park 10.0 Islay Hill Park 6.0 Johnson Park 5.0 Laguna Hills Park 3.2 Mitchell Park 3.0 Throop Park 3.0 Vista Lago Park 0.2 SUBTOTAL 34.7 MINI PARKS Buena Vista Park 0.5 Ellsford Park 1.0 Eto Park 0.2 Las Praderas Park 0.4 Poinsettia Creek Walk and 2.0 Park Priolo-Martin Park 0.5 Rodriguez Adobe Park 1.4 Stoneridge Park 1.0 Triangle Park 0.2 SUBTOTAL 7.2 DOWNTOWN PUBLIC SPACES Cheng Park 0.3 Mission Plaza 3.0 Mission Plaza Extension 0.4 SUBTOTAL 3.7 RECREATION CENTERS Damon -Garcia Sports 22.0 Complex Ludwick Community 1.0 Center Meadow Park Center 0.1 Sinsheimer Stadium 1.8 SLO Senior Citizen 0.1 Center SLO Swim Center NA SUBTOTAL 25.0 SPECIAL FEATURES _ Broad Street Community 0.9 Gardens Emerson Park NA Community Gardens Jack House 0.1 Jack House Gardens 0.8 Kiwanis Centennial NA Garden Laguna Lake Golf Course 27.0 Laurel Lane Community 0.3 Gardens Railroad Bike Path 10.0 Rotary Community NA Garden at Meadow Park SLO Skate Park NA SLO Swim Center NA SUBTOTAL 39.1 TOTAL 205.6 Sources: WRT, 2019; City of San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, 2018; City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element and Plan, 2001. Table 2-2 SAN LUIS OBISPO JOINT USE FACILITIES' Bishop's Peak/Teach SLCUSD 1I Elementary School C.L. Smith Elementary School SLCUSD 11 Hawthorne Elementary SLCUSD 11 School Pacheco Elementary School SLCUSD 1I Sinsheimer Elementary School SLCUSD 1I Sinsheimer Park SLCUSD Throop Park SLCUSD El Chorro Regional Park SLO County 1I 11 � _ I if 1I 1f 1I 1f 1 Joint Use Agreement Between the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Coastal Unified School District for the Joint Use of Facilities and the Provision of Programs, 2013; Joint Use Agreement Between the City of San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo for Improvements and Use of the El Chorro Regional Park - Softball Fields, 2002; City of San Luis Obispo, 2019. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figure 2-9 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Creeks Water Schools Residential Area Other Urbanized Area Open Spaces 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS OF Community Park - Downtown Public Space Mini Park Neighborhood Park Special Features ORecreation Center Railroad Bike Path 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I PARK FEATURES AND AMENITIES PLAYGROUNDS AND GATHERING AREAS Currently there are 26 play areas, or tot lots at 14 parks, including 10 neighborhood parks and four community parks. The city has approximately 189 tables distributed among 16 parks. SLO's parks have nine group gathering areas, including two each at Laguna Lake and Santa Rosa parks and one each at French, Johnson, Meadow, and Sinsheimer parks and one at Laguna Lake Golf Course. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figure 2-10 PLAY AREAS AND CHILD LOTS 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I Creeks Water Schools Residential Area Other Urbanized Area Open Spaces Figure 2-11 TABLES AND BBQ Natural / o° tuna Hills' :eark V L.._ City Boundary Rail Lines Creeks Water Schools Residential Area Other Urbanized Area Open Spaces O A Cali/ornfa Polytechnic State University Throo Park ° Ill gild .w ° 2 ` _/•_••_•j ` 701 J/ j /) M. w c c �•.�.,�1(4flc 1. / %t !Pak r j sos Pa ° O en Spac Re6ad cr` e f(� nson G % Trail Parlr� e PON . / ridge aul kf i 0 227 ♦ ....•� I g>� Islay r ParFr ch ♦� ank Farm Rd • / ��.� omsettia Cree space III: a Par cr �i /ilipponi i cal Are o Tables N • BBC 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I r r F I F r r I RECREATIONAL FACILITIES + The City has six diamond athletic fields. This includes two at Sinsheimer Park and one each at French, Meadow, Santa Rosa and Throop parks. A majority of these are youth fields. One, at Santa Rosa Park, is for adult softball. + The City has four regulation size soccer fields at Damon -Garcia Sports Complex. + The City has nine informal multiuse fields at eight parks. They are used for activities including sports practice (rugby, flag football) and pick-up games, as well as for simply enjoying. + There are six full basketball courts with one at each of six City parks. + The City has eight tennis courts, concentrated at Sinsheimer Park (six courts), with one each at French and Islay Hill Parks. + The City has three dedicated pickleball courts, all at French Park. There are also five temporary pickleball courts at French Park and three at Meadow Park. + The City has five volleyball courts, with two at Meadow Park and one each at Islay Hill, Laguna Lake and Sinsheimer parks. + Santa Rosa Park is home to the SLO Skate Park and also features a lighted roller hockey rink (also striped for roller derby and basketball). + Disc golf courses are located at Laguna Lake Park and Sinsheimer Park. + There are 16 horseshoe courts, including 10 at Santa Rosa Park and two each at Sinsheimer, French and Meadow Parks. + Emerson Park has two bocce courts. See Appendix D for more detail. 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS Figure 2-12 BASEBALL AND SOCCER FIELDS HrFO° \ et It B Natural • µd L.. ? City Boundary Rail Lines Creeks Water Schools Residential Area Other Urbanized Area Open Spaces 7 /� O i California ---; Polytechnic State University 1 Thro p t Pa III Blvd` __ .` .._.._.._..—.I 101 Sa R a10, 40 .^4 .� \a r / ''♦ ' ba OQ fit ° O n e 5 Hill • �1� pac ,♦. • — Me doh° 3 / •J 14ad a er ` •— Recre f Tral ' 101 '•�„� arur i• 227 ♦' ., •�«�• � Damon-Garci � / Spoils com ,� '♦ Islay Par �I Par Fr nc / �. ank Farm Rd ' Spac ilippon1 cal Are Baseball Fields O Functional but flawed • Good condition Soccer Fields 0 Functional but flawed A Good condition 1V 0 I 0.0.5 1 Miles I I I I I I 1 I Figure 2-13 BASKETBALL AND TENNIS COURTS i I - III Rlvd California " Polytechnic State University / --- a � Par • c TEHQ' ' ` / jj�� of it Natural ��� •'� 2 O en Spac �j • ��� j �� M ad St Sins � k er �°� , - Recre bfff hnson ._ rrai Par r j 101 D Vaul Obi Parks ■ �.. ? City Boundary Rail Lines Creeks Water Schools Residential Area Other Urbanized Area Open Spaces 227 `. �'•-v' I .._.._.. _.. _.._ H - Islay H' q i , F e h onk Rvrm Rd I rk ilipponi 'cal Are • Basketball Courts 114 ■ Tennis Courts 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I I I I I I I I I Figure 2-14 OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES P_••7 L--_ City Boundary Rail Lines Creeks Water Schools Residential Area Other Urbanized Area Open Spaces o A California -�' Polytechnic + State University f o111•�--_--_--_-i 701 �Ek $ I >��r Park sr O en Spac st ; `4 s ad : 6!aad Tral 101 it a(ur 227 I................ gl Islay -- ,� Par i _ ank Farm Rd 1 Fre cry e - F � / s I ilippaoni c I Are Other Recreational Facilities • Disc Golf • Bocce • Horseshoe Court • Skate Park Roller Hockey Sand Volleyball 11 Pickleball N 0 I 0.0.5 1 Miles I r F I F r r l Figure 2-15 INFORMAL MULTIUSE FIELDS _ / I cautornfa -� Polytechnic State \ /� • University Y I rnro p ,i •� _ Par .0 �..�..�.. III Blvd .� •—•---i 181 ■w a Sa to so ' INFO �MR� • . ` � ''•f •/ �ene������ s o Pa $ ;,• �����ii� • ` iEN�ill '` / jj�� of it B Natural �� O en Spac o Par % �/ i////ii�/ Recre 101 eVaul� • / j Parkes %• 227 � •I Islay - •�. Fr ch Par °nk form Rd ' Co h �• ilipponi i cal Are �.. ? City Boundary Informal Multi -use Fields Rail Lines • Good condition 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I Creeks Water Schools Residential Area Other Urbanized Area Open Spaces DOG AREAS San Luis Obispo has one off -leash dog area located at Laguna Lake Park. El Chorro Regional Park features a dog park, operated by the County for use of all County residents. COMMUNITY GARDENS Community gardens are located at Emerson and Meadow Parks, as well as at Laguna Lake Golf Course (the Kiwanis Centennial community garden), Broad Street, and Laurel Lane. (PLEASE MCKAFTERP YOUR DOG WOR I SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figure 2-16 DOG AREAS AND COMMUNITY GARDENS - Off -leash Dag Area • Community Garder Creeks Water Schools Residential Area Other Urbanized Area Open Spaces 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I I I 1 I 1 1 I I TRAILS AND BIKE NETWORK San Luis Obispo has a robust network of bike lanes and bike routes. The City of San Luis Obispo manages the Railroad Safety Trail, a level, off-street path, which currently extends approximately 10 miles in two segments along railroad right- of-way traversing the city from north to south. The Railroad Safety Trail is used as a destination as well as a transportation facility. The trail section near Sinsheimer Park is used more by pedestrians and walkers than bicyclists, on average. It functions as a linear park and is the most used shared use path segment in the City. A level, off-street segment of the Bob Jones Bike Trail follows San Luis Obispo Creek on the City's southwest side and provides an important recreational resource for City residents and visitors. Buffered bike lanes exist along Madonna Road, Los Osos Valley Road, Laurel Lane, and a short segment of Chorro Street downtown, while a network of bike lanes, shared bike streets, and special neighborhood greenways complete the network. Current plans call for the City's bike and pedestrian network to be expanded substantially. Existing and planned trail and bike networks are shown on Figures 2-17 and 2-18. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figure 2-17 TRAIL NETWORK l ��.0i jj %''in.• City Boundary Trailhead Rail Lines 0.25 U 1 Miles Trails in Parks an( Creeks ' ... SchoolsWater open spaces Residential Area 0Aer Urbaiized: Figure 2-18 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ` conform. - Polytechnic State �- University / � Thro � •Po (/(/ Pa Buena ill Bl�a' . ♦`, , 1 i Park t01 r � � • t, • 9, Park l at°°�u`es,a .�%1 • rk sa • ',r ,?4 • -Ells,•ord ' j�s��y ' ors• • / 5J• o�°o�a�9. �: Pa Plaz 'tche �� ao,Emern s • � � " 5 Park of if B4 °' Hil /•• Natural ��� ' e • en Spac ✓ , /• v/�o• °-��` � ���� � � Had ,Sinsh tme ., .. bad ••'••./ '�' bsrt n ''LAgun�Hills� / hns{7n ' � rsta'-ago ParLa�j/• Pa •L Park P k v' j ridge ' tot � � •� ;,r Laguna Le /•` / p P 1 c Dfq1 Vaul • rA %• i .. 227 �1 p IslayH / %� •. La Pradecas........ N`:°Y".64 ........ • •: '.t • Frenk . Ro Park • � d O ttia Space /� ... t • ./'� -NaNt• H s• ilipponi ;( i kcal Are City Boundary Existing Bikeways Proposed Bikeways 2020 J L.._ v v Rail Lines Bicycle Boulevard Neighborhood Greenway 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I Creeks Bike and Ped Access • • • • • Bike Path Water Buffered Lane Bike Lane Schools Shared Use Path • • • • • Bike Route Residential Area Bike Lane • • • • • Protected Bike Lane Other Urbanized Area Bike Route Open Spaces pig n 's Iff'Re f.49. • 0 1 PARK CONDITION ASSESSMENT (2018) The San Luis Obispo Parks Inventory and Assessment, produced in 2018 with support from Cal Poly students, provided a park - by -park narrative summary of park features and general conditions. The feature ratings have been used to identify trends that reflect the system as a whole. PARK FEATURES AND RATINGS Some 33 individual types of park features were evaluated, including several types of recreation facilities as well as parking areas, restrooms, drinking fountains, benches, and lighting, Several other features were not evaluated. These included buildings; fencing; hardscape area; turf; trees; and trails. Features that were rated and not rated are identified in Table 2-3. It should be noted that some features in the "Rated" category were not rated in all parks where they were found. The team used a three -class general assessment rating system, as follows: �. Needs replacement or non- functional (e.g. missing pieces or beyond repair). Not serving its primary purpose or functionality. 2. Needs repair or damaged or in state of disrepair but it can be restored to working order (functional but flawed). Only partially adequate for its intended use. 3. Good condition; in good repair and its functioning as intended For several individual features, more detailed definitions were developed to describe a condition assessment of (1), (2), or (3). These more detailed definitions are provided in the San Luis Obispo Parks Inventory Assessment report. FINDINGS Over three quarters of rated park features were found to be in generally good condition, with 78 percent given a rating of (3). Fifteen percent of the features evaluated were rated (2) and six percent were rated (1). Informal multi -use fields, tennis courts, bicycle racks and lighting were found to be in the best condition across all parks. Almost all these features were rated 3 in the assessment. Meanwhile, horseshoe pits, tables and drinking fountains were found to be in the worst condition: only 60 percent of drinking fountains, 66 percent of tables, and 25 percent of horseshoe pits were rated 3, with nearly two-thirds of horseshoe pits given a rating of 1. Anholm Park, Cheng Park (planned for CIP renovation in 2021), Throop Park, Jack House Gardens contain features that were found to be in the best condition overall. Parks whose features were found to be non- functional or in need of replacement included Santa Rosa and Emerson (see Table 2-4). It is important to note that not all park features were rated by the students. The condition assessment identified specific potential improvements at each park, including potential improvements for features that were assessed but not rated. The recommendations show some general themes: + Landscaped and hardscaped area need better maintenance. This includes areas in Buena Vista Park, Las Praderas Park, and Cheng Park. + Park furnishings (benches, tables, trash cans, drinking fountains) are in need of replacement or repair in most parks, especially in Vista Lago Park, French Park and Johnson Park. + Several parks were observed to lack full accessibility on walkways and trails due to slope, paving, or other conditions. These include Mission Plaza Extension, Islay Hill Park (outside of the playground and restrooms), Exposition Park, Mission Plaza and Emerson Park. + Some parks lack sufficient lighting. These parks include Ellsford, Emerson, Islay Hill, Exposition and Sinsheimer Parks. + Most sports facilities are in good condition. Horseshoe pits are a notable exception, including those in French Park and Santa Rosa Park. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 r � _ Ir- FACILITY ASSESSMENT In addition, facility assessments were conducted in 2018 by Ten Over Studio on the Parks and Recreation Administration Building, the Ludwick Community Center, the Senior Center, and the SLO Swim Center. The Ludwick Center was observed to have a combination of building condition and programmatic deficiencies that need to be addressed. Recommendations included: + Easing the space deficiency and improving access control at the Administration Building; + Consolidating the equipment, vehicles, and workspaces of rangers into a new ranger station; + Potentially replacing Ludwick Community Center with a new facility that better supports the �ti Department's vision; + Addressing security issues around the Senior Center; + Making significant improvements to the SLO Swim Center, including a new tot and therapy pool, a replacement pool, new shower and changing rooms, a new dedicated multipurpose room, a separate fitness room. See Appendix B for more detail. n -_ _ 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS PLANNED PARKS Some 25 new parks, park expansion or facility improvements are defined in specific or Plans, as follows. In some cases, Development Agreements specify maintenance, ownership and operation of future parks. AVILA RANCH Neighborhood Park, Pocket Parks and Mini Parks: A 9.5-acre neighborhood park will serve the Avila Ranch development. The neighborhood park is planned to include group BBQs, basketball courts, tot lots, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, pickleball courts, tennis courts, a dog park, a skate park, and a community meeting pavilion area. Avila Ranch will also feature eight mini -parks and a pocket park. Each will be one-half to 2.5 acres in size. MADONNA-FROOM The Madonna-Froom Specific Plan area is identified in the General Plan. The Specific Plan, which includes a 3.6-acre trailhead park, was approved by the City Council in September 2020. The property is anticipated to be annexed into the City in 2021. MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Neighborhood Park, Greenway and Sports Fields: The Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) meets the City's park land standard by providing a 10-acre Neighborhood Park and a 16-acre improved sports field site. The Neighborhood Park will include trees, benches, tables and small cooking stands, children's play equipment, game courts, a restroom, and play fields. Greenways are primarily for cycling and walking paths within linear, landscaped open areas. The Sports Fields will accommodate active recreational use and will include on - site parking. No plans have been received to date for future development of this area of the MASP. Therefore, this Plan assumes there is an outstanding need for parkland in the MASP area. ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Neighborhood Park, Pocket Park and Trail Junction Park: The Orcutt Area Specific Plan features a neighborhood park, several pocket parks, a linear park and bicycle/ pedestrian paths. The neighborhood park will serve as a community gathering place for casual recreation and sports events. The linear park will double as a passive recreation/ viewing area and stormwater management area. The pocket parks provide access points to the railroad bike path and passive recreation facilities such as seating for wildlife viewing. SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Central Neighborhood Park, Fitness Loop and Parkway, Pocket Parks and Preserve and Trailhead: The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan's park system is intended to provide active recreation, add to the natural beauty of the area, and create a neighborhood with a high quality of life. San Luis Ranch will include a central neighborhood park, pocket parks, an active linear park, green space, greenways, pedestrian and bike paths, and sports fields. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figure 2-19 PLANNED PARKS AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS 0 0.25 0.5 California Polytechnic State University / In alvd . •I 10, L °� Gee rty �% �WAvfdrek,^� ni des Nor/' road St t �`: Center Mont y Neighborhood Par egrthooZe_ Sheet Pla iPark jo oo `Toro/Mar Mi; ion Plaza Pocket Pe Is Ex anew T'E p s Cheng Path Rosa HigR �1-se- I? Exparnlon a j j mdk Street Banal be Plaza '' • �` Emerson Park r c yo OQ/ `OWorks 7€flzS"nill / et it Be - Natural �• ••�• ' / = O en Spac i.' •�� •` south St ` ///It iir/ / S Recre (t�f r@ Trot , a a ¢ ch SP ° N •♦ ape.� �Po tPa 1 j(ui `San Lars Ranch SP San Luis ncli'�„/•\•\,_ _ �•� Preserve and Cen eig'71hood Park OrcuttA aSP Trailhea40 _ J Neighb P k nLuisR.nyMSP Margarita SP 2Q7 Or Area SP Pacific Be fitness Loop ar 's eighborhood Park HS s$an L is h rail lu i'n Park Spe ifc PlcaaaaaarcuttArea SP � A a �' �- Margarta Sp ways Pocket Par Orcyf Ar a y.� SIR '•�' I Margarita SPeci r-� i ' Pgrckeih.Y Spedj :an r Plan Area nk Farm Rd \ i H nsa Nr.rcrr�.r w ilipponi \\V// �' \\\\V r, 'cal Are City Boundary Open Spaces Planned Parks and Park Improvements* Rail Lines # Parks (Mini/ Neighborhood/ Community Parks) - New Parks Creeks Recreation Centers & Special Features - Existing Park Expansion Water - Existing Park Improvements Schools ! ! Specific Plan Boundaries L. Residential Area Other Urbanized Area 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS PARKS AND URBAN PUBLIC AREAS IN THE DOWNTOWN CONCEPT PLAN The Downtown Concept Plan presents the community's high- level vision for how downtown San Luis Obispo should be developed over the next 25 years, and includes principles, goals, and an implementation plan with prioritized major public programs and projects actions. The Downtown Concept Plan envisions the creation of new parks, enhancement of existing parks and facilities, and improvements to the San Luis Creek Walk to provide plentiful and safe public spaces in the city's core. Cheng Park Expansion. Cheng Park is envisioned expanding across the creek onto the existing surface parking lot, with a paseo providing connections from Marsh and Pacific Streets. Courthouse Park. The large lawn at the County building is envisioned as a demonstration garden with seating and interactive public art. Given County ownership, this may not be a City -operated park. Diagonal Paseo. A diagonal plaza is envisioned through the block bounded by Marsh, Broad, Pacific, and Nipomo streets, providing a connection between Emerson Park and the downtown core as well as additional outdoor dining, event, and public art opportunities. Higuera Street Plaza. The City - owned parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo streets is envisioned as a public plaza with seating, interactive elements, and positive activity at this prominent downtown corner adjacent to San Luis Creek. Mission Plaza Expansion. An expanded Museum of Art is shown connecting to Mission Plaza, with a Creek Walk extension underneath the Broad Street bridge. Monterey Street Plaza. A small plaza area with outdoor seating is shown on Monterey Street. Emerson Park. Improvements are envisioned at Emerson Park to provide more opportunities for outdoor recreation for neighborhood residents. Ludwick Community Center. The Ludwick Center would be enhanced to include a full-sized gymnasium, multi -purpose rooms, and underground parking. Old Gas Works Site. The Old Gas Works building on Pismo Street could be rehabilitated and incorporated into a mid -block pocket park. Rosa Butron Adobe. The City - owned Rosa Butron Adobe property would be opened to the public and managed as a park. A new connection from Dana Street is shown crossing San Luis Creek. Toro/Marsh Pocket Park. A small pocket park is envisioned on the corner of Marsh and Toro Streets. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figure 2-20 DOWNTOWN PARKS AND OPEN SPACES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED SY _ c 3 a\°a a N °o, °q, Venable St o° o � i Montalban S 1 � oc� i° Phillips Ln �or o gym'° o u`e\ PeachphillipsAly 0 0.Aa �0.1 0.2 Miles �t e d voryreocn� c SY pd m re as °Unwiversity p 4 Ya�e"' U 0 9 ••♦I •• / ',o°c P .•�\eye •• V o • M � f °Ludi c ..00 �' o Community ♦,3 �',5 o •' . enter- P;.•i• `,1�onterey a° aY�y o .p yo .• �tre � � Y O e •i'' o5Y �� t� Toro/Marsh o � s ° °� ♦fir ocket Park a ♦. Qa��j• Chenc£�s 0 ••�Mf sanrk y° 101 aza .•�kpansion gar ansion uera � Mitchell� Rosa Park a street B 3tl _ ♦ Plaza ..�'•. r `.Jac . •�• e o P M Emerso a Triangle oa P5r r Park ti Park B �I e /a 'Oo3 o p\9 09 �o ' 'ecv9 U Le°c o -k- ° S 3 \° rS �, Q j ° J / St Gr N / Jennifer St 4h Y y/ S e 5 r Terr Bianchi Ln Q ��s ' Q o p / N c c ,road High St i� `° Re tioional L City Boundary Residential Area Proposed Parks and Park Improvements in Downtown Concept Plan Downtown Concept Plan Area Other Urbanized Area - New Parks Rail Lines ExistingPk Expansion -Source: arpansMargarita Specific Plan OrcCreeks Existing Park Improvements Son u Area Specific Plan - g p San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Froom Ranch Specific Plan Water Avila Ranch Development Plc Downtown Concept Plan Schools/ Joint Use Facilities General Plan 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS RECREATION PROGRAMS The San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department has a professional staff that meets the parks and recreational needs of its community through a wide array of programs and services. Department staff are responsible for the management and production of recreation programs including community and neighborhood events, and the operation of multiple facilities including pools, a golf course, baseball stadium, sports fields, skate park, roller hockey rink and more. Employees are engaged year-round in planning, managing, producing, conducting, and evaluating programs and events. The functions within the Department combine to provide Table 2-3 CORE PROGRAM AREAS hundreds of offerings in the areas of youth activities and camps, outdoor adventure, aquatics, sports, health, fitness, activities geared to seniors, and special events. In addition to the programs and activities provided directly by the Department, partnerships with other organizations are utilized to enhance recreational offerings to the community particularly in the areas of youth and adult activities. Through formal and informal cooperative relationships with the San Luis Coastal School District and nonprofit agencies, partners assist with delivering select programs and indoor space required for programs provided by the Department. CORE PROGRAM APPROACH Publicly produced recreation is challenged by the premise of being all things to all people, especially in a community such as San Luis Obispo with an active, engaged population with a diversity of recreational needs. The philosophy of the "Core Program Area" is to assist staff, policy makers, and the public to focus on what the most important recreational programs are in the San Luis Obispo community. As defined by PROS Consulting, program areas are considered as Core if they meet a majority of the following categories; + The program area has been provided for a long period of Aquatics Provide a safe and well -maintained facility offering diverse aquatic activities. Recreation swimming, lap swimming, and swimming instruction. Community Services Manage recreational sports for youth and teens (age 5-18 years old), adult and seniors (50+). Produce community - wide special events, including events at the Historic Jack House, Mission Plaza, Downtown San Luis Obispo, SLO Swim Center and other city parks. Manage enrichment programs including Contract Classes, Community Gardens, Senior and Boomer Activities, and the SLO Skate Park. Serve as liaison to the Jack House Advisory Committee. Coordinate the City -Wide Volunteer program. Facilitate the City -Wide Special Event program and permitting process. Facility Rentals Manage, supervise and schedule internal and external uses of City buildings, facilities, fields, and reserved park areas. Coordinate the scheduling of facility maintenance with various City departments and user groups. Oversee the issuance of facility rental permits; facilitate the review and approval of permits for special events, banner and film permits. Golf Operate and maintain the 26-acre, 10-hole executive length Laguna Lake Golf Course 362 days of the year. Maintain a safe, attractive course while offering a reasonably priced recreational opportunity with an emphasis on senior and youth patrons. Focus on new program initiatives and increased sustainable practices in ongoing maintenance. Youth Services Provide services to over 11200 children and their families before and after school, during spring and other school academic breaks and throughout the summer. Youth Services provides essential child care to families, while programs focus on the healthy and positive development of children, including both cognitive, academic and social development. Progressive and antibias curriculum offers a variety of activities, social experiences, and opportunities that promote learning, awareness of community, fitness and health, academic support and fun. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 time (over 4-5 years) and/or is expected by the community. + The program area consumes a relatively large portion (5% or more) of the agency's overall budget. + The program area is offered 3-4 seasons per year. + The program area has wide demographic appeal. + There is a tiered level of skill development available within the program area's offerings, + There is full-time staff responsible for the program area. + There are facilities designed specifically to support the program area. + The agency controls a significant percentage (20% or more) of the local market. W Mi � r Ze 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS ENSURING THE RIGHT CORE PROGRAM MIX The Core Program Areas provided by San Luis Obispo currently appear to meet the major needs of the San Luis Obispo residents as identified through the community input received during the community input phase of the Plan project, but the program mix should be evaluated on a regular and recurring basis to ensure that the offerings within each Core Program Area - and the Core Program Areas themselves - align with changing leisure trends, demographics, and needs of residents. Best practice guidelines as provided by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) recommends that six determinants be used to inform what programs and services are provided by the Department. According to NRPA, those determinants are; + Conceptual foundations of play, recreation, and leisure - Programs and services should encourage and promote a degree of freedom, choice, and voluntary engagement in their structure and design. Programs should reflect positive themes aimed at improving quality of life for both individuals and the overall community. + Organizational philosophy, mission, and vision - Programs and services should support the Department's mission and vision statements, values, goals, and objectives. These generally center on promoting personal health, community well-being, social equality, environmental awareness, and economic vitality. + Constituent interests and desired needs - Departments should actively seek to understand the recreational needs and interests of their constituency. This not only ensures an effective (and ethical) use of taxpayer dollars, but also helps to make sure that programs perform well and are valued by residents. + Creation of a constituent - centered culture - Programs and services do reflect a departmental culture where constituents' needs are the prime factor in creating and providing programs. This should be reflected not only in program design, but in terms of staff behaviors, architecture, furniture, technology, dress, forms of address, decision -making style, planning processes, and forms of communication. + Experiences desirable for clientele - Programs and services should be designed to provide the experiences desirable to meet the needs of the participants/ clients in a community and identified target markets. This involves not only identifying and understanding the diversity of needs in a community, but also applying recreation programming expertise and skills to design, implement, and evaluate a variety of desirable experiences for residents to meet those needs. + Community opportunities - When planning programs and services, a Department should consider the network of opportunities afforded by other organizations such as nonprofits, schools, other public agencies, and the private sector. Departments should also recognize where gaps in service provision occur and consider how unmet needs can be addressed. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 AGE SEGMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The Department age balance should be maintained moving forward, and the Department should update this Age Segment Analysis every year to note changes or to refine age segment categories. Given the growing population trend for residents ages 55 and over and the growing demand for services in this age bracket, it is also recommended that the Department further segment this group into 65-74 and 75+. These two sub -segments will have increasingly different needs and expectations for programs and services in coming years, and program planning will be needed to provide differing requirements for active seniors. Age Segment Analyses should ideally be done for each individual program offered by the Department. Program coordinators/managers should include this information when creating or updating program plans for individual programs. An Age Segment Analysis can also be incorporated into Mini Business Plans for comprehensive program planning. 2. PEOPLE AND PARKS LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS A lifecycle analysis involves reviewing every program identified by City of San Luis Obispo staff to determine the stage of growth or decline for each as a way of informing strategic decisions about the overall recreation program portfolio. The various stages of program lifecycles are as follows; • Introduction - New program; modest participation • Take -Off - Rapid participation growth • Growth - Moderate, but consistent participation growth • Mature - Slow participation growth • Saturated - Minimal to no participation growth; extreme competition • Decline - Declining participation This analysis is not based on strict quantitative data, but rather is based on staff's knowledge of their program areas. The table below shows the percentage distribution of the various lifecycle categories of the Department's recreation programs. These percentages were obtained by comparing the number of programs in each individual stage with the total number of programs listed by staff. Overall, the lifecycle analysis results indicate an unbalanced distribution of all programs across the life cycle. A combined total of 77.1% of programs fall into the Introduction, Take -off and Growth stages, primarily due to growth of programs introduced in the last three years. RECOMMENDATIONS While it is important to provide new programs to align with trends and help meet the evolving needs of the community, it is also important to have a stable core segment of programs that are in the Mature stage. Currently, the Department has only 16.1% of their programs in this category. The consulting team recommends this be approximately 40% so as to provide stability to the overall program portfolio, but without dominating the portfolio with programs that are advancing to the later stages of the lifecycle. Programs in the Mature stage should be tracked for signs they are entering the Saturation or Decline stages. There should be an ongoing process to evaluate program participation and trends to ensure that program offerings continue to meet the community's needs. A total of 6.8% of programs are in saturated or declining phases. The consulting team recommends keeping as few programs as possible in these two stages, but it is understood that programs eventually evolve into saturation and decline. If programs never reach these stages, it is an indication that staff may be "over -tweaking" their offerings and abbreviating the natural evolution of programs. This prevents programs from reaching their maximum participation, efficiency, and effectiveness. For departments challenged with doing the most they can with limited resources, this has the potential to be an area of concern. As programs enter into the Decline stage, they must be closely reviewed and evaluated for repositioning or elimination. When this occurs, the consulting team's recommendation is to modify these programs to begin a new lifecycle with the introductory stage or to add new programs based upon community needs and trends. Staff should complete a lifecycle review on an annual basis and ensure that the percentage distribution closely aligns with desired performance. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 050 f _—I a � •tit ���� � F 1 •� + � � ' f h f 'A ■ 'fir } ' 3 . n r+r + s AL f + Zqw AL'� i t I lb qo Y *9 = . 66 dobw t AAML E�M 7 Li w Poo i '��, v Lie ol �• •; , � .. �' �' ! / . k fir' s _ �l• .f � �. � tib� z, ti �__ , , �# `�; WHAT WE HEARD Community engagement during the Plan Update process was instrumental in gauging the values and priorities of San Luis Obispo residents today. This chapter describes what we learned. Community engagement is vital to identifying, understanding, and incorporating San Luis Obispo residents' needs, values, and aspirations into the update of the City's Parks and Recreation Element and Plan. During the first phase of the Update, City Staff and the Consultant Team conducted a diverse set of outreach activities intended to inform community members about the process and collaborate with on their needs and vision for parks and recreation. This chapter summarizes what we heard. For a more detailed summary, see Appendix C. &I Community Engagement Tools IC WORKSHOPS 3. WHAT WE HEARD COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW In April 2018, City Staff developed a comprehensive Community Engagement Plan for the Update process. The Plan identified goals and a series of outreach components to inform, consult and collaborate, These are summarized here. FOUNDATIONAL MEETINGS First, Parks and Recreation Department Staff arranged meetings with a range of residents, current and former commissioners, parks and recreation user groups, representatives of cultural organizations and others. As consultant for the City on the Plan Update project, WRT met with 45 individuals in 16 half-hour to one - hour meetings on April 10 and 11, 2018. City Staff were not present, to encourage candid dialogue about issues. Meanwhile, Staff worked to inform the public about the project itself, and the opportunity it presented for the community to share hopes and dreams about the future of parks and recreation in San Luis Obispo. With this in mind, outreach efforts conducted May through August 2018 focused on two foundational questions; + What do you love about City of SLO Parks, Activities, and Recreational Facilities? + What do you wish to have in 20 years for City of SLO Parks, Activities, and Recreational Facilities? POP -UPS During the summer of 2018, City Staff conducted over 25 "pop- up" events with the Parks and Recreation "Bright Ideas" bicycle to reach San Luis Obispo residents and visitors in parks, facilities, programs, and events. During these pop -ups, the public had an opportunity to provide comments on portable white boards and take photos SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 with the "Bright Ideas" bicycle for sharing on the Parks and Recreation Instagram account. Comment cards were also provided, which included the two foundational questions identified above, as well as City contact information, and space for the commenter to provide contact information. These cards could be handed to City staff, mailed to the Parks and Recreation Department, or dropped into comment card collection boxes and Parks and Recreation facilities. Additional marketing materials included "Bright Ideas" stickers and a "Save the Date" magnet for the public workshop held in September 2018. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING At the request of the Las Praderas neighborhood, City Staff met with interested neighbors to discuss the Update and the hopes and dreams for the Las Praderas Park and city as a whole. Staff continues to be available to go out into San Luis Obispo neighborhoods at the request of residents. SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBSITE To foster engagement in the process, Parks and Recreation Staff maintained and updated the Plan website with new information, and posted updates and photos on the Department's Facebook page. Photos from pop-up events and meetings were posted to the Department's Instagram. At all events, Staff collected contact information, allowing individuals to add their names and email addresses to the growing interested parties list in order to receive all email updates regarding workshops, key Parks and Recreation Commission meetings, and opportunities for input and engagement. OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Staff also received comments by email and on the Open City Hall online portal. Additional pipelines for public comments included direct communications with Staff via phone and email, distribution of comment cards at the Parks and Recreation Department office, facilities, and events, and through the Open City Hall online portal. In addition, a survey was conducted August to October 2018 to establish residents' priorities for parks and recreation in the City of San Luis Obispo. The survey was mailed to a random sample of San Luis Obispo households. A total of 507 surveys were returned, allowing the survey to exceed its response rate goal and achieve a high level of statistical confidence. 3. WHAT WE HEARD �-OR 1614T I DE AS FOP! SL-0 PARKS "BRIGHT IDEAS" PUBLIC activity stations where workshop WORKSHOP attendees could address focused questions or complete various Supported by this extensive exercises; a seventh "station" was outreach, including multiple emails provided for children. Each of to a list over 6,000, over 600 people these activities, and the resulting attended a participatory three-hour drop in interactive engagement workshop held at the Ludwick Community Center on September 13, 2018. Utilizing a drop -in format yielded great results. The extended timeframe allowed people to come for as brief or long a period as desired. Both main entrances of the Ludwick Center were open and staffed, and the gym was set up with one informational and seven interactive "stations," each designed to get different types of input on parks, facilities, and recreation in San Luis Obispo. At sign -in stations, Staff gave members of the public Passports to be stamped (encouraging attendees to stop at each interactive station) and returned for eligibility for entrance in a drawing for a FitbitTM. The first station, in the main foyer, was informational about the Update process itself and staffed by Community Development planners. Those staff were able to address general questions about the Update and the overall planning process. Within the main gym were six feedback, is summarized below. PARK IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES WORKSHOP In September 2019, following the completion of the analysis phase of the Update, the City and WRT returned to the community to present the findings and gauge support for potential improvements to specific parks. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 FOUNDATIONAL MEETINGS In April 2018, WRT met with 45 individuals in small groups. Individuals represented a range of organizations and perspectives, including advocates for swimming, open space, dog parks, the senior center, golf, organized sports, cultural organizations, and neighborhoods, as well as members of the Planning Commission and City Council. The following provides a summary of themes, priorities, goals, opportunities, and challenges that emerged from these meetings. PLAN PROCESS AND GOALS Reach Beyond the Usual Voices Several participants spoke about the need to reach beyond "the loudest voices and most organized groups" during the planning process. Provide a Strong Foundation for Implementation The Plan Update should be comprehensive, and should provide a strategy and prioritization for future improvements. Parks are Where You Build Community The core message should be that "parks are where you build community." We should not lose sight of this even as it addresses specific facility and program needs. NEW PARKS AND URBAN TRAILS Public Spaces Downtown and Along the Creeks Participants spoke positively about new public spaces downtown, making the connection between downtown growth and livability and open space preservation around the edges. The creeks that flow through San Luis Obispo are a great potential asset, and could be the backbone of a creek walk or park. New Parks in Neighborhoods SLO should continue to strive to provide new parks, especially in densifying neighborhoods near downtown. Trails and Trail Connections The City should build on its trail system by extending key trails and creating spurs to parks and Dog Parks and Dog Areas The City does not currently have a fenced dog park, and only one formal off -leash area, at Laguna Lake Park. While three dog parks are currently in development plans, two of these are only a quarter acre in size, which may be too small, based on current community input. Skate/Bike Parks/Tracks There is unmet need for a skate and bike park or track. Facilities oriented to kids may help to build confident bikers who feel comfortable getting around without a car. Tennis and Pickleball The Sinsheimer Park tennis courts are rarely used because there's no backstop, and [at the time of our meetings] there were no dedicated pickleball courts in San Luis Obispo. Indoor Recreation neighborhoods. The Ludwick Community Center gym is not highly -used. Given the FACILITY NEEDS small size of that gym and the poor condition of the facility, starting over More Facilities for Field Sports with a new facility may be best. Sports advocates believe there is a need for additional fields beyond improving Damon -Garcia, pointing to the large numbers of youth and adult soccer participants and the growing popularity of other field sports (rugby, lacrosse and field hockey). There was considerable interest in developing a complex of fields large enough to support tournaments. Indoor soccer and indoor rock climbing were noted as potentially popular activities. Swim Center Improvements Swimmers supported the creation of a separate kids' area at the pool, which would help make the pool more of a community place. A spray ground adjacent to the pool was 3. WHAT WE HEARD proposed. Parking expansion and safety improvements were noted as priorities. Managing and Preserving the Golf Course Laguna Lake Golf Course gives active adults an affordable and healthy activity while also supporting a good level of use by young people in the afternoons and evenings. Senior Center The Senior Center facility limits the programming that can be offered. There is a desire to better serve younger, more active seniors, and safety concerns about Mitchell Park. STRATEGIES FOR PARK AND FACILITY DEVELOPMENT Development of new parks and facilities will require the commitment of significant resources. Three potential strategies emerged from our conversations. Regional Coordination A regional strategy could be applied to planning for tournament -level facilities for field sports, diamond sports, and/or bike racing. The County's Parks and Recreation planning process and Cal Poly's campus Plan may be vehicles for this coordination. Partnerships Sports leagues and "Friends of" organized groups or non-profit organizations can "band together" to advocate and raise funds for new facilities and amenities. The success of the skate park is a positive recent model in San Luis Obispo. Leveraging the Development Process The park amenities being proposed in Specific Plan areas is not always well -suited to needs. In addition, parks are being created late in the development process. These issues should be addressed in the Plan Update PARK ACTIVATION AND PROGRAMMING Park Activation Some parks in SLO are under -used. Greater activation of parks to make them more attractive to all segments of the community needs to be a priority. Ideas for activating Mitchell and Emerson parks included evening festivals; a bocce court; a dog area; and better synergy with the building programs. Mission Plaza is home to numerous festivals and events, but the plaza, the creek, and downtown streets were still seen by some as having untapped potential. Program Priorities and Strategies Where should the Plan focus attention in terms of programming? Stakeholders called attention to three areas of focus; + Affordable programs for children and youth + Programming for active seniors. + Embracing apps and educational games, like the recent "Pics on Peaks" program. PARKS DEPARTMENT ROLE AND PARTNERSHIPS The separation of maintenance and programming may not be a good model. Parks and Recreation should focus on helping people connect with their community of interest, and helping groups coordinate activities. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 POP-UP EVENTS Over the course of summer 2018, City Staff conducted over 25 "pop- up" events to reach San Luis Obispo residents and visitors in parks and facilities, at programs and events. Staff worked to inform the public about the project itself, and the opportunity it presented for the community to share hopes and dreams about the future of parks and recreation in San Luis Obispo. Staff also distributed comment cards and solicited feedback online through Open City Hall, and received over 160 responses. The outreach during this stage focused on two foundational questions. What Do You Love About SLO Parks, Activities and Recreational Facilities? The most commonly cited activities community members loved were youth sports (12 responses), community events and programs (10 responses), hiking, and softball (7 responses each). The second group of responses referred to specific parks or facilities. Here, Sinsheimer Park got by far the greatest response (19) followed by Santa Rosa Park/Skate Park (9 responses). Third, responses described certain qualities of San Luis Obispo's parks. These included comments about the parks being clean and well maintained (11); accessible, bike - friendly, or providing easy access to trails (9), and family -friendly and nice for all ages (8). What do you wish to have in 20 years for City of SLO Parks, Activities, and Recreational Facilities? Many people identified the need for new parks or facilities. These included more parks, open spaces or trails (14); more soccer fields basketball courts or pickleball courts (11); more bike trails or better connectivity between the bike and open space networks (11); more pools, splash pads, or water parks (8); and more skate parks or ramps (6). Other people focused on programming. Some 21 responses described a range of recreation classes or activities including wildlife education, yoga, gardening, art, music, and summer camps. Night hiking (7 responses); more opportunities for people of all ages (6); better hours and/or fee for the pool (5); and more off -leash time and/or more dog park (4 responses) were also notable. 3. WHAT WE HEARD WHAT DO YOU +-OVRLEGREATIONAt "' BUT UTY PARKS, AGYIVITtt� $ �Q seba I/ ��Ids SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 "BRIGHT IDEAS" WORKSHOP Community input received during the workshop, the pop -ups, emailed responses, and received comment cards, and open City Hall are condensed to a series of key topics as they were presented at the workshop. ASSESSING PARKS AND FACILITIES At the "Parks in Need of Love" station, attendees were given an opportunity to fill out a "report card" on the condition of one or more parks and provide comments on specific needs. Ten parks received the greatest share of report cards. Average "grades" for each of these parks, along with the number of report cards received, is shown in Table 3 -1 . Sinsheimer Park was both the most -often graded park and the one that attendees gave the highest ratings. Sinsheimer was noted for its "wonderful" play area and hill slide, as well as the need for more shade. Sinsheimer Stadium, however, was given poor marks. The Stadium's restrooms and public address system were especially identified for improvements. Other parks that received substantial feedback included: • Laguna Lake Park was described by several Table 3-1 "GRADES" FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKS AND FACILITIES Sinsheimer Park Meadow Park DeVaul Park French Park Santa Rosa Park Damon -Garcia Sports Co Cuesta Park Throop Park Anholm Park SLO Swim Center Mitchell Park Johnson Park Emerson Park Mission Plaza Laguna Lake Park Islay Hill Park Sinsheimer Stadium Las Praderas Mini Park commenters as needing a fully - fenced or otherwise improved dog park. Some called for dredging of the lake. • Meadow Park was described as pretty and serene, but noted that the community building, the paths, bridges, and workout stations all needed updating. • Islay Hill Park was described as a park with a great location in need of updated equipment and new ground material, as well as better signage for the trailheads.1 1The Islay Park playground was replaced with new equipment in September 2020. B 47 B- 21 B- I 4 B- I 18 D D- F 6 5 6 4 11 10 10 2 10 3 25 16 13 3 • Emerson Park is well -liked but needs restrooms. • Mitchell Park is well -liked as a gathering place near downtown, but there is concern about how the park is used. • SLO Swim Center received many positive comments; people wanted shade over the seating area and longer operating hours. • Community members wanted to see pickleball courts at French Park. These courts were constructed in 2020. 3. WHAT WE HEARD Table 3-2 PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES THAT SHOULD BE A FOCUS IN THE YEARS TO COME Swimming 32 Pickleball 23 Yoga 15 Kids' programs 14 Environmental education 11 Gardening 10 Aqua aerobics 8 Biking 7 Dogs 7 Youth programs 7 Youth sports 7 Family activities 6 Bike education 5 Clean up events 5 Fitness 5 Hiking 5 Camps 4 Chess 4 Community activities 4 Dance classes 4 Kayaking 4 Language classes 4 Martial arts 4 Tai chi 4 PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES At the "Dreams of Programs and Activities" workshop station, participants were asked to write, using sticky notes, what types of activities they felt should be the focus in the coming years. Children at the "Parks, Jr." station also got a chance to express their preferences, responding to images of different types of facilities and activities using dots to communicate their favorites. People of all ages cited a diverse array of programs and activities. Programs identified by the most people included swimming, pickleball, yoga, kids' programs, environmental education, gardening, and others shown on Table 3-2. Children expressed many specific requests that could loosely be grouped into a few broad categories. The most popular of these was new/improved play equipment, both indoor and outdoor, including unique features like ziplines, foam pits, climbing trees, and giant chess sets. Most of the remaining responses fell into one of these categories; recreational classes (e.g. dance, Spanish, karate), events and excursions (e.g. overnight camping, outdoor movies, visits to the zoo), activities related to video games, requests for more shade at parks and the pool, and improvements to the Sun and Fun and Club Star facilities and resources. A SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 EVENTS IN PARKS Special events were the subject of the "Events in Parks" workshop station, where participants were asked to indicate what parks are good locations for events, and what type of events they wanted to see, using dots to identify parks and sticky notes to summarize events. Concerts and other ideas for music in parks were by far the most popular type of event based on workshop feedback. Other top event categories were food trucks and events, sports tournaments and events, movies, arts events and fairs, cultural festivals, and community gatherings and barbeques, among others (see Table 5-3 Ideas for Events in Parks). Mitchell Park (15 dots), Laguna Lake Park (12), Mission Plaza (11), French Park (6), Sinsheimer Park (6), and Jack House and Gardens (6) were most -cited as places where events should take place. When comments about events at Sinsheimer Stadium and SLO Swim Center are included, ten responses described events at Sinsheimer. f 3. WHAT WE HEARD I \4 Muhl, w 0 M� SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021 -2041 DREAMS OF PARKS AND FACILITIES At the "Dreams of Parks and Facilities" station, the presentation board showed a variety of types of amenities and facilities in parks, including a range of sports facilities as well as passive recreation, cultural and sustainable features. Using these examples as a starting point, workshop attendees were asked to use sticky notes to share ideas for new park facilities or amenities. A great diversity of ideas were shared. Pickleball and some variation on a water park or splash pad were the subject of the most responses (44 and 40, respectively). Many people also weighed in on the need for enhancements to the SLO Swim Center; a new dog park or fenced dog area; new facilities for diamond sports and field sports; new neighborhood and pocket parks; and a new indoor recreation center/community center. Table 3-3 identifies facility types that garnered the most responses; in many cases, responses were more detailed and specific (i.e., shade over playgrounds; zip lines). Table 3-3 DREAMS FOR PARKS AND FACILITIES Pickleball 44 Water park, splash pad 40 Swim Center 33 enhancements Dog park 28 Baseball, softball 24 New parks 23 Recreation or community 22 center Soccer, rugby 18 Shade 17 16 Bike park 16 New pool Bike paths 14 Adventure park 13 Walking trails 13 Play equipment 11 Swim Center operating 11 hours Stadium enhancements 10 Water refill stations 10 Charging stations 9 Community gardens 9 Trees 9 3. WHAT WE HEARD r PARK IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES WORKSHOP In September 2019, following the completion of the analysis phase of the Update, the City and WRT returned to the community to present the findings and gauge support for potential improvements to specific parks and types of facilities. What we heard is summarized here. YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Participants were asked to state their priorities for park improvements in their neighborhood, from a list of options. Of these options, "safer access" was the highest priority, followed by walking paths, neighborhood events, and dog park. Approximately 110 participants provided responses at this workshop station, and the average ranking for each priority is identified in Figure 3-1. COMMUNITY PARKS For Laguna Lake Park, we asked participants to rank a list of 11 potential improvements. The most popular: a bike pump track, an adventure playground, a botanical garden, a walking path, an outdoor learning area, and additional gathering/seating areas. Approximately 100 participants provided responses at this workshop station, and the average ranking for each priority is identified in Figure 3-2. Figure 3-1 PRIORITIES FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD a 6 4 2 0 a� earr°°a�,�c�y Oj O e� yak¢tP``¢ya a��c Ot �O Ar e5 0t�y a�C yicy y�0 \a0 6C ° OCC. mat G\6 G0 C\ab data i, `G oa o PaO eyy e `Jt eC 1 Q yKS Figure 3-2 RANKED IMPROVEMENTS FOR LAGUNA LAKE PARK 6 1111111 ig Outdoor Additional Meditative Cultural Multi -use Lighted Basketball ay Learning Gathering Garden Education Sports Multi -Use Courts Areas Kiosks Fields Sports Fields Figure 3-3 SUPPORT FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT SINSHEIMER PARK 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Bike Pump Multi -Use Turf Stadium & Lights at Additional Track Fields Stockton Tennis Courts Tennis Courts Lighting SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 For Sinsheimer Park, a bike pump track, multi -use turf fields and lighting at the Stadium, Stockton Field, and the tennis courts all got at least 75% approval. Additional tennis courts got under 50%. FIELDS AND FACILITIES For Sinsheimer Stadium, participants were asked if they supported or opposed specific changes. Community events, upgrades to the Stadium and restrooms, and multi -use sports at the Stadium all received very strong support; two-thirds of participants also supported shifting to artificial turf. Participants were asked to rank four potential improvements to the SLO Swim Center. Of these, extended hours for recreation swim and for lap swim were the highest ranked. Approximately 85 participants provided responses at this workshop station, and the average ranking for each priority is identified in Figure 3-5. Finally, participants were asked about their support for some other specific potential improvements. Of these non -golf programs at the Laguna Lake Golf Course, remodel or expansion of the Ludwick Community Center, and activation of the Jack House, and enhancing the Senior Center all got very high levels of support. Synthetic turf was also supported by three-quarters of participants. Figure 3-4 SUPPORT FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT SINSHEIMER STADIUM 100% 90% 80°% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% z0°r 10% 0% Community Events Upgrades to Muni -Use Sports Artificial Turf Stadium & Restrooms Figure 3-5 RANKED IMPROVEMENTS AT SLO SWIM CENTER Extended Hoursfor Extended Hoursfor Rec Swim Lap Swim Spalsh Pad Larger Therapy Pool Figure 3-6 SUPPORT FOR OTHER FIELD AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 100% 90% s0% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% z0% 10% 0% LLGC Non -Golf Ludwick Progams Remodel/Expansion Jack House Activation Enhance Senior Center Synthetic Turf 3. WHAT WE HEARD NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY ETC Institute administered a receives from the City of San Luis parks and recreation needs Obispo's Parks and Recreation assessment survey for the City of San Luis Obispo during late summer/early fall of 2018. The survey was administered as part of a comprehensive update to the its Parks and Recreation Plan. According to the survey, the Parks and Recreation Department is Department. This is significantly higherthan the national average of 59%. The types of programs that households have the most need for are: community special events, recreation swimming, and lap swimming. These are also the doing an excellent job providing programs that are the most services to the community. Most important to survey respondents. survey respondents (79%) are either "very satisfied" or "satisfied' with The types of amenities with the the overall value their household highest level of unmet need in the City are: swimming pools, nature Figure 3-7 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH FACILITIES Sinsheimer Park Historic Jack House & Gardens Santa Rosa Park SLD Skate Park Anholm Park Jack House Gardens Laguna Hills Park SLO Swim Center Poinsettia Creek Walk & Park SLO Senior Citizens Center Mission Plaza Santa Rosa Park Hockey Rink Sinsheimer Stadium Priolo-Martin Park Throop Park Islay Hill Park )Asta Lago Park French Park Damon Garcia Sports Complex Meadow Park Laguna Lake Golf Course Slnseimeer Tennis Courts Laguna Lake Park Santa Rosa Park Buena Vista Park Triangle Park Mitchell Park De Vaul Park Johnson Park Exposition Park Ludwick Community Center Stoneridg�ee Park lea Park Meadow Park Center Laguna Off Leash Do Area EllsfN Park Emerson Park Rodriguez Adobe Park Las Paraderas Park W7% Cheng Park parks/botanical gardens, adventure areas, and shaded areas. The types of amenities that are the most important to households are: open space trails, park trails, swimming pools, and passive enjoyment of open space. The amenities that should be the City's highest priorities are: swimming pools, open space trails, park trails, passive enjoyment of open space conservation areas (where environmentally permissible), shaded play areas, dog parks, and nature park/botanical gardens. 39% 35% 45% 44% 1 39% 2996 1 ;39% 31% ■ 1 37% 4M 550A 44% 45')d 46% ' 43% 45% ; 4796 47% 43% 42% ; 37% ' 42% 44% 1 2951 48% ; 47% 34% 43% 29% ' 30% 20M 27% 496 2 3E% _ Very Satisfied Satisfied SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Neutral Dissatisfied/ Very Dissatisfied Figure 3-8 PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVING, REPURPOSING, OR EXPANDING PARKS AND FACILITIES by percentage of respondent households that selected the items as one of their top four choices Used for open space & trails Designated areas for walking & biking Used for small neighborhood parks Are sustainable Pools Dag parks Are welcoming to a diverse population Used for athletic fields Playgrounds & similar playfacilities Incorporate public art Nature & environmental interpretive areas Connect people with cultural heritage Additional park bathrooms Adding lights to existing athletic fields Enhancements to park landscaping Picnic areas Used for multi -sport indoor gymnasium Synthetic turf fields Fitness circuit stations Pickleball courts Golf course improvements Bocce ball courts BMX/Pump track Sand volleyball courts Hockey rinks Golf clubhouse improvements Other 1 "044°% I =Mk32°% 128�% I I I , 26% I 22°% I I I s _ 15% I ' = 15°% I EjEj 12% I W112% � I 1°% f0% ' I I E 94 I I 7 9% I pp° I I I I I I .6°% 0 6% I 1 5% I I I - 4°% I I 1 3°% I I 1° 11°% ' 1% 4°% ' 0% 10%, 20°% 30°% 40°% 50 Figure 3-9 PRIORITIES FOR INVESTMENT IN RECREATION AMENITIES based on the Priority Inverstment Rating Swimming pools 161 Open spacetrails _ kA Parktrails 3M I Passive enjoyment of open space conservation areas 1L24 ;1 Shaded play area U)D , Dog park 109 Nature park/ botanr-al garden 1.05; Adventure area 99 Outdoor exerdse f fitness area 89 Enrichment classes 83 ' Indoor exerds-e facility �8 Splash pads N�e�.�n Prieri[Y 1=nvironmefLtal education center 681 ' � Play�au n ds , Community center 60 Sport; coomplex 55 Ocvlered picnic areas & BBD pits for renta 1 50 Tennis courts (lighted) 52 Soarer fields OLAffoor basketball/volleyball courts Baseball/Sotftbal I fiefs Disc golf FicHeball marts Indoor basketball/volleyball courts AdditionaR garden plots Table tennis Football/Rugby fiefs Lacrosse fields Source: ETC Institute (2018) pyrc' 210j, Wra 120% 160% 2'..KW3 3. WHAT WE HEARD GIV- I J. .01 -! 1 01' GOALS &POLICIE S SYSTEM -WIDE GOALS Policies are presented in five categories: one for each of the Plan goals. In many cases, realizing these policies have the potential to advance multiple goals at once, and this should be the City's aim. In total, there are 53 Policies to achieve these five goals. BUILD COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS City Parks and Recreational facilities should build and connect community through inclusive and diverse amenities and programming MEET CHANGING NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY Leverage regionalism and creatively increase the number of City parks, recreational facilities and amenities, to meet user needs. SUSTAINABILITY OPTIMIZE RESOURCES SAFETY The City's Parks and Recreation facilities will be vibrant, resilient, and sustainable. Establish, maintain, and operate parks, facilities, and programs in a manner that is cost effective and manageable while engaging the community in a manner that optimizes involvement and support. Provide safe, accessible, inclusive and well -maintained City parks, recreational facilities and amenities. 4. GOALS AND POLICIES BUILD COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS 1.1 Park Classification. This Plan classifies San Luis Obispo's parks and recreation facilities by type, as Community Parks; Neighborhood Parks; Mini Parks; Downtown Public Spaces; Recreational Facilities; and Special Features. Each of these park types is defined in Chapter 2. This classification represents an adjustment from the system used in the 2001 Parks and Recreation Plan and should be used consistently by the City in all planning, analysis, and reporting. The new system allows the City to distinguish small urban public spaces in the densifying downtown core from "mini parks" in residential neighborhoods and create a distinction between traditional recreation facilities such as gyms and recreation centers and "special features" like community gardens and historic sites. Table 4-1 PARK ACREAGE AND ACCESS STANDARDS 1.2 Park Acreage Standards. San Luis Obispo shall continue to develop a park system at the rate of ten acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Aspirational standards for each park and facility type are as shown in Table 4-1. The City has demonstrated that a high -quality park system can be achieved within a smaller footprint but seeks to achieve this goal over time. 1.3 Park Access Standards. The City shall seek to provide a neighborhood or community park within a half -mile, or ten minute, walk of all residents along streets and paths. In park - deficient areas where providing a new neighborhood park is not feasible, access improvements to existing parks and the creation of mini parks will be prioritized. Note: Figure 4-1 shows walksheds to neighborhood parks only. Community Parks 3 - 1/2 mile to a neighborhood or community park Neighborhood Parks 4 Mini Parks NA Provide in areas where meeting Community/ Neighborhood Park access standard is not Downtown Public Spaces NA feasible. Recreation Facilities 2 NA Special Features NA NA Total 10 NA SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figure 4-1 PARK ACCESS una Hills / Wsta -ago- L Park / P k La I I I De Vaul II /i., . Park l r� N 0 0.25 r r Buena -OsTa — l Park i 0 ■51ww— 7_Meadow , 5inshanner, _ Park — // \ ; Exposition a 9una_y\/ �i%ParkJohnson — / / Park r \ �•'— / � \ ridge CenrSan LuisRanch, ral Neighborhood Pa�/ II I %j•`/� \ \ / \V: a I Orcutt Ar SP �1 1 C itdsP\ 1 INeighbor PS n Luis Ranch` / �— • obd Park I I peicle Plan — I— I I I Orcu Pi— / I (Damon-G \ I I \ Margarita specific I pecific Plan Area/ 1 r Plan�rea� , Ports C \ \ I / d nch /� —••Park'/`1/ / / 7 ark Fre L Prader�s / / h �\ i / _Park / / Rodriguez . / '�• / Park \\ _ _ �— \�' Adobe Pa j/.� ) \ / \ / / �� Poi ettia •'-Walk• a • `����• rh­ Avilaiiaa SP \ _ I '�•.�� r1 ,I AV nc Neighborho �'k OSmHe T' 'JIDe elopment I l Ian Area I �— I \ I Service Area t - -I _Specific Plans Boundary 1/2 mile walkshed 1 mile walkshed Planned Neighborhood Parks` 1/2 mile radius from planned neighborhood parks Population Density (people/ sq mile) 1 mile radius from planned neighborhood parks 0 1,200 1.4 Improvements to Existing Parks and Facilities. The City shall maintain and enhance existing parks and facilities to maintain a high -quality park experience and adapt parks, as needed, to better serve community needs. The Plan summarizes improvement needs at each site and classifies park improvement needs as "critical" (maintaining what we have); "strategic" (improving what we have); or "visionary" (developing new opportunities) See Chapter 5. Table 4-2 PARK AMENITY STANDARDS OUTDOOR AMENITIES IL Diamond Athletic Fields: Youth Diamond Athletic Fields: Youth/Adult Diamond Athletic Fields: Adult Rectangle Athletic Fields Outdoor Basketball Court Tennis Court Pickleball Court Sand Volleyball Courts Roller Sports Courts Dog Park/Off-Leash Dog Are Playground/Tot Lot Group Gathering Areas � Disc Golf Course (18 hole) Golf Courses Swim Centers Skate Park Bike/Roller Pump Tracks INDOOR FACILITIES 4 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 0 1.5 Park Amenity Standards. The City will seek to provide park amenities at daytime population -based levels of service shown in Table 4-2. Recognizing that the City's amenities serve City residents as well as people who work in San Luis Obispo but live elsewhere, daytime population is used to calculate appropriate service levels. In addition, Cal Poly recreation amenities available for community use are taken into account. These targets are informed by the standards set in the previous Plan, and updated to reflect participation rates, National Recraetion and Park Association (NRPA) guidelines, and current needs, 1 field 1 1 field 1 1 field 1 1 field 1 1 court 1 court 1 court 1 court 1 court 1 site pi 1 site pi 1 site pi 1 site pi 1 tours 1 pool 1 site pi 1 I site pi JW Multi -Generational Recreation and 17,400 sq. ft. 7,925 sq. ft. 1.5 SF Community Centers Assumes daytime population of 88,300 in 2035. While the City does not have jurisdiction over decision -making authority over Cal Poly recreation facilities/amenities, the inventory assessment assumes they are accessible to an estimated 35% of the City's daytime population, and are exclusive to students, faculty, alumni, and staff. Therefore, the inventory assumes that only approximately one third of Cal Poly amenities are accessible to the City's daytime population (refer to Appendix D). er 12,000 3 er 15,000 5 er 25,000 10,000 3 6 er per 7,500 8 per 5,000 10 per 6,000 12 per 10,000 5 per 50,000 25,000 2 7 :r r 2,000 18 r 5,000 9 r 50,000 0 : per 50,000 0 Per 50,000 1 r 50,000 1 r T50,000 3 per Person 46,000 sq. ft. Figure 4-2 SAN LUIS OBISPO SUB -AREAS AND PARK ACCESS GAPS \ N �% \ / Ji k 0 0.25 0.5 1 /! �I ' j r O/SkI/I ■■■ - - _ - eadow insh tmer — ,/ —Park — � Exposition Jo i / % Park hnson � Line Hills / / Vista Lago i / Park Park / Park tgnerf Park 1 6// � Laguna Lake / ram• y, ` / \ / \ 1l Course I \\San Lu`sR ocN& Cer/ral Neighborhood Pa y % ♦ _ / y' 1 Orcutt A SP De Vaull , , 1 I // ! Margarit�SP TI I \Neighbor dP I Park 1 San Luis PlRanch ?eidfI / I •I— • Lho6d ParkCc aS` / Orcutt Area i I \ Mprgaritp $'pecif\c (Damon-G \ I pecific Plan Area/ I i T Plan Area Sports Co \ \ I I;�a HY- ��— _ i A / / ♦ / _ Y / krFroom nch'': / / / i •� / %althea ark \ j Las Praderas — Park / / Rodrig Park i / — — _ \ — \ / Adope Po' Me .//� I rF •� Mila'11an SP I Neighborho Park— — - -,jI AV nch 0 mile IDe elopment I I ;an Area �• r ' City Boundary Parks and Recreation Facilities in San Luis Obispo --; Rail Lines Mini Creeks Neighborhood ! ! 9 _ _Specific Plans Boundary Water Community Planned Neighborhood Parks* Schools Recreation Centers & Special Features Open Spaces Service Area Population Density (people/ sq mile) 1/2 mile walkshed Subareas 1 mile walkshed 0 1,200 1.6 Park Amenities Per Area Standard. The City shall seek to provide a common set of recreational amenities within accessible walking distance of neighborhoods located amongst the six identified sub -areas including: Basketball courts (Lighted/Non-Lighted) Pickleball courts (Lighted/Non-Lighted) •Tenniscourt (Lighted/Non-Lighted) •Sand volleyball courts • Roller sports court or facility •Turf fields (diamond, rectangular, lighted/non- lighted) • Dog parks •Outdoor gathering areas for small and medium- sized groups (shaded/unshaded), including neighborhood -based gathering areas (i.e. gazebo/ stage) • Playgrounds (shaded/unshaded), inclusive of both natural and engineered shade Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all -ability. See Figure 4-2 for sub -areas. 1.7 New Parks and Park Access in Existing Neighborhoods. The City shall seek to create new parks and/or improve access to existing parks in neighborhoods where there are gaps. The City should pursue the following specific opportunities, also shown generally on Figure 4-2: •Create a new neighborhood or mini park to better serve the City's northeast neighborhoods (Sub -area 1); •Create a new neighborhood park or improvements to existing park amenities to better serve neighborhoods along Johnson Avenue (Sub -area 3); • Improve Stoneridge Park to provide amenities typically found in a neighborhood park (Sub -area 4); •Create a new neighborhood or community park in the South Higuera corridor (Sub -area 5); • Provide neighborhood park amenities and a new creek crossing and signalized pedestrian crossing of Santa Rosa Street to provide access to Santa Rosa Park from the neighborhood to the west (Sub- area 1); • Provide a railroad crossing to enhance access to Sinsheimer Park from the neighborhood to the west (Sub -area 3); • Make access and design enhancements to joint - use school athletic fields so that they also serve as parks and playgrounds for neighborhood residents during non -school hours, with a focus on neighborhoods with park access gaps; • Provide joint use of County of San Luis Obispo Cuesta Park; •Add play areas/playground to Damon -Garcia Sports Complex based on consideration of maintenance of fields, preventing damage to fields, and protection during field renovation; and •Improve Las Praderas mini -park based on neighborhood input. 1.8 New Parks in Specific Plan Areas. The City shall guide the completion of parks planned as part of adopted Specific Plans, including Avila Ranch within the Airport Area Specific Plan, Margarita Area, Orcutt Area, Froom Ranch, and San Luis Ranch, ensuring that parks are developed to meet City needs and expectations. 1.9 New Parks with Future Development. The City shall continue to require that future Planned developments and annexations dedicate ten acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Of SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 this amount, five acres shall be dedicated as a neighborhood park. The remaining five acres required under the ten acres per 1,000 residents in the residential annexation policy may be located anywhere within the City's park system in a way that helps to fulfill the goals and policies of this Plan, as directed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The City's in -lieu fee program may be offered as an alternative for smaller development projects at the City's discretion. 1.10 Athletic Fields. The City should continue to work to make the Damon -Garcia Sports Complex function optimally, and provide additional soccer and multiuse fields to meet demand for game and practice play. New fields may be accommodated at future parks, at existing parks (Laguna Lake, French, or Meadow), or potentially as part of a new complex of fields large enough to support tournaments. Consider renovations to increase usability, such as synthetic turf. 1.11 Multipurpose Recreation Center. The City will explore developing a new versatile facility that may include fitness and community classrooms, a gym to meet demand for indoor basketball and volleyball, rentable spaces, and on - site childcare, A climbing wall, indoor soccer, and most notably aquatics could also be vital additions 1.12 SLO Swim Center Enhancement. Significant improvements are needed to make the SLO Swim Center more usable by diverse segments of the community including seniors, adults, youth, and children, and make the facility a great community place. Resolution of parking for the Swim Center is also a priority (see also Sinsheimer Park policy,) The City will fund and deliver needed Swim Center improvements and explore either expanding the Swim Center to provide more capacity and/or developing a new facility, 1.13 Senior Center Enhancement. The City shall make improvements to relocate or expand the Senior Center to enable more flexible programming, with a focus on more successfully reaching younger more active seniors, Improvements will be done in connection with the City's vision for Mitchell Park. 1.14 Park Trails. Community members have communicated the value they place on park paths and trails that allow people to take good walks of an hour or less close to home. The Parks and Recreation Department will prioritize the creation of (paved and unpaved) walking trails and loops within community parks, including at Laguna Lake and Sinsheimer Park. 4. GOALS AND POLICIES 1.15 Sustainable Transportation Access. Support implementation of the Active Transportation Plan and provision of sustainable access to parks and recreational facilities including, but not limited to Sinsheimer Park area, Laguna Lake Park, and Meadow Park, and interconnected paths citywide. Bicycle parking should be provided in parks, recreational facilities, and community centers, and include facilities for standard, electric, and cargo bicycles.. 1.16 Shaded Play Areas. In addition to shading play areas —a high priority for the community —trees and shade structures can also contribute to distinctive identity and sustainability, Existing play areas will be assessed for need, and enhancements to both play equipment and shade will be scheduled. The City should provide shaded play areas within a short walk (1/2-mile) of all residents: this should be a core feature of all parks, including mini -parks. 1.17 Dog Parks and Dog Areas. San Luis Obispo currently has one unfenced off - leash dog park, at Laguna Lake Park. Additional facilities are a clear community priority. Future dog facilities should be designed in a way that draws on community input and distributed to be accessible to residents in all parts of the City. Strive to provide accessible dog parks within the six sub -areas of San Luis Obispo. Investments in new dog areas should be paired with reinvestment in the existing facility to ensure equity and to balance use, Improvements could include a fenced area, more shade, and a better ground treatment, Potential locations include Laguna Lake Park, Sinsheimer Park, Santa Rosa Park, Emerson Park, Laguna Hills Park, Islay Park, and proximate to Damon -Garcia Sports Fields, 1.18 Quiet, Meditative Areas. Many residents expressed the need for more quiet, meditative areas in parks, The City shall incorporate meditative areas in future parks and in existing parks as part of future projects. 1.19 Community and Educational Gardens. San Luis Obispo has five community gardens operated by the Parks and Recreation Department. As the City develops a new park at the Broad Street community garden site, a new location should be explored to provide this opportunity to residents of the north side. Meanwhile, a botanical or educational garden may also be a good match for environmental education and gardening programs for which there may be community demand. 1.20 Relationship to Regional Parks. The City should maintain its agreement with San Luis Obispo County for first -priority use of the softball fields at El Chorro Regional Park in exchange for City support for improvements and maintenance. 1.21 Joint Use School Facilities. The City of San Luis Obispo maintains a Joint Use Agreement with San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) which establishes the terms for District and City use at specified school sites and at Sinsheimer Park, The City should maintain its Joint Use Agreement with SLCUSD and seek to expand that agreement to additional sites, hours, and uses to the extent such changes would advance both City and District objectives, In addition, the City should explore opportunities to coordinate with the District on site Plans so that jointly -used sites can be designed to optimally support community use, including school age childcare services. 1.22 Maintain Focus on Youth. The City will continue to focus on youth, and especially at -risk youth, in its recreational programming. 1.23 Art and Cultural Expression. Parks and facilities should provide public art and other means of expressing local history and culture and accommodate a variety of potential programming ideas. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Af AN !4 RL a dK '1% -.wpm owsm"Nomm- Ar;e AV AW, -Nor, �11;1151 .3, t4irq 'd 2 MEET THE CHANGING NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY 0 2.1 Meeting Demand for Facilities and Amenities. The City shall develop facilities and amenities to meet community needs. High priorities identified in the statistically -valid survey conducted for the Plan Update include swimming pools; park trails; shaded play areas; dog parks; and a nature park/botanical garden. Medium priorities included adventure areas; outdoor exercise fitness areas; indoor exercise facility; splash pads; environmental education center; playgrounds; a community center; a sports complex; covered gathering areas and BBQ pits; and lighted tennis courts. Community engagement also identified several of these priorities, while also highlighting pickleball and facilities for diamond and field sports. The City will prioritize these improvements and will periodically refresh analysis of San Luis Obispo's recreational needs. 2.2 Community -Desired Park Elements. Parks and facilities should be planned and designed to support community needs. For neighborhood and mini parks, this should involve consideration of the specific goals of neighborhood residents; for community parks, recreation facilities and special features, citywide needs take precedence. 2.3 Sinsheimer Park. Sinsheimer Park is an important and favorite park for many San Luis Obispo residents, A new Planning process for Sinsheimer Park should illustrate how the park's elements can be tied together to create synergy; how space can be used to accommodate additional use; how access can be improved for all modes of travel; and how parking issues can be resolved. The park should be evaluated in relation to the adjacent residential neighborhood, school district bus yard, Johnson Park, the Railroad Safety Trail and the creek. See Chapter 5 for more detail, 2.4 Laguna Lake Park. Laguna Lake Park has untapped potential, and may be able to accommodate additional recreational facilities, events, and enhancements that support enjoyment of the water and the natural preserve where environmentally permissible, These should be detailed through a Plan process. See Chapter 5 for more detail, 2.5 Mitchell and Emerson Parks. The City shall undertake a focused project planning effort for Mitchell and Emerson parks. These parks should function more successfully to serve their neighborhoods while also being part of an ecosystem of downtown -area parks that support family friendly events and public art. Consider areas for a senior center expansion (indoor and outdoor) and re- distribution of the playground area. Programming may be a critical element to maintain a feeling of comfort and security for neighborhood residents. Consider multiple plans to meet the needs for different groups, levels of activity, and recreational needs for our senior community. 2.6 Accessing and Evaluating the Golf Course. Continue to manage the golf course for its primary use while exploring opportunities for broader community use, potentially including a fully immersed golfing experience including mini -golf, disc golf, and foot golf, a walking loop, community space, redevelopment of the pro -shop, as well as more SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 revenue capture opportunities. Consider alternative programming such as community use of the golf course for gatherings for specified days and hours, 2.7 Jack House and Jack House Gardens. Manage the Jack House and Gardens in a way that preserves the historic resource, makes the site more visible and welcoming, and more fully realizes its revenue -producing potential. This may mean extending open hours, adding signage and safe crosswalks, and evaluating facility rental offerings and fees. Explore opportunities for private management of the Jack House, and the City's continued management of the Gardens. 2.8 Expand Programs and Services in the Areas of Greatest Demand. Ongoing analysis of the participation trends of programming and services in San Luis Obispo is significant when delivering high quality programs and services. The City will focus its efforts on the programs and services of the greatest need and reduce or eliminate programs and services where interest is declining. Based on the Community Needs Assessment and communications received from the public, Recreational Swimming, Lap Swimming, Swim Lessons, Yoga, Personal Training and Fitness Classes, Tennis programs, and Enrichment Childcare for school -aged children should all be expanded. 2.9 Program Evaluation and Adaptation. The Parks and Recreation Department will implement a program assessment and evaluation tool, The tool will be used to help the City ensure that programs reflect priorities, During the Plan process, certain programs were identified as being important to 4. GOALS AND POLICIES evaluate, including Gymnastics, Lifeguard Training & Junior Guards, Golf, Drop -in Sports, LEGO Camps, Junior Ranger Activity Camps, Junior Giants, Youth Futsal, Tennis Lessons, Ultimate Pick-up, Surfing Lessons, and Youth Fitness & Wellness programs. These programs may have a limited, targeted audience and may be ideal to offer strategically in terms of frequency, days of week, times of day and time of year. 2.10 Continue to Support Community based Enrichment Childcare. Youth Services provides inclusive child care to families, most of whom need child care while they work or attend school. The Sun n Fun and Club Star programs are critical for parents and youth, and this program or a similar program shall continue to be managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. Programs focus on the healthy and positive development of children through anti - bias curriculum and a variety of activities, social experiences, and opportunities that promote learning, awareness of community, fitness and health, academic support and fun. The Department shall continue to make these high priorities to serve and support the community. 2.11 Active Recreation for Seniors. The Parks and Recreation Department will grow to successfully meet the evolving recreational needs of active seniors, Focus and engage programs on multiple senior age groups to develop a sense of community. Providing enriching programs for seniors at a centralized location. Offering generation -specific activities that serve unmet needs of active adults (50+). Create and implement new programs as needed to provide inclusive amenities and activities for multiple senior age groups and activity levels. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 2.12 Inclusive and Accessible Parks. The Parks and Recreation Department will work to make parks and facilities feel inclusive for all members of the community. This may involve: > Cultural representation through signage, artwork and murals; > Play equipment that is usable by people with cognitive and physical disabilities; > Gender -neutral restrooms and changing rooms; > Programming that meets the needs of diverse users; > Encouraging inclusion through posted rules and etiquette, and continuing to emphasize these characteristics as requirements in all City -sponsored programs. > Other elements that remove barriers that may deprive some people of the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of parks and recreation. San Luis Obispo will strive to create parks that enable diverse users to interact and recreate together. �9 74t 4. GOALS AND POLICIES SUSTAINABILITY 3.1 Access by Foot, Bike, and Roll. New parks and facilities should be located centrally to their service population, integrated with their community context, and easily accessed on foot, by bike, and roll, Where feasible, new parks should; • Be accessible from multiple points; • Face directly onto public streets; • Be accessible from transit and active transportation network; Be located adjacent to other community uses like schools, libraries, and commercial districts; • Be located adjacent to multifamily housing. 3.2 Natural Features. Parks and facilities should preserve and incorporate existing vegetation and natural features onsite and, where feasible, be designed to relate or connect with larger open space systems, 3.3 Creek Integration and Creekside Trails. The creeks that flow through San Luis Obispo are a great potential asset that has been partially realized at Mission Plaza but could become more fully integrated into the city's park and open space system. The City will study how to address natural resource preservation and use of the creek by people experiencing homelessness, and how to successfully integrate the creek, park space, and downtown activity. 3.4 Design and Maintain for Carbon Neutrality. Existing parks will be evaluated by 2023 for their current resource use including on -site facility and building energy use and fleet vehicles and equipment required for operations and maintenance. The City will strategically phase out fossil fuel use (natural gas in buildings and gasoline and diesel fuel in vehicles and equipment) and by 2030 and will pursue energy management and sustainability features where feasible such as onsite renewable energy, battery storage, and public electric vehicle chargers, New buildings and facilities shall not include fossil fuels and shall be designed to support electric or alternative fueled fleet vehicles and maintenance equipment. 3.5 Park and Recreation System Resilience. The City faces a rapidly changing climate where extended heat waves, drought, wildfire smoke, and floods are increasingly common and severe. Existing and new parks should be designed for resilience to the new impacts of climate change concurrent with the Resilient SLO planning effort. Parks and recreation facilities will also be places of refuge in increasingly disruptive conditions. Facilities should be planned to accommodative the public, especially vulnerable populations, for extended periods of natural disaster. 3.6 Water Efficient Initiatives. Stormwater systems should be designed into parks, especially where there is room for treatment, detention and storage of stormwater. Working landscape features can be incorporated into existing and proposed parks to help filter pollutants and capture stormwater. Low water use planting and xeriscaping should be incorporated into new and existing parks where turf is not needed in order to decrease water use. Gray and recycled SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 water systems should be explored and expanded. The details of these practices should be further developed in the Plan, 3.7 Reduce and or Eliminate Chemical Use. In landscape areas, replace chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers with non -toxic treatments, including Low Impact Development (LID) practices for improving soil health where feasible and in consultation with the Department of Public Works. Support use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) which focuses on pest prevention through biological control (such as the introduction of a natural predator), habitat manipulation, and modification of cultural practices including site monitoring, cleanliness, routine maintenance, installing pest barriers, physical removal of pests, and as a last resort chemical control, In facilities, replace chemical cleaning products with non -toxic alternatives, when feasible, and when protection of public health can be ensured. 3.8 Tree Selection. Parks are places for grand trees that cast shade and provide long- term value. Many attributes are considered when selecting trees for parks, including habitat value, benefit to pollinators, and natural or native and cultural influences, The City shall prepare a tree inventory all of our parks to determine their population, species diversity, age, condition and maintenance needs. This information will inform future planting, maintenance needs and 4. GOALS AND POLICIES budgets, The City shall prepare a master tree list for future climate conditions, including drought tolerant, low allergen, high carbon sequestering trees with after life uses. Trees should also be selected for future climate conditions. Human allergies are another factor to consider, especially around special needs populations or in balance with other trees that may have higher biogenic emissions, Examples of low- and moderately -rated trees from a list of low -allergen trees developed by Cal Poly include Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), Paradox walnut (Juglans x paradox), Evergreen ash (Fraxinus uhdei), Camphor tree, Allee Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia Allee'), and Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus subsp. Aspleniifolius). Additional care must be taken to determine the appropriate tree for a particular park and planting condition. 3.9 Recycled Materials. Use recycled materials where possible in recreation equipment, and avoid or minimize waste when replacing park materials and equipment. 3.10 Green Waste and Recycling Bins and Services. Consistent with SB 1383, San Luis Obispo will include green waste and recycling bins and services, and signage to make sure they are used correctly. 3.11 Public Education and Sustainability. Showcase sustainability in parks in a variety of ways including information kiosks, demonstration projects, and equipment consistent with climate goals. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 OPTIMIZE RESOURCES 4.1 Downtown Public Spaces. A successful downtown is connected to the City's success in preserving open space around the edges, and both these qualities are part of San Luis Obispo's DNA. The City shall create new urban public spaces that support interaction in a highly walkable, mixed - use downtown, consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan, The farmers' market, the creek, privately -owned public open spaces, roof gardens, parklets, and temporary plazas, can be leveraged as part of the park system and be recognized as "park equivalencies." 4.3 Park Activation. Parks and facilities should accommodate a variety of potential programming ideas, The Department will activate parks with food truck pods, community gatherings, fitness classes, yoga in the park, and other temporary features as a way to bring new energy to parks and ensure that parks feel welcoming to all, 4.4 Community Events. San Luis Obispo residents have shown a clear interest in more community events in parks. The City shall focus on four parks as good sites for events; Mission Plaza, Laguna Lake, Mitchell and Emerson. Plans for these parks should identify a niche for each site and specific facility needs to support events, Partnerships with School Districts. Collaborate with the school district and optimize resources and available space when new schools or school indoor/outdoor facilities are built. Use and prioritize resources and partnerships, including joint use agreements. 4.5 Publicize Recreational Opportunities. The Parks and Recreation Department will continue to adjust its communications to reach San Luis Obispo residents of all ages, and work to ensure that class and event registration and facility rental are user-friendly. 4.6 Coordinate with Other Recreation Program Providers. The Department will continue to monitor other organizations' recreation offerings, coordinate as appropriate, and adapt the City's offerings to clearly match goals while not replicating services. 4.7 Maintain High -Quality Programs. The Department shall remain committed to a high standard in its recreation services by ensuring that Staff are skilled and well -trained and courses are calibrated to community demand. 4.8 Implement a Work Order Management System. The work order system should be enhanced in consultation with the Public Works Department and be used to track maintenance requirements that are tied to daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal and annual work orders based on the established maintenance standards. This will assist staff in staying on top of the preventative maintenance of both the built (playgrounds, structures, infrastructure, etc.) and natural (turf, trees, etc,) assets of the park system, Further, utilizing a work order management system will provide staff the necessary "actual cost" data for work being performed, 4. GOALS AND POLICIES 4.9 Systematic Approach to Contracting Services. Through the development of management processes, the Department must continually evaluate the private sector to determine if the financial resources dedicated to parks maintenance are sufficient as well as used effectively and efficiently. It should be expected that the cost for third -party contracted services will rise in the future. 4.10 Management of Contract Services. Continue to provide the necessary resources for the management and oversight of all third - party contractors that provide maintenance services for the City of San Luis Obispo's parks and grounds. 4.11 Update Work Plans Based on Maintenance Standards. SLO's maintenance standards follow best practices as established by the National Recreation and Park Association. Still, the Department should continually update and customize the standards based on the park and recreation values of the San Luis Obispo community. These standards need to be implemented regardless of whether work is performed by City staff or third -party contractors. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 5 SAFETY 5.1 Enhance Public Safety in Public Parks. The City shall continue to enhance public safety in public parks through collaboration with community partners and volunteer organizations and ongoing parks and facility improvements and maintenance. This may include the following; • Explore partnerships and programs to provide information and referrals about mental health, drug abuse, and homeless services. • Identify and implement increased resources to deter and mitigate impacts of illegal activities on park use and removal of trash and debris from illegal camping, •Create formal neighborhood volunteer programs, neighborhood park watch, park ambassador program, and adopt -a -park programs. •Implement Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design practices in public parks and facilities, including incorporation of Dark Sky compliant safety lighting, maintenance of vegetation, and increased safety sightlines, •Incorporate adaptability in response to public emergencies when planning for designing elements for new parks, facilities, and amenities, 5.2 Safe Access to Parks by Sustainable Transportation. The City shall continue to develop a robust system of multiuse trails a pedestrian/bike priority network, and transit network, following the guidance of the Active Transportation Plan, The Parks and Recreation Department will focus on the following recreational priorities; •Complete the network of shared use paths including the Bob Jones Trail and the Railroad Safety Trail, • Encourage and collaborate with the County to complete Bob Jones Trail connections. •Create bicycle and pedestrian connections between these mainline trails and the City's community parks (e.g. Sinsheimer, Laguna Lake, Santa Rosa, Meadow) and major recreation facilities (e.g. Damon -Garcia). •Create safe and clear bike and pedestrian connections to trailheads, promoting non -motorized access to the City's open spaces. •Coordinate with a support safe routes to schools as a means to improve access to joint use recreation facilities, 4. GOALS AND POLICIES IMPLEMENTATION The Implementation chapter lays out what San Luis Obispo needs in terms of recreation amenities, provides a framework for locating those amenities in existing and future parks, and identifies near - term, mid-term, and long-term projects. nt for the Future: 2021-2041 This chapter provides the bridge from goals and policies to actions. Here, we apply the intentions of the Plan to propose specific improvements to our parks system. The chapter starts with translating our recreation amenity standards to projected need for additional amenities in the years ahead. A framework is identified for linking needed park amenities with park sites where those amenities would be best -suited to fit local needs. Next, the chapter defines three types of park improvements, and documents potential opportunities at each park where "visionary" changes are needed. The chapter provides the flexibility to consider identified opportunities and determine the appropriate design and amenities of our City's parks and recreational facilities through focused community outreach and the preparation of comprehensive park -specific plans. The community engagement process will include direct contact with community groups and organizations to further advance diversity, equity, and inclusion at all City parks and facilities." The chapter then reviews how much new park land San Luis Obispo would need, and where we should look for additional future park sites. Finally, we look at the costs of park improvements, and a funding strategy to achieve our goals. The funding strategy applies not just to capital improvements but also to programming, maintenance and operations. HIGHLIGHTS OF OUR PROPOSED PARK IMPROVEMENTS The parks and facilities we consider most important and our highest priority to improve include the following, with a focus on realizing unmet potential for recreational use in existing parks, activating parks, and building community. + Re -envisioning and developing unmet potential for recreation at Laguna Lake Park; + Successfully activating our Downtown parks including Emerson and Mitchell parks and the SLO Senior Center; + Creating a multi -functional community/indoor recreation center to replace the Ludwick Center; + Updating and enriching Meadow Park; + Improving the condition and functionality of Sinsheimer Park as a whole, including the SLO Swim Center, Sinsheimer Stadium, connections to the Railroad Safety Trail, and potential opportunities on land currently used for bus parking. 5. IMPLEMENTATION PARK AMENITY NEEDS This Plan provides new population - based standards for an array of amenities, to ensure that we are serving the recreation needs of the community. The standards are based on a range of factors, from national and regional best practices to demonstrated local demand. The standards are measured using the estimated daytime population, recognizing that both residents and people who work or study here but live outside the City use our parks. This section summarizes how many additional amenities of each type would be needed to meet the needs of the daytime population both today and in 2035, assuming that the parks currently being planned will have been completed. Priority and location characteristics for each amenity are also outlined. All identified active recreation amenities would be located within urban areas, and would not be located within City Open Space. Our prioritization is informed by analysis of needs, lifecycle costs, and public testimony and correspondence provided throughout the Plan Update process, and is presented in near -term (0- to 5-year), mid-term (5- to 10-year ), and long-term (10- to 20-year) timeframes. Finally, location recommendations CAL POLY FACILITIES are informed by our goal to have a good range of recreation amenities in each of San Luis Obispo's six districts. A summary table of recreation amenity needs is provided as Appendix D. While the City does not have jurisdiction over decision -making authority over Cal Poly recreation facilities/amenities, the inventory assessment assumes they are accessible to an estimated 35% of the City's daytime population, and are exclusive to students, faculty, alumni, and staff. Therefore, the inventory assumes that only approximately one third of Cal Poly amenities are accessible to the City's daytime population (refer to Appendix D). SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Ab. 'Ilk ATHLETIC FIELDS DIAMOND ATHLETIC FIELDS Inventory Today, San Luis Obispo has four diamond athletic fields for youth, one for adults, and one for that serves both youth and adults. Youth fields are located at French, Meadow, Sinsheimer and Throop parks. An adult field is located at Sinsheimer Park. Afield used by both youth and adults is located at Santa Rosa Park. One youth baseball field is planned for the future neighborhood park at Avila Ranch. Additional Need To meet the standards of this plan, the City needs two more youth baseball fields, two more adult fields, and four more fields that serve both groups. In 2035, taking population growth and planned fields into account, the City would need two fields for youth, three for adults, and five that can be used by both groups. Lighted fields should be provided where compatible with surrounding uses. Access Gaps As of 2020, youth baseball fields are absent in Sub -areas 2 (Central) and 6 (West). Adult fields are absent in Sub -areas 2 (Central), 4 (Southeast), 5 (Southwest), and 6 (West). Fields for both youth and adults are absent in all parts of the City except Sub -area 1 (North). Priority Diamond athletic fields are currently needed at all levels, and have been identified by Parks and Recreation Commissioners as a near -term (0-5 years) and mid-term (5-10 years) priority. Improvements are likely to be included in each phase of implementation. RECTANGLE ATHLETIC FIELDS Inventory Today, San Luis Obispo has four soccer/multi-use fields, at Damon - Garcia Sports Complex. Four fields are planned, including three as part of the Righetti development (Orcutt Specific Plan) and one at Avila Ranch. Additional Need Four additional fields are needed to serve the population today. Two fields will still be needed in 2035, assuming planned fields are developed. Lighted fields should be provided where compatible with surrounding uses. Access Gaps Sub -areas 2 (Central), 3 (South), and 6 (West) do not have existing or planned rectangular athletic fields. Priority Rectangular athletic fields are currently needed, and have been identified by Parks and Recreation Commissioners as a near -term (0-5 years) priority. Improvements may be included in each phase of implementation. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figure 5-1 DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING AND PLANNED ATHLETIC FIELDS 1 ro 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 14 Damon -Garcia Sports Complex A0 ' Baseball Fields O Youth O Adult O Youth/Adult 4 Planned �;l rr Frehc Park r Soccer Fields 0 Youth 0 Adult 0 Youth/Adult 0 Planned 1� 4 A SPORTS COURTS BASKETBALL COURTS Inventory Today, San Luis Obispo has six outdoor basketball courts, with courts at De Vaul, Emerson, French, Islay Hill, Johnson, and Meadow parks. Basketball courts are planned for Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch, and the Righetti development (Orcutt Area Specific Plan.) Additional Need Six additional courts are needed to serve the population today, and three will still be needed in 2035 even if the planned courts are developed. Lighted courts should be provided where compatible with surrounding uses. Access Gaps Existing and planned basketball courts are distributed in all parts of San Luis Obispo. Priority While the need exists for more outdoor basketball courts, this is not seen as a high priority. Basketball courts may be included at each stage of implementation. TENNIS Inventory San Luis Obispo has eight tennis courts in 2020, including six at Sinsheimer Park, and one each at French and Islay Hill parks. Additional courts are planned as part of the Righetti (4 courts) and Avila Ranch (2 courts) developments. Additional Need Seven additional tennis courts are needed to meet the City's standard today, and five will still be needed in 2035 in addition to those planned, Lighted courts should be provided where compatible with surrounding uses Access Gaps There are no existing or planned tennis courts in Sub -areas 2 (Central) or 6 (West). Priority Additional tennis courts are needed today, and have been identified as a near -term (0-5 year) priority by Parks and Recreation Commissioners. Tennis courts may be added at each stage of implementation. PICKLEBALL Inventory Today, SLO has three pickleball courts, all at French Park. Eight more are planned, including six at the Righetti development and two at Avila Ranch. Additional Need Nine additional pickleball courts are needed to meet demand today, and four are expected to be needed in 2035 in addition to those already planned. Lighted courts should be provided where compatible with surrounding uses Access Gaps Existing and planned pickleball courts are all in Sub -areas 4 (Southeast) and 5 (Southwest). Additional courts should be placed in other parts of the City. Priority Additional pickleball courts are needed today, and have been identified as a near -term (0-5 year) priority. SAND VOLLEYBALL Inventory Today, SLO has four sand volleyball courts, including two at Meadow Park and one each at Islay Hill and Sinsheimer, with no additional courts planned. Additional Need Three more sand volleyball courts are needed to meet demand today, and five would still be needed in 2035. Lighted courts should be provided where compatible with surrounding uses. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figure 5-2 DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING AND PLANNED SPORTS COURTS � I 1 ` O Cal Poly 1 Q•� J \ S nL a De Vaul p \ Park LJ 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles � I 2 Elon J I Park tot /r Islay Hill Park 4 N 11a) Ranch pp Existing Courts Planned Courts 0 Basketball Courts p Basketball Courts Q Tennis Courts p Tennis Courts Pickleball Courts p Pickleball Courts 0 Roller Hockey Courts p Roller Hockey Courts 0 Volleyball Courts 0 Volleyball Courts M Access Gaps Future sand volleyball courts should be located in Sub -areas 2 (Central), 5 (Southwest), or 6 (West), for good distribution. Priority Additional sand volleyball courts are needed today, and may be phased in throughout the implementation period. ROLLER SPORTS Inventory Today, SLO has one multi -use roller sports court at Santa Rosa Park, which can also be used for basketball. No additional courts are planned. Additional Need One additional court is needed today, and two will be needed in 2035. Access Gaps Roller sports courts are absent from all parts of SLO except for Sub -area 1 (North). Priority Additional roller sports courts, designed for persons of all abilities, may be considered a long-term (10- 20 years) priority. INDOOR FACILITIES Inventory Today, SLO has one indoor recreation/multi-generational community center —the Ludwick Center —with 17,400 square feet of space. The 5,800-square foot SLO Senior Center serves older adults in the city. No additional indoor recreation space is currently planned. Additional Need Some 25,000 square feet of indoor recreation/community center space and 2,000 square feet of space devoted to seniors is needed to meet today's needs. By 2035, this need is expected to rise to 43,000 and 3,000 square feet, respectively. Priority There is a present need for more indoor recreation space, and a recognition that a decision needs to be made about renovating or reconstructing the Ludwick Center on -site or in a different location. Other parks may also be appropriate locations for indoor recreation space as part of a Planning process. Because of the time and resources needed for this effort, this is seen as a mid-term (5-10 years) or possibly long-term (10-20 years) priority. DOG PARKS AND OFF - LEASH DOG AREAS Inventory Today, SLO has one off -leash dog area, at Laguna Lake Park. Dog parks are planned for Avila Ranch and the Righetti development. Additional Need Six additional dog parks or off - leash dog areas are needed to meet demand today, and five would still be needed in 2035 in addition to those already planned. Access Gaps SLO's existing off -leash dog area is in Area 6 (West), and planned dog parks are in Areas 4 (Southeast) and 5 (Southwest). Additional dog parks and off -leash areas should be placed in other parts of the City. Priority Additional dog parks and off -leash areas are needed today, and have been identified as a near -term (0-5 year) priority. There is also strong support for improvements to the existing off -leash dog area at Laguna Lake Park. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 PLAYGROUNDS Inventory San Luis Obispo has 12 playgrounds and 14 child tot lots, at parks distributed in most of the city's neighborhoods. Twelve play areas and child lots are currently being planned at Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch, WestCreek and Righetti. Additional Need Ten additional play areas are needed to meet demand today, and six would still be needed in 2035 in addition to those already planned. Access Gaps Existing playgrounds are located in all areas of the City except for Area 5 (Southwest), though Avila Ranch development will help fill this gap. Priority Additional play areas are needed today, and should be developed during all phases of implementation. Amenities for families and small children have been identified as a high priority by Commissioners and members of the public. OUTDOOR GATHERING AREAS Inventory Today, SLO has nine group areas, including two each at Santa Rosa and Laguna Lake parks and one each at French, Johnson, Meadow, and Sinsheimer parks and one at Laguna Lake Golf Course. 27 BBQ facilities are present at parks or other facilities, including 12 at Laguna Lake Park, five each at Santa Rosa and Sinsheimer, one each at French, Johnson, Meadow, and Mitchell parks, and one at Jack House Gardens. One group area is planned for the Orcutt Area, while BBQ facilities are planned at future parks at Avila Ranch. There are nine informal/multiuse fields located in eight San Luis Obispo parks. Additional Need Six additional group gathering areas are needed to meet demand today, and eight would still be needed in 2035 in addition to those already planned. This Plan does not set specific standards for BBQ facilities or informal/multiuse fields. Access Gaps Areas 2 (Central) and 5 (Southwest) do not have group picnic areas, nor are any currently planned. Informal/ multiuse fields are also missing in Area 5. Priority Consideration of amenities for families and small children and community -based park activation are considered near -term (0-5 year) priorities. Outdoor gathering and seating areas will be part of park development at all stages of plan implementation, with a priority for infrastructure to serve medium- sized groups. Unstructured, open areas for play, relaxation, and informal group sports should be incorporated into parks. 5. IMPLEMENTATION Figure 5-3 DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING AND PLANNED PLAYGROUNDS 1 ro • 6 Maul Park A l 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I . I I I I I I I 'Arson / I Park 5 14 3 •• Islay ' Pa Fren *k 4 N • Play Areas • Child Lots • Play Areas (Planned) Figure 5-4 DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING AND PLANNED OUTDOOR GATHERING AREAS una Hills - Park De Vaul i 1jPark 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Jack Houa& Gardens Sinshei er / Park Meadow Johns n Lake _ Park Pa 101 27 5 0 0tt Area Fre h Islay Hi ark Par w Avila Ranch N s� Existing Planned Group Gathering Areas O Group Gathering Areas BBQ Facilities O BBQ Facilities Informal Multiuse Fields 0 Informal Multiuse Fields SPECIAL RECREATION FACILITIES DISC GOLF COURSES Inventory Today, SLO has two disc golf courses, at Laguna Lake and Sinsheimer parks. No additional courses are currently planned. Additional Need Based on this Plan's standards, no additional disc golf courses are needed. GOLF COURSES Inventory Laguna Lake Golf Course is the City's single public golf course. No additional golf courses are planned. Additional Need San Luis Obispo would need one additional golf course by 2035 to meet standards; however, two golf courses are not needed. Access Gaps Laguna Lake Golf Course is in Area 6 (West). Priority An additional golf course is not a priority for the City. SWIM CENTERS Inventory The SLO Swim Center serves the City's aquatics needs. No additional swim facilities are currently planned. Additional Need Swim center expansion is needed to meet current demand. One additional pool would be needed to meet demand in 2035. Access Gaps Swimming is a special recreation amenity that is not expected to be distributed throughout the City. Priority Expansion of the SLO Swim Center is a mid-term (5-10 year) priority. An additional pool is a long-term (10-20 year) priority. SKATE PARKS Inventory Today, SLO has one skate park, at Santa Rosa Park. No additional skate parks are planned. Additional Need SLO will need one additional skate park to meet demand in 2035. Skate parks are special recreation amenities that are not expected to be distributed throughout the City. Priority An additional skate park may be considered a long-term (10-20 year) priority. BIKE/ROLLER PUMP TRACKS Inventory SLO does not have a bike/roller pump track, nor is one currently planned. Additional Need Two bike/roller pump tracks would be needed to meet this Plan's standards today, and three will be needed by 2035 as the population g rows. Priority A bike/roller pump track has been identified as a near -term (0-5 year) priority for the City. A second track may be considered a long-term (10- 20 year) opportunity. Pump tracks should be located where they can be accessed via bicycle or roll, and along routes to schools. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 d. q. FL 4-46 6, 1p di dL A FRAMEWORK FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS WHAT IS THE RIGHT FIT BETWEEN AMENITIES AND PARKS? The discussion above identifies general locational characteristics for new amenities, based on a district - by -district analysis of amenity gaps. This will be an important factor as the City determines the best location for future amenities. What other criteria can help us place future amenities? How do we match amenities with parks? We identify the following considerations; + Limited access to the amenity type in the district where the park is located. CRITICAL Maintaining What We Have + Capacity of park site to accommodate additional amenities. + Opportunity to enhance or activate a park site by reenvisioning with different amenities. + Interface between park, the amenity and the residential neighborhoods around it, and the specific feel, accessibility, and sense of ownership by the neighborhood. + Amenities that serve the larger community, ease of access should be easy to access without a vehicle. /0000�$ $ STRATEGIC Improving What We Have Tier 1 A& Tier 2 + Larger -footprint, active recreation facilities (e.g. athletic fields) are a good fit for community parks that serve as destinations with a citywide draw. + Smaller -footprint amenities (e.g, bocce ball) are a good fit for smaller parks. + Potential future locations for a multiuse community center and for a senior center, which may replace current facilities, would be well -suited to a centrally - located park. VISIONARY Developing New Opportunities Tier 3 SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 THREE TIERS Park and facility improvements can be understood in three "tiers". The first tier is focused on maintenance, the second on strategic enhancements, and the third on new or wholly transformed parks, as described further below. TIER 1: CRITICAL PARK TIER 2: STRATEGIC PARK TIER 3: "VISIONARY" PARK IMPROVEMENTS- IMPROVEMENTS - IMPROVING IMPROVEMENTS - DEVELOPING MAINTAINING WHAT WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE NEW OPPORTUNITIES Tier 1 includes park improvements critical to keep the park system functioning. They include routine maintenance, repairs, repainting, replanting, lifecycle replacement, and replacement of inaccessible amenities with accessible amenities to remove barriers to access for people with disabilities. The intention of this category is to make the most of existing resources with the primary goal being for the department to maintain services. The actions associated with this category are expected to be funded through tax dollars. Lifecycle replacement is considered an annual value to be included in San Luis Obispo's budget. Total replacement value is amortized over the life of the facility. These park improvements are characterized as being strategic to make measured park enhancements to the existing system. Strategic improvements and redesign may include site, amenity, and facility upgrades. This includes strategically enhancing existing programs, beginning new alternative programs, adding new positions, or making other strategic changes that would require additional operational or capital funding. The City would evaluate and analyze potential sources of additional revenue for these improvements, including but not limited to capital bond funding, partnerships, program income, grants, and existing or new taxes. Visionary park improvements include comprehensive park renovations, acquisitions, and the creation of new parks. This category represents the complete set of services and facilities desired by the community. It is fiscally unconstrained but can help provide policy guidance by illustrating the ultimate goals of the community, and by providing a long- range look to address future needs and deficiencies. Typically, Tier 3 improvements start with a park or facility -specific Plan to analyze conditions, explore the needs of the community, and design a new park. Funding for visionary projects would be derived from partnerships, grants, private investments and new tax dollars. 5. IMPLEMENTATION ` 4 .� Y+ •Y + -1 x r'�• �5,� L 4ry lk k • } X M1 w dk 1 t * + d L d L F L PARK -BY -PARK NEEDS AND PRIORITIES San Luis Obispo Staff and our Consultant team conducted a park - by -park assessment, identifying the general physical condition of each site; any relevant issues pertaining to site access and use; and park -specific needs, wants, and aspirations communicated by members of the public and the Parks and Recreation Commission during the Plan Update process. The resulting Plan identifies near - term (0- to 5-year) mid-term, (5- to 10-year) and long-term (10- to 20-year) time frames, and identifies park improvement priorities. On the following pages, we present a program of improvements for each park and facility where Tier 3 (visionary) improvements are planned; the identified parks and facilities are presented in order of park classification and alphabetical order. These are summarized in Table 5-1, by phase. Planned improvements for all of the City's parks are provided in table format in Appendix E. 5. IMPLEMENTATION LAGUNA LAKE PARK ISSUES + Inadequate bike access + Not enough shade or greenery + Lake utility for recreation is diminished during periods of prolonged drought and/or periodic water quality impairment Community 40 acres •lei 0 Fair IMPROVEMENTTIER 3 Near term (0 5 Years) Mid-term (5-10 Years) + Some amenities (barbecue, tables) are in need of repair + Unmet potential to serve additional recreation needs + Comprehensive redevelopment would require removal or relocation of existing uses and amenities + Area is subject to persistent winds SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Complete a comprehensive update to the Laguna Lake Plan based on focused community outreach and input to determine the appropriate balance of active and passive uses within the park. Plan will revitalize the connection to the aquatic environment of the lake; identify enhancements to natural aquatic and upland functions; explore the potential of adding sports fields and other active and informal play uses; add amenities including fencing, shade, and ground treatment to the off -leash dog area; and include facilities to allow the park to better accommodate community events. + The plan shall clearly identify any uses that may be discontinued or replaced as a result of redevelopment. The park - specific plan should address and consider site issues include lake utility, improvements to and/or replacement of the boat dock, persistent winds, provision of natural and man- made shade, public views of Laguna Lake, ecology within and surrounding the lake, park safety, compatibility with proximate residential development, current parking limitations, sustainable transportation access, accessibility, and compatibility with San Luis Obispo Regional Airport operations (e.g. overflight noise, lighting). + Evaluate this site for a future community center with both indoor and outdoor activity areas and architecture and/or as a site for a second pool or aquatics center. Consider incorporation of a nature center, youth day camp programming, and educational materials, presentations, docent walks, and concessions. Plan and park development will be supported by dedicated funding available through development agreements. + Incorporate more active uses, such as basketball courts, pickleball courts, a bike/ roller pump track, adventure playground/obstacle course, exercise walking path, and lighted or unlighted multi -use sports fields and courts. A botanical garden was also well - supported as a passive use. + Implement Phase 1 of Laguna Lake Park Plan, which should include lighted and/or unlighted sports fields (these may be diamond, rectangular, or multi- use fields). + Phase 1 should also include fencing, shade, and ground treatment for the Laguna Lake Dog Area. + Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all -ability. Mid -Term (5 to 10 Years) + Implement Phase 2 of Laguna Lake Park Plan, which may include other uses envisioned in the Plan Note: the question of how to address indoor recreation needs will be addressed by a separate planning process. See Ludwick Center summary. 5. IMPLEMENTATION MEADOW PARK AND MEADOW PARK CENTER ISSUES + Minimal shade at Meadow Park Center + Antiquated community center + Insufficient restroom facilities at PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Complete a comprehensive Plan. Plan should expand field use by extensive programming and/or installing synthetic turf (softball and soccer); reconfigure multi- use fields; improve walking paths and fitness equipment within Exposition Park (located adjacent to Meadow Park); expand the playground footprint and add an enclosed tot lot; incorporate a dog park; consider this site Community & Recreation Center 16 acres CONDITION Good (park); Poor (recreation center) 3 Near -term (0-5 years), Long-term (10-20 years) Meadow Park Center + Parking lot in poor condition + Potential safety concerns noted by public for a second aquatics/pool facility; reprogram and rebuild areas around the Meadow Park Center as part of that facility improvement planning such as outdoor shade structures and tables for community rental, platforms for classes, parking lot redesign to create shared space/ mini plazas for special events. Incorporate a teen, senior, or multi -generational center into the park. The park -specific Plan should also address use and + Shared use paths serve active transportation and need maintenance focus + Unmet potential in Meadow Park long-term maintenance of the shared paths within the park. + Implement Phase 1 of comprehensive Plan. This should include reprogramming and rebuild areas around the Meadow Park Center. Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all -ability. Long -Term (10 to 20 Years) + Implement Phase 2 of comprehensive Plan, SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 SINSHEIMER PARK ISSUES + Parking concerns around accessibility and safety + Poor connection to Railroad Safety Trail and across railroad PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Complete a comprehensive Plan to identify new and expanded park programs. Park should include lighted or additional unlighted tennis courts, pickleball courts, a bike/roller pump track, remodeled restrooms, and new pathways. The plan should address parking, accessibility, and improvements that enable efficient and effective long-term operations. + Implement Phase 1 of Plan, which should include: Community 21.7 acres Good IMPROVEMENTTIER 3 Near -term (0-5 years). Mid-term (5-10 years) + Outdated and inadequate restroom capacity, lack of restroom availability during Stadium usage. • Address parking issues • Add bike/roller pump track along Railroad Safety Trail + Unmet potential Mid -Term (5 to 10 Years) + Implement Phase 2 of Plan, which may include: • Add dog park or dog area . Adding new park amenities + Address Sinsheimer Park area connectivity, including inclusive non -vehicular access both to the Sinsheimer Park area and through the park. Provide for an inclusive and accessible paved trail connecting the Railroad Safety Trail to Sinsheimer Park. + Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all -ability. • Adding lighting at tennis courts and Stockton Field • Remodeling restrooms • Exploring potential of land acquisition to relocate San Luis Coastal Unified School District bus depot • Potentially, an indoor recreation/multi-generational community center 5. IMPLEMENTATION EMERSON PARK ISSUES + Poor lighting on some areas PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + The Emerson Neighborhood Park Revitalization Project includes activation and enhancement of Emerson Park, based on public input through targeted public outreach meetings surrounding the SPP grant opportunity. Key project amenities includes the construction of restrooms, resurfacing of the black top, expansion of the current basketball court to a multi- purpose court and adding a half court, expand and revitalize the Neighborhood 3.3 acres Fair H Near Term (0-5 Years), Long -Term (10-20 Years) + Activated spaces needed to improve safety current playground, creation of a fenced dog park, installation of an educational garden featuring drought tolerant landscaping, installation of compost bins, installation of shade structures, additional drought tolerant landscaping, update and relocate the bocce court, updated perimeter fencing, the installation of safety lighting along walking paths and on the multi -purpose court, installation of additional hydration stations, and installation of solar panels on the restrooms. + No public restrooms + Unmet potential Long -Term (10 to 20 Years) + Consider this an alternative location for a senior center. + This site may also be suitable for a dog park. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 MITCHELL PARK ISSUES + Limited lighting + Activated spaces needed to improve safety PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Convene a small-scale neighborhood discussion to explore concerns about security and how park programs might create a safer park for everyone. + Launch a branded event series that features pop up programming to encourage neighbors and local residents to enjoy the park. Events and programming could include music, beer gardens, food trucks, coffees, night lighting, art shows, yoga and fitness classes, temporary street closures, movies in the park, and other similar community building PARKTYPE Neighborhood Park 3 acres Fair 3 PHASING Near, Mid, and Long -Term + Unmet potential to integrate Senior Center activities. + Construct pickleball courts for neighborhood use. Mid -Term (5 to 10 Years) + Complete a comprehensive park Plan to identify new and expanded park amenities and programming that supports multi -generational activation and community gatherings. The plan should define physical improvements that encourage appropriate daily park use by seniors, neighbors and downtown residents. + Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all -ability. Long -Term (10-20 Years) + Implement Mitchell Park/SLO Senior Center Plan 5. IMPLEMENTATION CHENG PARK ISSUES + No bike racks, trash cans, water fountains PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Provide a spatial redesign that enhances safety, visibility and activation + Integrate the park into downtown activation and programming + Provide Improved cultural expression and educational opportunities + Maintain cultural significance of original design Mini Park 0.3 acres Fair IMPROVEMENTTIER 3 Mid -Term (5-10 Years) + Poor visibility due to large vegetation SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 MISSION PLAZA ISSUES + Activated spaces needed to improve safety PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Implement Mission Plaza Concept Plan + Ongoing programming and activation Downtown Public Space 3 acres Fair 3 Near Term (0-5 Years) + Ongoing maintenance and operational issues need to be addressed FINAL PREFERRED CONCEPT 5. IMPLEMENTATION LUDWICK COMMUNITY CENTER ISSUES + Space does not accommodate full range of indoor recreational needs PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Undertake Plan to accommodate indoor recreation needs and achieve vision for multi - generational recreation/ community center. Plan will consider complete replacement of building on -site, or relocation to alternative site, potentially at Laguna Lake Park or Meadow Park. + Consider renovation for staff offices or relocation of staff offices, and/or relocation of inclusive and accessible services and programs for the City's diverse senior population. Recreation Center 1 acres Poor IMPROVEMENTTIER 3 Near -term (0-5 years), Mid-term (5-10 years) + Building requires significant renovation + Explore after -school childcare site at this location. Mid -Term (5 to 10 Years) + Complete replacement of the program to create multi - generational community center SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 SINSHEIMER STADIUM ISSUES + Stadium needs to incorporate updated ADA standards (access, seating, restrooms, concessions) + Water fountains and fencing need repair PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Prepare a park Plan for Sinsheimer Park and its facilities (see Sinsheimer Park summary) + Begin phased improvements, which may include replacing and upgrading current lighting conditions and updating the play surface to artificial turf (Phase 1) + Multi -use playing field for year- round programming ,. TJ PARKTYPE Community & Recreation Center 16 acres Good (park); Poor (recreation center) 3 Mid-term (5-10 years), Long-term (10-20 years) + Stadium seats are in need of repair or replacement + Side paneling is in need of repair + Outdated and inadequate Mid -Term (5-10 Years) + Complete renovation or demolition and new construction of the facility to support multi -use sports and community events. + Continue phased Improvements, which may include replacing the current structure (Phase 2). restroom capacity, lack of restroom availability during Stadium usage. + Single -use facility has unmet potential Long -Term (10 to 20 Years) + Continue phased Improvements, which may include improving and expanding seating (Phase 3); and creating an auxiliary space (Phase 4). Potential for private funding. 5. IMPLEMENTATION SLO SENIOR CENTER ISSUES + Existing facility has program limitations PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Mid -Term (5 to 10 Years) + Re -envision SLO Senior Center in the context of Mitchell Park through Planning process. Goals will include creating a strong linkage between the park and the center; and considering potential renovation or expansion or relocation of programs and services to achieve multi -generational use of the facility. The SLO Senior Center building is a historic property, and any improvements shall be consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Increase the City's Recreation Center AREA 0.1 acres CONDITION IMPROVEMENTTIER Mid-term (5-10 years), Long-term (10-20 years) + Unmet potential to integrate with Mitchell Park financial and staff investment in the SLO Senior Center. Long -Term (10 to 20 Years) + Renovate consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and/or relocate services and programs to achieve multi -generational use and accommodate diverse programming. Consider creating an additional accessible center for seniors. + Facility improvements should address multifunctionality, ease of maintenance, security, storage, food handling, ADA, outdoor spaces. + With facility expansion, child and youth activities should be considered to augment senior activities, with emphasis on similar and compatible activities such as tutoring, music, crafts, and reading. + Rentability should be considered as a way to augment operating budget. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 SLO SWIM CENTER ISSUES + Limited/inadequate capacity to meet community needs + Need to incorporate current ADA PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Conduct Plan and SLO Swim Center redesign, in concert with Planning process for Sinsheimer Park + Address parking needs (see Sinsheimer Park) PARK TYPE Recreation Center Good 3 PHASING Near, Mid, and Long -Term standards, including but not limited to restrooms, bathhouse area, path of travel, pool deck, and bleacher area Mid -Term (5 to 10 Years) + Implement Phase 1 SLO Swim Center redesign/expansion, which may include: • Deck replacement • Upgrade to current ADA requirements including but not limited to restrooms, bathhouse area, path of travel, pool deck, and bleacher area + No shade structures + No separate area for kids + Parking capacity and access Long -Term (10 to 20 Years) + Implement Phase 2 SLO Swim Center redesign/expansion, which may include: • Shade structures • Lockers and bleachers • Expanded therapy pool • New pool • Expanded programming See Building Assessment Plan for preliminary concepts. 5. IMPLEMENTATION BROAD STREET COMMUNITY GARDENS (FUTURE BROAD STREET PARK) PARK Special Feature to become Neighborhood Park 0.9 acres NA H PHASING Near -Term (0-5 Years) ISSUES + Location in neighborhood that lacks park PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Complete design and construct the North Broad Street Neighborhood Park (planned 2021), which will incorporate community gardens, a small playground, and passive use areas SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 LAGUNA LAKE GOLF COURSE 9a�^ :' . _ .. ISSUES + Lateral erosion is occurring along the creek PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Enhance community events and uses of the property to support ongoing course operation + Conduct golf operations study to assess the finances of the course as a City resource + Consider alternate uses for the property with value and cost documented. Alternate programming could include nature park with restored creek, trails and nature play; natural park with disc golf, foot golf, play, and other active and passive uses. + Prepare and implement creek rehabilitation program restore aging safety netting Special Feature 27 acres Fair IMPROVEMENTTIER 3 Near, Mid, and Long -Term + No paths for golf carts + Failing irrigation infrastructure Mid -Term (5 to 10 Years) + Create a Plan, addressing issues identified in facility condition assessment and implementation guidance on the rehab of irrigation, utilities, grounds, and clubhouse, and/or responding to potential change of program Long -Term (10 to 20 Years) + Implement Plan 5. IMPLEMENTATION RAILROAD SAFETY TRAIL ISSUES + Improve connections to nearby parks PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) + Complete design of improvements including addition of a bike pump track, park connections, railroad overcrossing bridge, railroad fencing. + Phase 1 improvements, potentially including bike pump track, improved park connection + Add railroad fencing to address safety issues Special Feature 10 acres •lei 0 Fair IMPROVEMENTTIER 3 Near, Mid, and Long -Term + Limited programming Mid -Term (5 to 10 Years) + Railroad overcrossing bridge, other trail connection improvements consistent with the Active Transportation Plan + Exposure and potential conflicts with the railroad SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 y a OF t =i - � � � � � � �� � ii K � � � � •�_r ��� IL ate- �4 f � N6L1 I .I r M1 L � � ��r 1 L� y' � .•r L. . J%�,!�� 1� �•. . ". 1 �JSZ l y Y �• L ����L��•� Yk,�4i_i �*:, �_� ice' tl'•_. 5,..'+ �� • + �tl F• ' • 'r ~k �7• ,x y i '� tip*--• � `_a� — • _ •' �•,�y�"- Y• � � , Y � � L � vs , 1 3 } AL�xm'• 4 { Y • a7 4 � 1 -•Y'.��ir - II �, .y I,-4Y I . +; �j •� .. r �� —•..+. "� � �: `� f 1. � ri y• - Y L 1 � � I I _ � M1� � �Yl'r Table 5-1 PHASING OF TIER 3 PARK IMPROVEMENTS Phase 2 improvements potentially Dog area improvements including multi -generational recreation center and enhanced aquatic and upland natural areas Laguna Lake Park Park Plan - - Phase 1 improvements including diamond and/or rectangular athletic fields Phase 1 improvements including expanding field use; reconfiguring multi - Park Plan- use fields; improving walking paths and Meadow Park + fitness equipment in Exposition Park; Meadow Park expaniding playground; incorporating Center dog parkr -Phase 1 improvements, focused around Meadow Park Center Phase 2 improvements, potentially including new park amenities; lighting Park Plan at tennis courts; lighting at Stockton Field; remodeling restrooms; exploring acquisition of SLCUSD bus depot; and Sinsheimer Park potentially an indoor recreation center Phase 1 improvements including parking, bike/roller pump track, dog park or dog area Implement the Emerson Neighborhood Park Revitalization Project, including Potential alternative location for Senior activation and enhancement of Emerson Center Emerson Park Park, based on public input through targeted public outreach meetings surrounding the SPP grant opportunity. Potential dog park Neighborhood discussion to explore Implement Plan, with focus on Park/ concerns about security and how park Park Plan (including SLO Senior Center) Center integration and potential program programs might create a safer park for Mitchell Park + everyone change for Center SLO Senior Center Branded event series of pop-up programming Construct pickleball courts for neighborhood use SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Cheng Park Provide a spatial redesign that enhances safety, visibility and activation Integrate the park into downtown activation and programming Implement Mission Plaza concept plan Mission Plaza Ongoing programming and activation Plan to meet indoor recreation needs Complete replacement of the program and achieve goal for multi -generational to create multi -generational community - center center Ludwick Center Consider renovation for staff offices and/or relocation of the Senior Center Expore after -school childcare Plan and redesign, in concert with Plan Implement Phase 1 improvements Implement Phase 2 improvements for Sinsheimer Park SLO Swim Center Address parking needs Expand programming Broad Street Community Develop neighborhood park based on Garden (future current plan Neighborhood Park) Conduct golf operations study Depending on near -term studies, Implement Plan, if desired Laguna Lake Golf conduct Plan Course Explore alternate uses, including nature park Prepare and implement creek rehabilitation program restore aging safety netting Improve connection to Sinsheimer Park Plan/conceptual design for improved Railroad overcrossing bridge, other trail Railroad Safety and new bike/roller pump track connections connection improvements Trail Add railroad fencing to address safety 5. IMPLEMENTATION FUTURE PARKS PARKS IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS As of this writing, some 53 acres of new park land is planned as part of the development of four specific plans; Avila Ranch, San Luis Ranch, Froom Ranch, and Orcutt Area (including the WestCreek and Righetti developments.) These park sites will range from quarter -acre pocket parks to fitness loops and linear parks, to neighborhood and larger community parks. These parks are summarized in Chapter 2. DOWNTOWN PARKS AND PLAZAS The Downtown Concept Plan also provides a template for the creation of a network of plazas, paseos, and pocket parks to serve a growing and vital downtown area (see Chapter 2). OTHER FUTURE PARKS If the San Luis Obispo's park acreage standards were to be met citywide, we would need to create some 308 acres of new parks, in addition to those already planned, including some 62 acres of community park,169 acres of neighborhood park, and 88 acres of recreation centers/facilities. Over the course of the planning period, the City will pursue land acquisition and park development opportunities, focusing on areas of the City that are not currently well - served by parks because they are more than 1/2 mile from an existing neighborhood or community park. Our first new park site will be the Broad Street neighborhood park, filling an access gap in the North Broad Street neighborhood. Future park opportunities should be sought, in particular; + In District 1 (North) in the vicinity of Grand Avenue, potentially through agreement with San Luis Coastal Unified School District; + In District 2 (Central) along the Johnson Avenue corridor south of the high school; + In District 3 (South), potentially through expansion or amenitization of Stoneridge Park; + In District 5 (Southwest) along the South Higuera corridor; + At the Laguna Lake Golf Course property in District 6 (West), as part of potential site reuse. Amenities for these future parks should reflect local needs and desires through the park planning process, and be informed by citywide amenity needs and priorities. Park access gaps and areas of need are shown on Figure 5-5. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Figure 5-5 PARK ACCESS GAPS AND POTENTIAL FUTURE PARK SITES Mission - .Park h 11 Plaza♦ Mitchell �y n Plaza /o' nsion "♦ Park r House Triangle ens Emerson Park rowli MEMO A k■■■ lL Exposition •LOgunaHills // -aqo"ParkPark :14:s�h k i / \ /// '•`•v i Vj/ ridge LarJuna Lake / �• �• /t ;' i j�% \ ( \ ` \ -..Oql/Course I San LW,lR—h%D, Ce eighborhood Pawl/ / \ / V..t \I I I I _.1�.� I / OrcuttA SP De Vaul , • I l' g • T\ \Nei hbo d P I � I I r h'3r arit�SP / g \ Park \ San Luis Ranch I / J_ • � Lhobd Park \ I \ I \ `Speicifc Plan / I Orcuit Area I I \ Margarita Specific SDamo ports CG \\ I pecific Plan Area/ 1 i \ Park• • %�� aimeaa ; rk LasPraae.is _ h\� // _Fre Rodrig '�• Park v � , — _ — v't• � A Poi file Neighborho d PaFk— — — �I Av' nch 0 mile I \\ •ter i IDe elopment 'in Area r---1—© aervrce area - Planned Neighborhood Parks' 1/2 mile walkshed 1 mile walkshed Population Density (people/ sq mile) 1/2 mile radius from planned neighborhood parks 1 mile radius from planned neighborhood parks 0 1,200 L__, Potential future park service area UNDERSTANDING THE COST OF PARKS Capital Improvement Costs In this section, a rough order of magnitude costs for each proposed park amenity is intended to assist the City with planning and prioritizing future park and recreation improvements. Unit cost placeholders were determined based on public bid results from park projects within San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, as well as recent, local park experience. These probable costs may rise or fall based on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to final finish selections, unique site conditions, and coordination with comprehensive park improvements. For the purposes of an "a la carte menu," each amenity was studied with minimum core components included, as well as allowances for soft costs and general construction preparations that would likely be needed to take a project from concept design to opening. Due to the varying scale and complexity of each amenity item, these allowances range from 10% - 50% of costs for "Permitting / Consulting" and "General Site Prep / Supervision." "Permitting / Consulting" includes: + Permitting fees and processing + Consultant services and contract drawings + Project management + Public outreach and engagement + Environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act "General Site Prep / Supervision" includes: + Clearing and grubbing + Fine grading and drainage improvements + Stormwater management (SWPPP required for projects impacting one acre ormore in area) + Site protection, fencing, security, and signage + Mobilization and supervision + Contingency Depending on final site selection and construction climate, the following items may also add to the cost of each amenity item. The following list identifies potential exclusions, however exclusions for future project implementation are not limited to these items: + Temporary utilities + Permanent utility services + Offsite improvements + ADA access improvements + Retaining walls + Subgrade replacement + Land acquisition + Site furnishings (except where noted) + Demolition + Lighting and electrical + Performance bonds + Trees, shrubs, and groundcovers + Maintenance and establishment Future estimated cost projections - Construction costs typically increase 4% each year. In addition, the City may or may not want to add a 15% contingency to each line item to acknowledge cost variations and increases due to pandemics, natural disasters, adaption to climate change, and other events that may affect the cost of equipment and materials. Annual Park Operation and Maintenance Costs It is critically important to view the financial sustainability of the Parks and Recreation System through the concept of "Total Cost of Ownership" as shown in the graphic below. The Parks and Recreation Department will need to closely monitor resources to ensure that the assets of the park system reach the anticipated lifecycles The City Parks and Recreation and Public Works Department maintenance funding SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 should grow to accommodate new park and facility development in the future. As the system grows, the following guidelines should be utilized to identify annual operational funding required to maintain additional park acreage: + Athletic Field Parks: • $12,000 - $15,000 per rectangular field; • $18,000 - $20,000 per diamond field; • $5,000 general acreage + Community Parks: $7,500 - $9,000 per acre + Neighborhood Parks: $8,500 - $10,000 per acre + Open Space: $300 - $600 per actively managed acre + Pocket Parks: $10,000 - $12,000 CAPITAL INVESTMENT per acre + Special Use Parks: Costs varies dependent upon amenities + Recreation Corridors/Trails: $5- $5,500 per acre + Regional Parks: Costs varies dependent upon amenities *Please note, maintenance costs typically increase 2-3% annually. Maintenance Standards Maintenance standards are based on a Level 1, 2 and 3 modes (tasks and frequencies of each task) and follow best practices as established by the National Recreation and Park Association. The division can customize the standards based on the park and recreation values of the community and need to be adopted and implemented by staff and followed regardless of whether work is performed by City staff or third -party contractors. It is recommended that the City strive for Level 2 maintenance standards. OPERATIONS LIFECYCLE AND REPLACEMENT MAINTENANCE 5. IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING STRATEGY Adequate, steady, sustainable funding sources are essential to implementing a capital improvement plan. In order to continue to build and maintain San Luis Obispo's parks and recreation system, a funding strategy is needed. The City funding sources for parks and recreation include development impact fees, the general fund, grants, revenues from services provided, and gathering area and facility rentals. Development impact fees are collected by the City and are intended to be used only for the purpose of acquiring necessary land and developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the development. External Funding. Potential external funding sources could include a "friends of parks" organization; corporate sponsorships; crowdfunding; partnerships with other agencies; gifts from non-profit foundations; private donations; irrevocable remainder trusts; volunteerism; and fundraisers. Capital Fees can include fees added to the cost of revenue - producing facilities; land dedication; in -lieu development fees; and impact fees. User Fees may include recreation service fees; ticket sales; permits for special use; reservation fees; and equipment rental fees. Grants. The City may be eligible for grants through the Partnership Enhancement Monetary Grant Program and the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. An affiliated land trust may be helpful in attracting grant funding. Tax Support, through property, sales, or parcel taxes or through the creation of special improvement districts. Franchises and Licenses. Catering permits, concession management, naming rights, utility easements, and interagency agreements are all potential sources of funding. The City currently charges a development impact fee for parks and recreation capital facilities, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act and Government Code Section 66000 et seq. The City currently charges parkland in -lieu fees which are consistent with the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), The parkland in -lieu fee and parks and recreation development impact fees are used to acquire parkland consistent with the City' s parkland service standards and to improve new and existing parks to meet the demand of future residential growth in the City. These fees do not apply to all areas in the City, so the additional fee revenues are dependent on the geographic location of new development. For example, all new development under the Margarita Area Specific Plan and Orcutt Area Specific Plan will continue to be subject to the existing, established standards/ requirements of those Specific Plans. In addition, the Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch requirements are addressed in their respective Development Agreements. For example, San Luis Ranch will be paying a parkland in -lieu fee that will support improvements at Laguna Lake Park, consistent with the terms agreed upon in the development agreement. There is untapped potential for increasing funding and revenues for the parks and recreation system while still providing affordable recreation opportunities. SLO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 5. IMPLEMENTATION SAN LU IS OBISPO Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update APPENDIX G�� YY IOC � iaogll'ill,�.�lllljll�� O �1lI II 11 ti� IS OV WRT May 2021 APPENDIX CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPENDIX COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT Seln'FLui.TObispo Parks Inventory and Asg&ssment • % , ir • 1 :3-' _ w� SPRING 2018 :�I - - I iiOL 4irFAr .. �"� �� yam. . • � •�, ; - _- creation Ste -Plan v - , Win':CbTrie Simmons. aia KSw#o CaU oly N R •�r I 111pop1w, a. - .s Carrie Simmons & Cal Poly NR 418 2018 Winter Quarter Contents Introduction 1 Methods 2 Definitions 3 Park Classifications General Assessment Ratings Rated & Not rated Specific Ratings/Types for Features Defined Map of SLO Parks Park Inventory 1. Anholm Park Park Report 2. Buena Vista Park Park Report 3. Cheng Park Park Report 4. Damon -Garcia Sports Complex Park Report 5. Devaul Park Park Report 6. Ellsford Park Park Report 7. Emerson Park Park Report 8. Eto Park Park Report 9. Exposition Park Park Report Error! Bookmark not defined. 21 3 A I 21 21 23 23 24 24 26 26 28 28 30 30 31 31 34 34 35 35 10. French Park 37 Park Report 37 11. Islay Park 40 Park Report 40 12. Jack House and Gardens 42 Park Report 42 13. Johnson Park 44 Park Report 44 14. Laguna Hills 46 Park Report 46 15. Laguna Lake 48 Park Report 48 Laguna Lake Golf Course Report 50 16. Meadow Park 51 Park Report 51 Meadow Park Neighborhood Center Facility Report 54 17. Mission Plaza 57 Park Report 57 18. Mission Plaza Extension 59 Park Report 59 19. Mitchell Park 60 Park Report 60 20. Poinsettia Park 61 Park Report 61 21. Priolo Martin Park 63 Park Report 63 22. Rodriguez Adobe Park 64 Park Report 64 23. Santa Rosa Park 65 Park Report 24. Sinsheimer Park Park Report Sinsheimer Stadium Facility Report 25. Stoneridge Park Park Report 26. Throop Park Park Report 27. Triangle Park Park Report 28. Vista Lago Park Park Report Conclusion Assumptions 65 67 67 69 74 74 75 75 76 76 77 77 78 Introduction San Luis Obispo is home to 28 parks that are maintained and operated by the Parks and Recreation department. The 28 parks that were inventoried and assessed were the following: 1. Anholm Park 15. Mitchell Park 2. Buena Vista Park 16. Santa Rosa Park 3. Cheng Park 17. Sinsheimer Park 4. Damon -Garcia Sports Complex 18. Throop Park 5. De Vaul Park 19. Vista Lago Park 6. Ellsford Park 20. Poinsettia Park 7. Emerson Park 21. Triangle Park 8. Eto Park 22. Jack House 9. French Park 23. Rodriguez Adobe 10. Islay Park 24. Exposition Park 11. Johnson Park 25. Mission Plaza 12. Laguna Hills Park 26. Mission Plaza Extension 13. Laguna Lake 27. Priolo-Martin Park 14. Meadow Park 28. Stoneridge Park This list was compiled and verified by the head of parks maintenance, Jeff Hendricks. Additionally, three park facilities were reviewed: Sinsheimer Stadium, Meadow Park Neighborhood Center, and Laguna Lake Golf Course (there was also a facility assessment that was done for all the Parks buildings, these three are separate from that). For each park, an inventory was collected as well as an assessment for most features, which was done through a rating system. This data was collected using GIS and analyzed by a group of Cal Poly GIS students, a GIS intern, and a long range planning intern. Following data collection, a report was written for each park as well as summarized tables for each park and a master table for all City parks in an excel document. Page 1 Methods Based off examples from other cities' Park Inventories and the 2001 Parks Master Plan inventory, a list was created, consisting of features that would be assessed and analyzed. This list was edited and circulated to park staff, so it would be able to capture specifically what were in SLO parks. Once this was established, these features were input and created in ArcMap, which would then be transferred into the Collector for ArcGIS iOS application by ESRI. This would allow all the students to perform field work and collect data. The data would be automatically available and uploaded to the online GIs server so that it could be manipulated and edited later. Before the data collection began, there was a kick-off meeting between the two interns, the project manager, two Park staff, and the head of maintenance. Every feature was discussed and the methodology behind the ratings were explained to attain a comprehensive understanding of examined features. Data collection had a duration of approximately three weeks. Previous data from the SLO GIs database was added to the datasets if they were relevant. New attributes were added throughout the data collection period. Additionally, inaccurate, old data was deleted. Once the data was collected, it was reviewed and verified for quality assurance. The data was then transferred to the offline ArcGIS program ArcMap (version 10.5.1.). Once a local copy was created for editing tables and reports were finalized. Page 2 Definitions PARK CLASSIFICATIONS Mini Parks - Residents of the immediate area or those frequenting the area design these parks for passive use. Basic elements are comprised of passive amenities. Neighborhood Parks - Defined as an area which is convenient and accessible for active and passive recreation to residents within a prescribed service area. Basic elements should include turf playfield, playground equipment, landscaped picnic/seating area. Other elements may include hard -surfaced courts, restrooms, group barbecue, incorporation of natural or cultural features, and on -site parking. May also be developed with other public entities. Community Parks - Usually identified by unique features, community parks may be constructed for very specialized usages and include a wide range of facilities which would attract users from throughout the city not included in smaller types of parks. Ratings - This section defines certain features and the parameters for the ratings of said features. The types of ratings were decided and verified by the project manager, the PR Element Intern, and the head of Parks Maintenance. Some features ratings were determined to be (N/A) meaning that there was not an adequate way to rate them or they did not need to be rated. In order to get a cohesive understanding of how to rate the features, a field visit and meeting was conducted between city staff, the two interns, and the head of parks maintenance. This would ensure more consistent data. Types - Although initially each feature was to be defined by material, type, or style (when applicable), it was noted that this aspect of the analysis had no major importance to maintenance staff. Due to this, some information was generalized. This will be noted in the following section. "For "Park Furniture/Amenities", each feature is defined by type and rating because these were the most abundant features seen and were in nearly every park. For the other categories of features, the ratings and types were generally the same or N/A for each feature. Page 3 ■ General Assessment Ratings 1. Needs replacement or non-functional (e.g. missing pieces or beyond repair). Not serving its primary purpose or functionality. 2. Needs repair or damaged or in state of disrepair but it can be restored to working order (functional but flawed). Only partially adequate for its intended use. 3. Good condition; in good repair and its functioning as intended RATED & NOT RATED 0 Adult Exercise Area Access Points Baseball Field AED Basketball Court Cell Tower BBQ Child Lot Bench Community Garden Bicycle Rack Compost Area Bleachers Flag Pole Bocce Ball Hardsca a area Concession Stand Jack House Main House Disc Golf Landscaped Area Shrub Area Drinking Fountain ❑ Meadow Park Neighborhood Building Dum ster Natural Area Equipment Shed Off -Leash Dog Area Garden Shed Parks and Rec Office Building Gazebo Perimeter Fencing Horseshoe Pit Rodriguez Adobe ID & Entrance Senior Citizen Center Informal Multi -Use Field = Structure/Building Lighting Tot Lot Multi -Use Informal Field = Trail/Walkway Mutt -Mitt Turf Off -Street Parking Waterbod Other Court YMCA Facility Building Pickleball Court Public Art Picnic Table Public Fountain Recycling Can Trees Restroom Page 4 LL11 A Not -Rated Roller Hocke Skate Park Stage Area Tennis Court Trash Can Volleyball Court SPECIFIC RATINGS/TYPES FOR FEATURES DEFINED Park Furniture/Amenities Trash Cans Types There are many different "types" and "styles" of cans throughout the parks in San Luis Obispo. In the data, "City Can", refers to any style of can that is permanently there. The other style is "Plastic" and this refers to the easily replaceable and cheap temporary cans. These cans were the majority of cans that were seen throughout parks. These were rated more loosely due to low replacement cost and because minimal work had to be done to replace them in a timely manner. Ratings 1. A (1) rating for a "City Can" meant that it was either missing or entire piece of the can or it was extremely cracked or falling apart. A (1) rating for a "Plastic" can mean that there were holes in it, extreme sun damage, or cracks. IV _ --.Afi. Page 5 2. A (2) rating for a "City Can" meant that there may have been some dents, minor cracks, or some paint chipping but the can was still useable. A (2) rating for a "Plastic" can mean that there was any sort of crack in the can or sun damage seen on the can. 3. A (3) rating for both types of can meant it was full functional. A (3) rating could have graffiti on it and this was noted in the comments section of the data. A (3) could have some slight rust or chipping. Page 6 Benches Types There were many different styles and types of benches throughout the parks in San Luis Obispo. In the data, benches were labeled by the type of material they were. The same material type does not necessarily mean that they are the same style of that material type. Most benches that were assessed in the park were concrete or expanded metal benches. There were several decorative style benches throughout the park that were noted. Other materials included wood and other metal type benches. Ratings 1. A (1) bench was a non-functional bench in terms of safety or use. Unsafe concrete benches had rebar or metal that was exposed and spalling. If the bench felt loose or wobbly when sitting on it due to the amount of cracks in it, then it was a (1). For the expanded metal benches, if the paint was wearing off and exposing large amounts of rusty metal then it was a (1). 2. A (2) bench had either some larger cracks or chips but did not affect the feel or safety of the bench for concrete, or for expanded metal it had some damage or some paint chipping but did not affect the safety of the table. Page 7 3. A (3) bench had some minor cracks or chips, or basic sun damage wear and tear but otherwise safe and fully functional. Picnic Tables Types There were many different styles and types of picnic tables throughout the parks in San Luis Obispo. In the data, the tables labeled by the type of material. The same material type does not necessarily mean they are the same style of that material type. Most picnic tables assessed in the park were concrete or expanded metal benches. There were also some wooden picnic tables we saw as well. Page 8 Ratings 1. A (1) picnic table was a non-functional bench in terms of safety or use. Unsafe concrete picnic tables had rebar or metal that was exposed and spalling. If the picnic table felt loose or wobbly when sitting on it due to the amount of cracks in it then it was a (1). For the expanded metal picnic tables, if the paint was wearing off and exposing large amounts of rusty metal then it was a (1). 2. A (2) picnic table had either some larger cracks or chips but did not affect the feel or safety of the table for concrete, or for expanded metal it had some damage or some paint chipping but did not affect the safety of the table. Page 9 3. A (3) picnic table had some minor cracks or chips, or basic sun damage wear and tear but otherwise safe and fully functional. Water (H2O) Fountains Types Although specific types of data regarding drinking fountains were not collected, there were several different styles of this feature class. There were both metal drinking fountains, concrete fountains, as well as some old and outdated fountains. Ratings 1. A (1) fountain had non-functioning faucets, was extremely chipped or dented, or unusable. Very poor design or lay out. Page 10 BBQs 2. A (2) fountain could have been dented, minor cracks fountain could have also been potentially clogged or leaking. Major paint chips. 3. A (3) fountain was fully functional, no major issues, basic wear and tear. Types There were two styles of BBQs throughout the parks. Single stand BBQ pits and large BBQ pits. Ratings 1. A (1) BBQ pit would have huge cracks in it (if it was one of the large pits), extreme dangerous rusting, or was broken and not functional. Page 11 DEFINITIONS 2. A (2) BBQ pit would have less major cracks (if it was one of the larger pits) and had significant rusting. Page 12 3. A (3) BBQ pit could still have some minor cracks (if it was a large pit) and some minor rust but still fully functional. Mutt -Mitt Dispenser Types All the mutt -mitts in the parks were the same style/type. Ratings 1. A (1) mutt -mitt was completely unusable. 2. A (2) mutt -mitt was dented, graffiti, or slightly broken. 3. A (3) mitt -mitt had minor dents but was still functional. Page 13 Bike Racks Types Bike racks in the park have a variety of different styles. Although the styles were marked (peak rack, rack with plaque, or a U rack), there were multiple other styles throughout the parks. Ratings 1. A (1) bike rack was completely broken and one or more bike slots were unable to be used. 2. A (2) bike rack had significant dents or damage to it but could still be functional. 3. A (3) bike rack had minor dents or chipping and was fully functional. Page 14 Lighting Types There were several different styles of light poles in the parks. The way lights were categorized were by Pedestrian Scale, Security Street Lights, Sports Field, Tennis Court, and Other. Pedestrian Scale light was a light that was generally around a walking path, a play structure, or an area to generally keep a park feature lit. A Security Street light was generally a light around entrances to the park or by the parking lot for safety reasons. Sports field lights were around any sort of field. Tennis court light were to light up the tennis courts. Ratinfzs None of the park data was collected at night for safety reasons. The lights were all assumed to be functional. The lights all received the rating of a (3) unless there was obvious aesthetic concerns or breakage. Public Art, Flag Poles, Public Fountains Ratings These features were not rated. Utilities Types Data concerning utilities was not collected due to previously entered data, as well as difficulty assessing the utilities. The data that was included were hose connections, electrical outlet, water meter, backflow device, and irrigation controller. There is no specific data concerning these utilities. The existing data was not altered, and new utility data was not input due to inexperience with assessing the feature. Rating These features were not rated and not included in this report or tables. This data is in the raw GIS data. Page 15 Signage Type The types of sign data that were collected was park entrance signs. Signs were either metal, concrete, or wooden large signs. Ratings 1. A (1) sign was extremely chipped, faded, or graffiti over to the point that the original sign was indistinguishable. 2. A (2) sign might have been somewhat chipped, faded, bent, or somewhat marked with graffiti, but it was still readable. 3. A (3) sign had minor chipping or bent but in no way did it affect reading or need to be replaced. Play Areas Types There are two "types" of playgrounds: tot lots (ages 2-5) and child's lot (5-12). The assessment reports the type of surfacing, wood chips/rubber, and the main play equipment: swings, play structure, standalone equipment, or other. For the most part, these play areas are labeled as one polygon and include many different types of play equipment. Rating Since playgrounds are checked by park maintenance on a regular monthly basis and have their own standard to follow in order to be compliant, they were not rated in the data. Play Fields Types Play fields were categorized by their purpose and based on feedback from city staff pertaining to any changes or improvements on the field. Many of the baseball fields were also multi -use informal fields because when it was not baseball or softball season, the field could have been used for soccer activities. Baseball/ Softball, Soccer/Multi-use Field, Informal/Multi-use were the types of fields. The premises for deciding if it was a multi -use informal field was the presence of a large, flat grassy area. Areas that were not described as such did Page 16 Courts not have collected data. Large grassy areas were noted in the report sections for each park. Ratings I. A (1) field had an extremely patchy or dying grass field. For baseball fields, if the infield section was extremely grown over with grass or the backstop was broken/dangerous, and it affected the functionality, it warranted a (1). 2. A (2) field had somewhat dead grass, yet still had a useable field with some overgrowth. 3. A (3) field had healthy grass, nothing dangerous, and was fully functional. "Many of the ratings on fields include extensive commentary because it was a challenging feature to rate because they are not always maintained the same way due to seasonal changes. Types The court types that had collected data were Basketball, Tennis, Bocce, Horseshoe, Sand Volleyball, and Pickle ball. In many cases, many courts were painted for multiple activities, such as pickle ball courts being painted on a basketball court or a tennis court. Ratings 1. A (1) court had major cracking, broken fencing, broken equipment, or was not able to function properly. It was very clear and obvious that there were missing pieces or that it was not functional. 2. A (2) court was functional but had some cracking or some overgrowth. Some lines may need to be repainted or are very faded. A new part or extra maintenance could be beneficial. 3. A (3) court was fully functional. Minor aesthetic problems, but nothing affecting the use. Well maintained, no obvious problems. Page 17 Other Facilities Types The "other facilities" data was where we collected data for less common facilities throughout the park. This included features such as Skate Park, Roller Hockey, Disc Golf, 10-Hole Golf, Adult Exercise Equipment, Community Garden, and Off -leash Dog Area. Ratings There were only several features that were noted so the general assessment rating was relied upon. These were generally rated as a whole. Community Gardens were not rated. Vehicular Access Types Vehicular access was essential park parking. Off-street parking was any parking lot for park only. On -street parking was not labeled as data on the map, but it was more generalized in the report as to where the park was located and the amount of available street parking. Ratings 1. A (1) parking lot had extremely faded lines or no lines at all. There were large amounts of cracks or "alligatoring" which is when the asphalt turns into scale -like cracks. There was uneven pavement or potholes, making the lot potentially dangerous. 2. A (2) parking lot had minor cracks or alligatoring. The lines were present but may have faded and would need a new coat of paint within the next few years. 3. A (3) parking lot could have minor cracks, but the lines were all painted well and visible. "Parking was generally rated. The entire parking lot or parking area was rated, rather than individual parking. Page 18 M Access Points Types Access points were any opening in perimeter fencing (either ADA or not) that was either for vehicle entrance or pedestrian entrance. If there was a long stretch of open area into the park or no fence, no access point was noted. This was not considered an access point in the data although it is mentioned in the report. Anywhere where there was a clear break in a neighborhood or fence or large vegetation was considered an access point to the park. Ratings These were challenging to rate. They are not ratted in these tables, although in GIS they are rated and there are comments stating if they are ADA or not. Natural Features Types Refer to assumptions paragraph in the conclusion section. Rating These features were not rated. Turf & Hardscape Areas Types Refer to assumptions paragraph in the conclusion section. Ratings These areas were not rated. Trails/Parkways Types Pedestrian trails through the parks were any areas that were clearly paved out to be a walking trail. A hard surface trail was paved with asphalt or concrete, and a soft surface trail was dirt. The trails could have been very long and went around or across the whole park, or they were very small and just went from a picnic area to the playground. Page 19 Ratings In the GIS data the trails have some ratings, but ratings are not included in the tables because it is not clear if they were rated as a whole or not during the field assessment. Buildings/Structures Types "Building and Structures" were any other sort of data was put that was a building or a structure. These were not very common in every park and were only in a few of the parks. Some examples of this include Picnic Shelter, Restroom, Concession Stand, or others including Gazebo, Pergola, Band Stand, and Garden Shed. Ratings Building and structures were rated as a whole. For example, rather than looking at one stall in a bathroom, or one door on a concession stand, the entire building/structure was rated. The general assessment ratings were used to generally depict the condition of the building. They were rated by combing the quality of the aesthetic look of the building as well as the functionality of the condition it was in for what it was made for. Large facility buildings such as a community center or a facility were not rated. Page 20 Park Inventory 1. ANHOLM PARK Park Report Address: 870 Mission Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 Collected By: Danny Han 2/2/18 Anholm Park is a very small neighborhood park with a single entrance point from Mission Street. There is a single, small sign with the park name and another sign containing vague park rules. At the front of the park, there is a small rectangle lawn and a short sidewalk connecting the neighborhood sidewalk to the woodchip playground. The park is located between two standards, single-family homes on a similarly sized plot as the nearby houses. Due to its neighborhood location, the only parking available is on the street. There is a single bike rack at the front of the park with a 5-bike capacity. Both the Ramona at Palomar and Santa Rosa at Murray bus stations are approximately 0.5 miles from Anholm Park. There are no lights of any sort within the park boundaries. Despite this, the size and neighborhood location still provide a relatively safe feel. There was no space in this park dedicated to sports or gardens. The park consisted of playground structures and large trees. There were two main playground structures: one that catered to younger children and another larger structure that included small rock climbing walls and slides that accommodated larger children. Near the large playground structure, there was an old-fashioned playground roundabout that many kids can fit on at once. The park also included swings for small children closer to the entrance of the park and a tire swing towards the back. Currently, the Child lot is being affected by the tree that is damaging the fence. Posts and Figure .1a. Clogged drinking fountain (rated 2) Page 21 platforms are not plumb or level anymore, the fencing is the City's and its sits on a wood retaining wall. The tree roots will have to be trimmed and the tree removed to make the repairs of replacing the retaining wall and the fence. Anholm park facilities are likely to maintain great condition due to the low depreciation because of its size and location. The park contained no lighting and is well shaded by two large trees. The park has one trash can, one water fountain, one picnic table, and one mutt mitt dispenser. The mutt mitt dispenser is slightly chipped and dented and part of the water fountain is clogged (Figure 1 a.). Despite these minor flaws, the mutt mitt dispenser was rated a 3 and the water fountain a 2. Aside from this, the mentioned amenities were in good condition. Page 22 2. BUENA VISTA PARK Park Report Address: 100 Block Buena Vista, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Danny Han 2/9/18 Buena Vista Park is a small oval -shaped mini park. This park is located several blocks from the nearest bus stop but is very close to the 101 freeway. The bus stops closest to Buena Vista Park are Grand at McCollum and Grand at Wilson. There is sufficient street parking surrounding the park. There are no bicycle racks within the park. The park itself has few features, with only four wooden benches at the ends of the parks. Most of the benches were in a relatively acceptable condition; however, one bench needs maintenance work done due to deteriorating wood. There is one pedestrian -scale light at the end of the park. There are several signs along the boundaries of the park, all of which are in excellent condition. An area of concern includes the walkways both at the north end and south end of the park. The cement appears to have been compromised by the nearby underlying tree roots, thus uplifting some of the pavement. This serves as a hazard to residents as it increases potential for injury from tripping over the uneven surface. The park is located on a steep slope. However, since the park is an open space, it can still accommodate most sports and games. There are no trash cans or any other amenities located within the park boundaries. Page 23 3. CHENG PARK Park Report Address: 1095 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Danny Han 2/2/18 Cheng Park is a small Asian-themed park that can be accessed from the intersection of Marsh Street and Santa Rosa Street. The urban location of the park provides several proximal bus stops located at Santa Rosa at Marsh, Marsh at Osos, and Santa Rosa at Higuera. The park is also only a short 0.3 miles away from the Downtown Transit Center. There are not any bike racks within the park boundary or parking dedicated to the park itself, but Figure 3a. Chinese pavilion overlooking drained water body. street metered -parking is available on adjacent roads. There are no lights in Cheng Park, but the nearby street lights allow for improved safety during the night hours. There is no park ID or signage in the park. This drained waterbody is built around a central Chinese pavilion (Figure 3a). The water body appears to have been drained for a long time due to the accumulation of dirt and leaves. Figure 3b. Drained water body (rated 3) Figure 3b shows this dirt accumulation in the Figure 3c. "Cheng Park Tankhead drained body. The natural areas are sparsely vegetated and Fish sculpture appear to receive little maintenance. There is one public art piece within Cheng Park titled Cheng Park Tankhead Fish (Figure 3c). There are no sport or game related spaces within this park. It consists primarily of concrete Page 24 sidewalks and a single bridge that goes over a natural area. The only furniture in the park are the cement benches located along the paved sidewalk. The park does not have any trash cans, water fountains, or other amenities. Page 25 4. DAMON-GARCIA SPORTS COMPLEX Park Report Address: 680 Industrial Way, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Jena Van Gerwen & Keara Amble 2/5/18 Damon -Garcia Sports Complex is an approximately community park located of off Broad Street and Industrial Way. There is one access point to the park located off of Industrial Way. The entrance is in front of the park's parking lot. The parking lot has a total of 164 spaces, 10 of which are ADA and another 10 that are motorcycle spaces. Some handicap spaces do not have defined lines to identify the spot, while others are completely missing parking space boundaries. This can be better seen in Figure 4a. There is a bus stop for the IA SLO Transit bus that Figure 4a. Faded Handicap parking spot stops 0.2 miles away from the entrance to the park. This bus route also goes to the San Luis Figure 4b. Detached rule signage Obispo County Regional Airport that is located a mile from the park. There are 5 bike racks in the park that all accommodate multiple bikes. Damon -Garcia Sports fields are very well lit with both sports field and pedestrian -scale lights. The pedestrian -scale lights are along the perimeter of the park, while the sports lighting keeps the centers of the sports fields entirely lit. There is a small transient community of two or three persons that mostly stay along the natural area and creek on the west end of the park. The park is well landscaped along the entrance and perimeter of the park. The entrance of the park has a sign that states the park rules of "Permitted Play Only" that is supposed to be in the center of the walkway, the sign is removable to allow for maintenance vehicles access to the fields. In Figure 4b, the sign can be seen leaning against a fence to the side of the entrance. There are multiple signs in the park that serve as rules and regulations. Page 26 Damon -Garcia Sports Complex has a total of four multi -use soccer fields. These fields serve as the main body of the park and are in great condition. The turf fields are used primarily for soccer, rugby, and football; however, the park has also been used as a track along the perimeter. The park has many benches located around the perimeter of the park, but no picnic tables. There is one public restroom that offers a few stalls each for male and female, as well as three additional structuresibuildings at Damon -Garcia. These structures include a concession stand and two maintenance/equipment facility. There is no on -site storage facility for equipment, the facility equipment is store in the concession stand. Towards the west end of the park, there is a public art piece titled Figure 4c. "Strong Play Ethic" created by Stephan Plowman, Carol Paulsen, and Stephen Van Stone "Strong Play Ethic" that was created by Stephan Plowman, Carol Paulsen, and Stephen Van Figure 4d. Chipped trash can located near park entrance Stone. This public art piece can be seen in Figure 4c. There is one water fountain located at the entrance of the park that is ADA accessible and no public fountains. There are multiple city trash cans around the park. These are primarily waste bins; however, there are also few recycling bins throughout as well. Some of the trashcans have rusty top rim pieces. At the entrance of the park, there was one can that was missing a chunk of cement near the metal rim, as seen in Figure 4d. Page 27 5. DEVAUL PARK Park Report Address: 1651 Spooner Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 Collected By: Allison Cleary 1/31/18 Devaul Park is a park located on Spooner Drive, at the Southeast end of Madonna Road. It is in a residential area with houses and apartments bordering on all sides. The surrounding streets include Madonna Road, DeVaul Ranch Drive, and Spooner Drive. The nearest bus stop is LOVR at Madonna on the 2B route. There is no parking lot for DeVaul Park, but there is plenty of street parking surrounding it and there is one bike rack with three spaces. The park does not have a perimeter fence and therefore is accessible from all sides. There is also ADA accessibility due to multiple sloped wheelchair ramps. The park is very well kept and seems very safe, with no signs of the transient community present. There are plenty of street lights surrounding the park and some along the path in the park. A paved path follows the edge of the park and then passes through the middle past the playground. There is a large grassy area in the park which is used for pick-up style games, but not for permitted play, with a slightly lower elevation that looks like it used to be a small lake. This large turf area is not used for permitted play but can be used for pick-up styled uses. It appears that there has not been water in it for years, but there are still multiple signs surrounding it warning the public to stay away from the water and reminding them of the danger of drowning. There are also multiple signs around the park stating that recycled water is used so it is not potable. Other signs include parks hours/rules and reminders for residents to pick up after their dogs. In the middle of this park is a playground intended for 5-12-year old children (Figure 5a) that is covered in wood chips. This also includes some smaller play equipment for younger children, Page 28 a tot lot. There is a full basketball court across from the playground that does not appear to have specific lighting for it. There are 6 metal and concrete benches around the park perimeter and near the playground. There is an area with picnic tables and trash cans near a water fountain and bike rack. The other picnic tables are on the other side of the playground and in the middle of an open grassy Figure 5a. Play structure designed for children between 5-12 years old area, each with a trash can. All trash cans in this park were for trash, with none designated for recycling. This park has 1 Mutt Mitt station. There are pedestrian -scale lights in the park with plenty of street lights around the outside of the park also keeping the park well lit. This park did not have a restroom or any barbeques. Page 29 6. ELLSFORD PARK Park Report Address: San Luis Drive near California Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Danny Han & Kingston Chen 2/2/18 Ellsford Park is a small park that is very open. It can only be entered through San Luis Drive. The closest crossing street is California Boulevard. It is located across the street from San Luis Obispo High School and lies next to the San Luis Obispo Creek. Parking is limited to streets and there are no bike racks or bus routes that pass directly in front of the park. However, the SLT San Luis Drive Tripper drives along San Luis Drive and turns on California Boulevard before the park. This route has an untitled stop located next to the west end of the high school. Because the park is open along San Luis Drive, it appears to be a safe place. Although there is no lighting and the park is mostly shaded by surrounding trees. The park is surrounded by natural areas on all sides other than San Luis Drive. There is only one sign in the park that serves as a warning about an eroding bank and drop off beyond park boundaries. There is nothing in this park related to sports or games. The park consists of only flat grounds covered by wood chips with no nighttime lighting. The park has a single plastic trash can located in the east corner of the park. It is accompanied by three expanded metal benches and a single sign serving as a warning for an eroding bank and drop off. These are all the features and amenities located in the park. Page 30 7. EMERSON PARK Park Report Address: 1316 Beach Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Carrie Simmons 2/6/18 Emerson Park is a community park located in the downtown area of San Luis Obispo off Nipomo Street. This park is home to the Park and Recreation main offices, 1341 Nipomo Street. The park takes up and entire block and has an entire side of street access from Nipomo Street but has perimeter fencing around the rest of the park. There are five access points into the park, two from Pismo Street, two from Beach Street, and one from Pacific Street. All of these are non-ADA pedestrian access and one is vehicular only access. There is a city bus stop located right in front of the park on Nipomo Street. There is one parking lot for park use which encompasses 15 non -disabled spots and 1 ADA spot. Almost all the spots were labeled "permit only", for City personnel parking for Parks and Recreation Department employees, and a couple of the spots were metered for public use. The lines of the parking lot were fairly faded as well as the directional arrows. There is a lot of on -street parking around the entire perimeter of the park, on the Nipomo Street side of the park all the on -street parking is metered. There are several bike racks around the offices as well as a City bike locker which together can hold around 10-12 bicycles. Lighting in the park is minimal and not spread out across the whole park. There some lighting around the facility, parking lot, and the playground area but not on the other side of the park. There is a safety concern in the park with a prominent transient community, specifically around the parks offices building. There is quite a bit of landscaping that follows the perimeter of the park on Pacific Street and in front of the parks offices the landscaping is very well maintained compared to the landscaping behind the park offices. There are two main shaded areas in the park which is located to the right of the park offices above the picnic table areas, as well as the side of the park with the tree landscaping along Pacific Street An estimated 20% of the park is shaded. Emerson Park lacks a main park entrance sign, the one metal sign it does have is completely graffiti over and is not very visible to the public, the only main entrance sign is in front of the Parks offices, but it does not say Emerson Park. There are multiple rule and regulations signs throughout the park itself. Page 31 Emerson Park has a large multiuse field that encompasses around a third of the park. The field is used for soccer practices mainly and informal field games, but also has a back stop in the back right corner of the field for youth baseball/softball. It is also used for rugby and flag Figure 7a. Full sized basketball court in good condition football practicing and in the past has been used for Junior Giants, but mostly pick-up style games and lounging. The field is in very good condition. There is one free standing basketball hoop with two nets that could use some maintenance. The asphalt itself is very cracked with uneven pavement. There is a full-size basketball court here (Figure 7a). Neither of these areas are lit. Emerson Park is home to the only Bocce Ball court in SLO. There are two courts that are very actively used and are in good condition. There is one play structure in the park and it is a woodchip tot -lot with a play structure and a few standalone structures. The play structure was built in 2013 and is in very good condition. The structure has some lighting around it. Another unique feature to the park is an adult fitness area (Figure 7b). This area has rules posted on the perimeter fencing surrounding the area. Although the area is utilized frequently, there are a lot of missing pieces to some of the equipment that Figure 7b. Adult fitness area make them non-functional. The equipment is very specific and unique, and it is very challenging to find replacement parts for it. On the Pismo Street side of the park, there are old remnants of some concrete court that is not functional and is no longer used. This should be removed or repurposed. Emerson is also home to one of SLOB community gardens and is located on the corner of Nipomo and Pismo Streets. The garden has 40 plots for city residents to lease. Page 32 There is one main picnic table area which is located between the Parks offices and the Community Garden. These tables are not shaded and are typically all expanded metal material. There is also a bench area with decorative styled benches in the same area. There are no public bathrooms at Emerson Park. At the entrance of the park there is a piece of public are work, "Flames of Knowledge" (Figure 7d), as well as "Community's Bridge" (Figure 7c). The "Community Bridges" piece is in the form of six artistic benches in the park. There are no recycling cans, but there are eight trash cans, a composting area, and one dumpster. The style of trashcan is all plastic temporary cans. There is also a compost area for the garden which is simply a pile of compost on the ground. There is one water fountain. Mutt -mitts are located around the perimeter fencing of the park. Overall, park furniture is in good condition. Figure 7c. "Community's Bridge" Figure 7d. "Flames of Knowledge" Page 33 8. ETO PARK Park Report Address: 170 Brook Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Danny Han 2/2/18 Eto Park is a mini park located at the end of Brock St off South Street. With one main entry point for pedestrians and an access point for vehicles, the park contributes to the neighborhood's quiet aesthetic. The park has two disconnected natural features, both of which are in acceptable shape. However, it appears some of the landscaped area is not well maintained as there are several plants that are not in healthy conditions. There is a water body associated with one of the natural, landscaped areas although at the time, the water was not present. The "water body" is a dry creek, is for esthetics only and never holds water. The park is located at the end of a street lined with homes and across from Street Luke Missionary Baptist Church. From the park, Madonna Road and Higuera Street are visible, and behind it is the San Luis Obispo Creek. There are several bus stops that are close to the park: Higuera at South, Higuera at Bridge, and South at Parker. Although it is limited, there is a small area for street parking. Unfortunately, no bicycle racks are in the area. Also, there are no visible street lights near Eto Park which may reduce a visitor's sense of security. There are no features related to sports or games. There were no trash cans directly within the park boundaries at the time of assessment. The four stone benches in the park were overall clean, however, the structural integrity of some of the benches seem to have been breached. Though they were not an immediate danger, some of the bench surfaces were not properly secured to the legs (Figure 8a). Figure 8a. Bench surface not properly secured to legs (rated 1) Page 34 9. EXPOSITION PARK Park Report Address: Exposition Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Danny Han 2/7/18 Although connected to another nearby park (Meadow Park), Exposition Park is a community park several amenities to accommodate the residents who wish to take a scenic stroll through the park. The entrance to the park is located on Exposition Drive and the park ends approximately where the two paths converge into one, which is where the border to Meadow and Exposition Park. There are two additional access points located on Sendero Street and King Court and are located directly across from each other in the middle of the park. There is a Figure 9a. Adult fitness bridge which connects the two. There is available street parking although there are no bike racks near this entrance. There are no bus stops located on Exposition Drive, although there are two bus stops on South: South at King and South at Meadow Park. The main amenity at Exposition Park is a pathway that loops through the park. The pathway is non-ADA because of extreme slopes throughout the pathway due to the intersection that the path has with the creek and the path dips down to help with creek flow. At the time of assessment, there were six adult exercise equipment stations along this pathway. There was one station that was rated a 2 due to a missing back board (Figure equipment missing a backboard 9a). There was also one station that was rated a 1 simply because the equipment was not present. The individual exercise stations (adult exercise area) are being removed as they fail (don't make replacement parts). The City is currently trying to get a civic group (Rotary, Kiwanis, etc.) to use it as their annual project. There is no lighting throughout this entire park or along the walkway. The lack of sufficient lighting in the park may decrease this sense of security during the night. A potential addition to this park would be more security and pedestrian lighting. There is a Page 35 plethora amount of shading throughout the park. The park is filled with natural flora which residents can indulge in while partaking in the scenic walk. There is one long water body running through the center of Exposition Park and continues from each end of the park. This water body was not rated. Trees cover the park and a majority of the pathway is shaded. There was no entrance ID sign to Exposition Park. At Exposition Park, there are no designated areas for sports although there is enough open space for small recreational activities. The only "sport" feature as mentioned above is the six adult work out equipment throughout the park. In general, the park is in acceptable condition, although there are certainly aspects to the park that could be improved upon. Several of the benches at the entrance of the park were rated a 2 simply because the wood was beginning to deteriorate. However, one bench near the north entrance on King Street has a large chunk of the wooden seat missing, as well as a visible nail. The nail slightly protrudes out from the bottom of the seat. There are a total of 14 benches spread out throughout the park. Many of these benches are placed next to or nearby an adult exercise equipment station. Benches were also sparingly placed in the turf area in the loop of the park for resting and enjoying of the natural areas. There were also three Mutt Mitt stations located along the Figure 9b. Trash can near path. The Mutt Mitt stations were all functional although the Exposition Drive access point ones on the south side had slight dents. There were three trash cans, though none of which were for recycling. The trash can placed at the access point on Exposition Dr. was in poor condition and rated a 1 (Figure 9b). Page 36 10. FRENCH PARK Park Report Address: 1040 Fuller Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected by: Carrie Simmons 2/7/18 French Park is a Neighborhood Park located off Broad Street and Tank Farm Road. This is the southern region of The City and is in a highly residential area. The park is bound between Poinsettia Street, Fuller Road, Morning Glory Way, and a neighborhood around Bluebell way. There are multiple access points to the park. The portion of the park along the roads include four pedestrian access points and one vehicular access points from the sidewalk. There are two non-ADA stair access points from Bluebell Way. The closest bus stop to this park is at Tank Farm at Hollyhock. This is approximately 0.2 mile away from the park. There is one parking lot for off-street parking for park goers which holds 28 cars and one ADA spaces. There is a lot of chipped and faded lines. The asphalt is alligatoring and there are some uneven pavements allowing for a potential tripping hazard. There is an abundance of on -street parking along all the surrounding streets. There is one bike rack which allows for approximately 7 spots for bike parking. There are some safety concerns that revolve around the common appearance of the transient community at this park. There is a good amount of lighting throughout this park. There is a hard -surfaced path way that that surrounds and goes through the entire park and there are lights along a majority of the entire path. There are also lights surrounding the parking lot and the picnic table area. A majority of the park is a large grassy field which surrounds the entire hardscaped structured and court areas of the park that is in the center of the park. There are sometimes contract classes held here, but the area has too much slope for any practical play, unless the play takes place in the outfield of the youth baseball field. The turf, besides the field area, is sloped and there are trees and a pathway that runs through it, but there are commonly people doing informal games here. This park is not very shaded, roughly a quarter of the park is shaded, and it is mainly in the grassy areas, not where the park is developed. Page 37 There is a large concrete entrance sign that is very noticeable when you drive by or enter the park which is in front of the parking lot. French Park offers almost every single type of sport and activity amenity available in a park for the public. French Park has a full-sized basketball court with fixed hoops. The court is in good condition has surrounding benches for viewers. The court is also equipped to play pickle ball with three pickle ball courts painted on the basketball court. This court is not lit. There is a full- sized tennis court that is not lit but has many rules and regulation signs and is frequently used. This court is also painted with two pickle ball courts as well. This court is in very good condition. There is one full sized softball/baseball field. There is a temporary seasonal fenced area in the outfield to create a perimeter around the field. This field equipped with bleachers, a equipment shed (that is also used as a concession stand that is maintained and owned by youth baseball), a back stop, and two dugouts. The field is also used as a multipurpose field for soccer practicing and other informal sporting events when it is not baseball/softball season. All these features are in good condition. There is also horse shoe pits at this park. The pits are not in very good condition. The surrounding landscaping is extremely over grown into the court and the pits themselves are filled with leaves. There is also a sand volleyball court. This is also not maintained very well; the landscaping is also encroaching a lot and there is an abundance of leaves in the sand. There is one large wood chipped play structure area. This playground area is equipped with swings, a play structure, and multiple free-standing play equipment. There is equipment for both a tot -lot and a child -lot. There is lighting around this and benches. This park is well equipped with picnic areas and for families and the community to enjoy a day or an event at the park. There are benches located around some of the courts in the park, but there is a main picni table area with a dozen or so tables. This picnic area surrounds a smal concrete stage and a barbeque area. There is a large barbeque pit as w( as a table to the side of the pit. The tables are in horrible and dangerou condition and that they are being replaced although not all at the Page 38 same time. Figure 10a shows the tables rusted and falling apart. The style of the park furniture is a blue expanded metal. Most of the benches and tables were of this material. The trash cans had some very old outdated cans that included a few recycling cans and trash cans. There were also the very common plastic bins. Page 39 1 1. ISLAY PARK Park Report Address: 1151 Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Carrie Simmons 2/7/18 Islay Park is a neighborhood park located at the base of Islay Hill Open space on the south east side of San Luis Obispo off Tank Farm Road. Islay Hill Park is secluded and has limited access points. The main access point is off Tank Farm Road with vehicular access and a short segment of side walk. There are a few other access points from the surrounding neighborhoods which include one access point from Buckeye Court by use of a bridge, and another access point on the south end of the park from Wavertree Street by use of a bridge. The closest bus stop to the bark is on the corner of Tank Farm Road and Wavertree Street The main parking lot is located at the entrance of the park which holds an estimated 30 parking spots and 2 ADA spots. There is no stripping in this lot. There is no on -street in the close vicinity of this park except on the neighboring street access point areas. There is one bike rack with a capacity to park seven bicycles. There is little to no lighting in this park besides one light source at the parking lot/bike rack. There is a lot of natural area throughout this park. The northern front area of the park is where the structures courts, fields, and play ground is located and the southern area of the park is all -natural area with an unlit walking pathway which loops around. This is a potential safety concern, especially with such a large area of the park in a dark shaded area. Due to the sloped areas and uneven pavement of the pathway it is non-ADA. Around 50% of the park in shaded, mainly in the natural areas. Islay Park has a large concrete entrance sign depicting the name of the park as you enter with some landscaping around it. There are other landscaped areas in the front of the park in small patches. There are many activity features in Islay Park. There is one full sized fixed hoop basketball court. The court is in good condition and it not lit. There is one full size tennis court in good conditions with many rules and regulation signs. There is one full sized sand volleyball court. It Page 40 is in good condition but there is some slight over growth of grass. There is one full size softball field equipped a back stop, a storage facility, and a fully functional infield. These features are all in good condition except for the storage facility located near the backstop which has a very large hole in the metal door, this is currently on the list for maintenance to replace. There is a tot lot and a child lot at Islay Park. There are play structures, freestanding, and swings at these play grounds (Figure 11 a). They are very accessible and there are benches surrounding the area for watching the children. Figure Ha. Play structure There are a lot of spread out picnic table and trash can areas throughout the park, mainly spread out following the pathway in the park. There is a dumpster area in the parking lot of the park, although there is no dumpster currently there. Mutt -Mitts are also sparingly spread out across the parks, mainly at the access points. There were no recycling bins within the park. There is one public restroom located at the entrance of the park with a male and female stall, both ADA compliant. There is only one water fountain in the park. Because there are a lot of sport facility's here, it may be a good idea to put in more fountains or hydration stations. In general, all the features here are in good shape. The benches and picnic tables are majority if not all concrete style benches and the trash cans are a majority plastic cans. Page 41 12. JACK HOUSE AND GARDENS Park Report Address: 563 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Collected By: Jena Van Gerwen & Keara Amble 2/15/18 Jack House and Gardens is a community park located in downtown San Luis Obispo. An ADA compliant access point can be found on Marsh Street along with a clear park entrance sign (Figure 12a). The park itself has well maintained lawns and historic buildings. Jack House and Gardens provides docent -led tours and features special events, typically weddings. The urban location provides several proximal bus stops including Nipomo at Marsh, Marsh at Broad, Nipomo at Higuera, and Nipomo at Pismo There is no directly associated parking lot, but metered Figure 12b. Front of historic Jack House Figure 12a. Jack House and Gardens Entrance sign parking can be found on the street or in nearby parking structures. The park has safety lighting since there are some special events that are permitted until 10 PM, although usual park hours are from dawn to dusk. The park is a well preserved and maintained historic site in San Luis Obispo, which explains why all the features are in great condition. The downtown area does commonly have a transient community presence, which compromises the safety feel of the park. This park is primarily used for historic tours and weddings rather than sports or games. Due to its intended use, Jack House and Gardens does not have any play structures, courts/fields, or any other sport -related features. It has a luscious community garden that is a large part of the overall appeal of the park. Page 42 Jack House and Gardens has one barbeque, multiple trash can storage area (which are hidden behind the main bridal suit/kitchenette), ten wooden benches and a paved trail that extends from the main house to the barn. There is a gift shop, a bridal suit/kitchenette that is separated but connected to ADA bathrooms, and a barn area that is used for storage. The benches provide seating for people to sit and enjoy the luscious lawn and community garden. There is a Gazebo as well as a fountain that is functional but only used for events. All amenities are in great condition and had a 3 rating. An American Flag is located at the entrance of the main house. Page 43 13. JOHNSON PARK Park Report Address: 1020 Southwood Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Kingston Chen 2/20/18 Johnson Park is approximately a neighborhood park that is located between Sinsheimer Park and the San Luis Obispo County YMCA. Onsite parking is lacking due to use by YMCA members, however, there is street parking on both Augusta Street and Southwood Drive. Additional parking is also available in the Sinsheimer parking lot. The closest bus stop is Augusta at Laurel which is approximately 500 feet away. Additional lighting should be added to the park because there is virtually none within the park. Some ways to renovate this park would be to improve the concrete trail or provide more accessible parking because the off-street parking lot is mostly used by YMCA members. Some features that received a rating of 1 and must be looked at immediately are a faded stop sign and destroyed wooden bench (Figure 13a, Figure 13b.) Figure 13b. Broken park bench Figure 13a. Faded Stop sign Johnson Park has several activity features including a medium sized basketball court, two play structures, one for toddlers, one for children, and most of the park consists of open turf. The Page 44 basketball court is round and therefor is not for regulation use. There is also a short bike path included spanning the length of the park. One of the most iconic features of this park is the large barbeque area with over a dozen picnic tables that would be great for hosting outdoor events. There are also multiple electrical outlets (which are only permitted for City use), and plastic trash bins included in this outdoor event area, which dramatically improves the functionality of events. Additionally, the park has an onsite restroom and two mutt mitts to maintain the cleanliness of the facility. Lastly, a water fountain perfectly accompanies all the outdoor activities. The overall theme of the park is that there is a vast amount of open turf and would be great for a family picnic. Page 45 14. LAGUNA HILLS Park Report Address: 890 Mirada Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 Collected By: Allison Cleary 2/2/18 Laguna Hills is a neighborhood park. It is located at 890 Mirada, and there are 4 main access points from San Adrian Court, Valecito Court, and Mirada Drive. At the San Adriano access point there are bollards that need to be refurbished (Figure 14a). There is no off-street parking at this site, however, there is plentiful on street residential parking on the three streets mentioned before. This park can be accessed through SLO transit at the bus stop of Del Rio at Descano. In terms of amenities this park provides 2 play structures, one for kids (5-12 years old) and one for toddlers. The rules of use for these structures are each indicated by a sign in good condition. One of the Figure 14a. Paint chipping on bollards most important features is the vast amount of open space in the form of natural features, and informal multi use field space. This park has three items with a rating of 1, indicating that it needs to be addressed immediately. The first is a cement drinking fountain that is leaking and has exposed rebar (Figure 14b). Almost all the water that enters the drain comes right back out onto the pavement below. Additionally, two plastic trash cans need to be replaced because they are damaged beyond conventional use (Figures 14c & 14d). Improvements that can be made to the park include adding bike racks and additional lighting that will increase access and the overall functionality to the park. Figure 14b. Leaking cement drinking fountain Page 46 Figures 14c & 14d. Broken and dirty trash cans Page 47 15. LAGUNA LAKE Park Report Address: 504 Madonna Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 Collected By: Danny Han 2/12/18 Laguna Lake is a Community Park that is the largest in SLO. It is located at 504 Madonna Road and resides directly next to Laguna Lake. The main entrance road to the park is on Dalidio Drive, a small street off the main street Madonna Road. A small road at the entrance leads to two separate parts of the park: the Laguna Lake Off Leash Dog Area and the Laguna Lake Park. There is a connection to the Laguna Lake open space at the end of the park which leads to several trails (including a newly created ADA trail). At the Laguna Lake Off Leash Dog Area, there are approximately 14 parking spaces total, although residents can park on the side of the road leading up to the dog area. The boundaries to the dog area noted by a fence that borders the front of the dog area and a boundary noted by boulders on the opposite end. At Laguna Lake Park, there are two separate parking lots to accommodate for park visitors. There are two bike racks between the two parks for those who wish to bike to the park, both of which are in acceptable conditions. Street parking is not a problem and widely available. The closest bus stop is the Promenade located in the Madonna Plaza. Lighting at the Park was limited and can most optimally be used during the day. In terms of activity features Laguna Lake there were two playgrounds in good condition, a tot lot, and an area for 5-year old children, both with a wood chip base. The most important activity feature is the open space for human and dog use. There is a sand volley ball court as well as a large disc golf course that runs across the entire park. Additionally, there is a running/walking pathway throughout the park that features 10 adult exercise stations. There is a memorial tree grove that runs through the front of the park and extends along the side of the Page 48 park in which trees can be planted with a plaque noting who planted them and what they are. There is also a Gazebo area located in the center of the park. The Park Features include several mutt mitts to accompany the vast amounts of open space. Restrooms are also included on site necessary to be used with the 12 functional barbeque pits at the site. Of the 12 BBQ's, two are large for events (use by reservation) and the others are stand-alone for single use. Furthermore, the cleanliness of the open space can be attributed to the 23 trash cans scattered throughout. Some Figure 1 Sa. BBQ with hole in bottom improvements that can be made to the park are refurbishing the items that received a rating of 1, a barbeque with a hole in the bottom (Figure I5a), broken picnic tables (Figure I5b), and a crushed trash can (Figure I5c). Additionally, there are two boat ramps located in the park leading to the lake, and an ADA trail beyond the boat ramp. Figure l5b. Picnic Table with exposed metal Figure 1 Sc. Crushed Trash Page 49 Laguna Lake Golf Course Report Laguna Lake Golf Course, 11175 Los Osos Valley Road The Laguna Lake Golf Course is a 27-acre, 10-hole golf course located off Los Osos Valley Road that was created in the 1960s/1970s. It is maintained and operated by Parks and Recreation Department. The staff that work the course include 2 maintenance workers, 1 maintenance coordinator, 1 operations coordinators and 10 pro shop workers. Features of the course include a pro -shop which includes a kitchen that serves breakfast and lunch, a rental area, and a shop area; a practice green which was updated in 2016; a maintenance building; a driving green that is fully netted all the way around; a bathroom which is ADA compliant and was redone in 2016 that doubles as a cart storage; an outhouse located in a centralized area of the course; a picnic area and a BBQ; and a 10 hole golf course. The course has 8 golf carts as well as one of ADA cart. There is one walking path that runs near the front of the course, but there is not a continuous path around the course. There are 3 access points around the course: one maintenance path over the creek which runs through the course, and two pedestrian bridges that connect the greens on either side of the course. There is one AED accessible at this facility. The course is used primarily by youth and senior citizens daily and holds tournaments monthly. There are both men's and women's clubs which come on a weekly basis. There was a garden recently put in on the site of the golf course in April 2018, Kiwanis Centennial Garden, which has plots available for community members to rent. One continuous issue the course faces is the replacement of dying redwood trees due to the water used to irrigate, which is 50150 recycled water and well water. The dead trees are removed and replaced with Cyprus trees. There were several tree replacements which three years are around old. Another issue is the courses proximity to homes and stray balls breaking windows of homes. Preliminary staff recommendations for improvements include: • Creating a golf cart path throughout the course. Currently there is no road or pathway for golf carts they simply drive over the greens. Page 50 • Improving and updating the irrigation system which is over 50 years old. These systems should usually be replaced every 25 years. Recently there have been a lot of instances of bursting pipes. 16. MEADOW PARK Park Report Address: 2333 Meadow Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Carrie Simmons 2/5/18 Meadow Park is a community park located near the railroad district just south of the downtown area. Meadow Park is connected to Exposition Park, Meadow Park occupies the eastern portion of the park which is where the Meadow Park Neighborhood Center is, and Exposition Park occupies the western half of the area. A review of the Meadow Park Neighborhood Center just below. The main entrance to Meadow Park is along Meadow St, although the side of the park bordered by South Street is also a large opening for pedestrian access. Additionally, there are two other points of pedestrian, neither of which are ADA, from the parking lots of the conjoining apartment complexes off King Street and King Ct. There is another pedestrian access point on Woodbridge Street There is an off-street parking lot near the entrance to the park with 22 spots and 6 ADA spots. This lot has a rating of 2 because there is a lot of alligatoring in the asphalt. There is a dumpster bin located in the parking lot that is not protected or in any sort of casing. There is an abundance of on -street parking on Meadow Street and the surrounding streets. There are two bike racks with a capacity for approximately four bikes at each rack. The closest bus stop is located on South Street directly in front of the park, the stop is South at Meadow Park. There is a good amount of lighting throughout the park due to the 2015 CIP project. There are lights around most of the courts and fields, as well as security and pedestrian lights around the parking lot and the walkway. There are safety concerns at this location with an abundant transient community located within this park. There are not much specified landscaping areas, and there are trees which follow the southern end of the park providing some shading. Overall, Page 51 a very minimal amount of the park is shaded. Most of the park is turf area, taking up around at least 70% of the park. There is a hardscaped pathway that goes throughout the park which leads into Exposition Park. The path way follows a creek that run through the park. There is one park identification sign located facing South Street, which is a wooden sign that seems to be slightly deteriorating. There is good park rules and regulation signage for the other park amenities besides this. Meadow Park has many sport and recreation features. There is one full size youth baseball/softball field. The turf area is also used for other sports informally throughout the year. This field is equipped with bleachers, a water fountain, and dugouts. The water fountain here is non-ADA and is in poor condition (Figure 16a). This is an unlit field. There are also Figure 16a. Drinking fountain located near dugout (rated 1) two full-sized sand volleyball court which is lit. The court is in good condition. There is also a full-sized basketball court which is also lit. The court is multiuse and is also painted to be used for pickle ball. There are three pickle ball courts painted. There is also a horseshoe court here that also has overhead lighting. The court is in very good condition and has a few benches for spectators. There are a couple play structure areas located next to the main building. There is equipment for both tots and children, with both swings, free standing equipment, and a play structure. One tot -lot and one child lot. Outside of the main building there is a large hardscaped area with no long functional bocce ball or shuffle board courts. A potential idea which staff suggested would be to put a mini -golf area here to better use the area. Meadow is also home to one of SLOB community gardens and is located on the South Street side of the park. The garden has 40 plots for city residents to lease. The garden is sponsored by the Rotary Club of SLO Page 52 and has many garden rules and entrance signs. There is also a piece of public art outside of the garden titled Roots of the Community. There are quite a few picnic tables accompanied by trash cans throughout the park. There is one main picnic table area with a small single barbeque pit. The majority of park furniture here is expanded metal tables. There is a bridge feature at this park which connects the parking lot to the main hardscaped area of the park where the facility is located. There is one public restroom at this park which was one male and one female stall, both ADA compliant. There is also a water fountain located outside the restroom. There are few mutt -mitts located around entrances to the park. The park furniture here is in over all good condition. Page 53 Meadow Park Neighborhood Center Facility Report Meadow Park Neighborhood Center, 233 Meadow The Meadow Park Neighborhood Center is a 3,400-square foot building in the middle of Meadow Park. Features of the building include a kitchen area, concession area, main hall, a Figure 16c. Storage of chairs and tables Figure 16d. Ramp leading up to platform, access to storage and janitor closet (not access to kitchen) janitor closet and a storage area. The building also has four large swinging panels that are no longer used, but open to a non-functional sink area, some cabinets, and some storage areas. These areas are currently locked or used for informal storage. The facility has limited counter space, one functional sink, 10 tables, and 80 chairs (Figure 16d). The building itself is ADA compliant, although access to the kitchen from the main area of the building is stair access only (Figure 16c). The exterior of the building is in good shape. The doorways and the windows are in good shape. The public restroom located inside the park is not connected to the building. The bathrooms are male and female and have one stall in each, both of the restrooms are ADA compliant. Page 54 The building main hall is surrounded by windows and is a very open gathering space. The building can hold 80 people, but usually holds events around 45 people. The building is primarily used for events such as youth and teen center, birthday parties, and church events. It is generally occupied over the weekends during the day. One continuous issue with the building is the risk of flooding during high rain months. Since the building is set in lower than the ground around it, when it rains, the water tends to come up through the cement cracks in the ground with the ability to flood. Figure 16e. Kitchen Area The facility is in a high density transient area and often the overhang locations around the building are used for shelter, which is identified as a potential safety issue. Some of the amenities around the building are no longer functional or are very outdated, such as a completely broken bench and a non-ADA compliant water fountain by the restroom. Preliminary staff recommendations for improvements include: • Create a private patio area outside and connected to the building. • Raise the building to meet ground level. • Add separate restrooms, connected to the facility itself. Page 55 Figure 16f. View of concession area Figure]6g. One offour of the inside of the opening wooden doors Page 56 17. MISSION PLAZA Park Report Address: 989 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Jena Van Gerwen 2/12/18 Mission plaza is considered a community park. It serves primarily as a quaint city square and is located off Chorro Street. Mission plaza is the home of Mission San Luis Obispo and is a top tourist attraction in the city. There is signage on the west end of the park that provides history on the mission, as well as signage that provides park rules. It lies along the San Luis Obispo Creek. There are two access points to the park, one on Broad Street and another on Chorro Street. There is no parking lot dedicated to the plaza; however, there is meter parking located on both sides of the park. The downtown Transit Center is a short 0.2 miles away and allows pedestrians access to 9 separate bus routes that go around San Luis Obispo. There are three separate bike racks located throughout the park that each accommodate multiple bikes. This park also had multiple pedestrian -scale parks throughout that kept the park well -lit in the evenings. The overall safety in the park is comprised by a strong presence of transient community. There are no areas in the park related to sports or games. However, the plaza hosts approximately 60 community events per year in front of the mission. There is also a small amphitheater located on the east end of the park The park has 23 different benches located throughout. This number included benches near the mission, as well as along the Figure 17a & b. Benches needing repair along the creek pathway creek pathway. Some benches along the creek pathway needed a paint job, while others were falling apart and had caution tape on it. This can be better seen in Figure 17a & b. Page 57 Figure 17c. Trash can requiring maintenance The public restroom was in great condition and had two male stalls and two female stalls. There were two other buildings in the park, one which had a sheltered outdoor space, and another that seemed to be a space for storage. The total acreage of buildings and structures in the park, not including the mission. There was one water fountain, and one public fountain near the east entrance of the park. There were also three flags on tall poles. These flags included the United States of America flag, the California flag, and the San Luis Obispo City flag. There were many trash cans, both waste and recycling, located throughout the park. Some were not in the best condition and needed new top pieces. An example of one of these trash cans can be seen in Figure 17c, where the top piece is missing entirely. There are art pieces that have been dedicated by groups like the Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Rotary Club, as well as public art pieces like Tequski was Sua, Qiqsmu & Yach ka. Page 58 18. MISSION PLAZA EXTENSION Park Report Address: 989 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Jena Van Gerwen 2/12/18 Mission Plaza Extension is an extended walkway from Mission Plaza that lies between Monterey St and Higuera Street and runs from Broad Street to Nipomo Street. There are three access points to the park, one on Nipomo St, one through a parking lot, and the other on Broad Street. The park runs along a creek and is parallel to multiple dining options, like Old San Luis Barbecue Company and The Natural Cafe. There are no parking accommodations for this park other than metered parking on the crossing streets. There are multiple city busses that stop at the Downtown Transit Center, which is only 0.4 of a mile away. Of those, the 2A bus has a stop located between Broad Street and Nipomo St that is very close to the park entrances. There are no bike racks in the small park and is only lit by two pedestrian -scale lights. The park did not seem to have any transient community and despite the minimal lighting, still seemed safe. The walkway going through the park is not ADA accessible as there are unavoidable stairs on the east end, but aside from this, the park has ramps that allow more accessibility if one chooses to enter and exit from the same end. There are two signs in the center of the park; one in which states the park hours, the other stating "Consumption of Alcohol Unlawful". Mission Plaza Extension has no features related to sports or games. The park is very small and consists of only a walkway through a well landscaped area/natural area. The park does not offer many amenities. Aside from the pathway and two pedestrian -scale lights, there are three trashcans in the park. Additionally, there is a piece of public art titled "Globe of Life". Page 59 19. MITCHELL PARK Park Report Address: 1400 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Danny Han & Kingston Chen 2/2/18 Mitchell Park is a neighborhood park located at 1400 Osos Street, adjacent to the Senior Citizens Center of San Luis Obispo. Access to the park is located all around however, the main entrance is located at the corner of Pismo and Santa Rosa Street. Onsite parking is permitted for use by the visitors of the Senior Center. Off street metered parking is located all around the park on Pismo Street and Buchon Street. Public transportation is not an issue with multiple bike racks located throughout and the closest bus stop located at Santa Rosa and Pismo. At the time the data was recorded there was a high volume of transient individuals, and even a confrontational one. Additionally, lighting within the park was extremely limited. Mitchell Park includes many amenities specifically, a public restroom located adjacently to 2 high quality play structures. Furthermore, another unique feature of Mitchell Park is the flagpole that can be seen proudly displaying the American flag. The majority of the 13 picnic tables and 17 benches within the park are also located within or near shade. The vast amount of open space make it the perfect area for picnics. Mutt Mitts stations are included. Figure 19a. Gazebo located in center of park Page 60 20. POINSETTIA PARK Park Report Address: Poinsettia Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Allison Cleary 2/16/18 Poinsettia Park is a park consisting mainly of a paved trail and a grass lawn. Most of the park is natural and landscaped areas. These are actually two different areas (creek walk and mini park). Creek Walk is the concrete trail leading to the tunnel under the railroad tracks and the mini - park is further down Poinsettia Street on the left-hand side. The mini park has 1 picnic table, one trash can and +/- 700 sq./ft. of turf surrounded by a small planting area. Figure 20a. Sidewalk Access points to the park are located at the intersection of Poinsettia Street and Rosemary Street as well as along Spanish Oaks Rd, but there is no park identification sign. The park is well kept. The closest bus stop is Tank Farm at Brookpine, only a couple blocks away. There is no designated parking lot, but nearby street parking is available. There are several pedestrian scale lights along the walkway that transects the park. They provide sufficient lighting to the park, improving the safety of the park at night. Most of the park is a well -maintained grass lawn commonly used for garden games. Poinsettia Park also includes a paved trail way that connects the two mentioned access points. The trail is in decent condition, but there are several areas which have needed maintenance (Figure 20a). A set of stairs leads the trail to a tunnel, which allows pedestrians to cross the railroad safely (Figure 20b). Poinsettia Park does not contain any sport fields or courts of any kind. There is an open grass field, which can be used for pick-up sports. The grass field is adjacent to the lit walkway, which would allow the field to be mildly lit at night. Figure 20b. Stairs leading sidewalk to tunnel Page 61 There are two city trash cans located near two of the picnic tables within the park, both in good condition. The park contains three picnic tables along the paved trail providing option for picnics in shaded areas. The lawn area contains a mutt mitt dispenser and a fence lining the perimeter. Page 62 21. PRIOLO MARTIN PARK Park Report Address: 890 Vista Del Collados, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 Collected By: Danny Han 2/2/18 Priolo-Martin, a mini park located on Vista Del Collados, resides serenely next to a quiet neighborhood and Laguna Lake. The park is in area and is a thin strip of land. Due to the length of the park, there is enough street parking to accommodate those who wish to visit it. Unfortunately, for those who wish to travel in a more environmentally friendly manner, there are no bicycle racks located close to the park. There are pedestrian lights which are used to illuminate the neighborhood, as well as the park. North of the park is Laguna Lake. The closest bus stops to Priolo Martin Park is LOVR at Diablo and LOVR at Descandso. There are no signs within the park. There is no designated field for sports, however, most of the park is an open area. This open area is not likely to be used for any large recreational activities, but rather it is likely to be used for casual enjoyment for residents and their pets. No other structures or facilities are present. In general, the park and its amenities were in acceptable condition. There were five wooden benches. These benches were not simply made of wood but seemed to have been Figure 21 a. Incorrectly sized trash bin comprised of compressed wood. There was a total of three trash cans, all of which were for trash and not recycling. One trash can had the incorrect size bin as shown in (Figure 21 a). There was one Mutt Mitt station which was in excellent condition. The amenities within the park were all rated a 3. Page 63 22. RODRIGUEZ ADOBE PARK Park Report Address: Brookpine Drive and Purple Sage Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Danny Han 2/6/18 Rodriguez Adobe Park is tucked away in a neighborhood off Tank Farm Rd and consists primarily of an open grass field. The park can be accessed along Purple Sage Lane. The closest bus stop is Tank Farm at Brookpine, only a couple blocks away. Ther lot, but sufficient nearby street parking is available. Most of the park is a grass lawn commonly used for garden games. A paved trail transects the park, which is about 400 feet, and stretches from the park boundary along Purple Sage Lane to the start to Poinsettia Park. The Rodriguez Adobe is in this park. The park does not have any official courts, fields, or sport -related features. However, the lawn is large enough to play casual park games, such as tag, Frisbee, or a pickup game of soccer. No playgrounds or any other similar structures are located within park boundaries. Rodriguez Adobe Park contains one metal bench and one mutt mitt dispenser, which is dented but still functional (Figure 22a). There are two signs, one distinguishing a "Fire Lane" and the other is unidentifiable (See Figures 22b & 22c). The metal bench is in great condition and is in a sparsely vegetated natural area. Figure 22a: Dented mutt mitt dispenser Figure 22b. Figure 22c. Faded Unidentifiable signage "Fire Lane "sign Page 64 23. SANTA ROSA PARK Park Report Address: Santa Rosa Street and Oak Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Team 1/31/18 Santa Rosa Park is located on Santa Rosa Street and contains three main access points from Casa Street, Stenner Street, and Oak Street. The adjacent areas consist primarily of neighborhoods, but the west side of the park lines Santa Rosa Street, a heavily trafficked road. There are Figure 23a. Skate Park several nearby bus stops with locations including: Santa Rosa at Oak, Santa Rosa at Murray, Foothill at Casa, and Santa Rosa at Foothill. The park contains two designated parking lots providing roughly 125 parking spots and 7 ADA compliant spots for Figure 23b. Horseshoe court park users. Santa Rosa Park has 3 bike racks with a total capacity of 18 bikes. The transient community has a noticeable presence, which can influence the safety feel of the park. Street and field lights are spread throughout the park providing sufficient light when necessary. A paved walkway connects the Oak Street access point with the Casa Street access point. One of the biggest features in Santa Rosa Park is the large grass field located on the east end of the park. This includes a baseball field and softball field that is surrounded by bleachers, an equipment shed, a restroom, and another building just behind home plate of the baseball field. These two sheds are also used as one scorekeeper shed (concession stand) and one service building (also at ballfields). This field is well lit with many sports field lights surrounding it. Two features that are unique to Santa Rosa are the large skate park (Figure 23a) and the full roller hockey rink that can doubles as two basketball courts. This park also has a horseshoe court that looks Page 65 very old and run down and not very well maintained (Figure 23b). It is still used by members of the community and hosts horseshoe tournaments throughout the year. Community members who regularly use the horseshoe courts would like to see improvements in the court surfacing and mentioned that they typically do court maintenance themselves. There is also a playground designed for children between the ages of 5 and 12 that looks very new and well -maintained, which was updated in 2014. In addition, there is an open grassy area that can be used as an informal recreation field. Santa Rosa has a wide variety of amenities throughout the park including 4 water fountains (some of which are hydration stations), 5 Barbeque pits (two which are by reservations and three which stand alone), 33 picnic tables, and 12 benches. Adjacent to the horseshoe play area there is a concentration of newly renovated picnic tables that can function as an outdoor event area. Additionally, there are enough amenities to maintain the cleanliness of the park, such as 3 mutt mitts and 47 trash cans (includes recycling). Additionally, there is one public art piece "Concrete Jungle" located near the Skate Park in Santa Rosa Park. Page 66 24. SINSHEIMER PARK Park Report Address: 900 Southwood Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Team 2/14/18 Sinsheimer Park is located at 900 Southwood Drive. The main entrance to the park is located in the off-street parking lot on Southwood Drive. This parking lot contains approximately 150 parking spots including. The parking lot for the park is shared between the other facilities at this location which include the SLO Swim Center and Sinsheimer Stadium. Another entrance consisting of limited on street residential parking is on Helena Street. However, if necessary, public transportation is not a problem with the following bus stops proximal to Sinsheimer Park: Augusta at Gerda, Johnson at Sydney, and Augusta at Bishop. Additionally, there is adequate signage throughout the park indicating park and activity rules. There are 12 lights within the park, however, they are only stadium lights for the baseball fields and street lights in the parking lot. Because there are no pedestrian lights within the park, it is optimally used during the day unless utilizing the baseball field. Sinsheimer Park is a Community Park with several official sport facilities and elaborate, newly constructed play structures. The park includes two full sized baseball fields and 6 hardcourt Figure 24a. Play structure designed for children aue.c S+ tennis courts. These sport facilities are in good condition and lined with stadium lights, allowing them to be used both during the day and at night. A full-sized sand volleyball court can be found directly adjacent to the play structures. The two play structures are newly remodeled as of November 2017 and cater uniquely to various age groups. The smaller play structure is designed for 2-5-year-old children while the larger structure is primarily designed for children above the age of 5 (Figure 24a). There is also a large turf hill to the side Page 67 of the playground that is largely utilized by children and adults of all ages for sliding down on cardboard. The most substantial activity feature in the park is over 10 acres of natural areas. Figure 24b. Fiberglass lion water fountain donated by Lions Club of SLO Sinsheimer has a vast amount of seating throughout the park 13 benches, 4 bleachers, and 17 picnic tables that all are in moderate condition. The park contains two water fountains, one of which was a fiberglass lion donated by the Lions Club of San Luis Obispo (Figure 24b). Sinsheimer has 5 barbeques all in good condition and scattered along the path between the baseball fields and play structures. There is one rentable and four standalone BBQs. Page 68 Sinsheimer Stadium Facility Report Sinsheimer Stadium, 900 Southwood Dr. Figure 24c. View of Sinsheimer Stadium Field Figure 24d. View of middle entrance and concession stand. This is where tickets are usually sold. Sinsheimer Stadium is located at Sinsheimer Park proximate to Sinsheimer Elementary School and the SLO Swim Center. The Stadium opened in the early 1970's, and is located on San Luis Unified School District land, though the Stadium is owned and maintained by the City of San Luis Obispo. The Stadium is composed of a field, a scoreboard, a BBQ area, male and female restrooms, a concession stand, an upstairs press box with areas Page 69 used during the Blues season for VIP ticket holders, an upstairs patio area, and a couple rooms for storage. The facility is equipped for amplified sound (with written permission), field lighting, and on -site parking. The field is an official 90-foot base path stadium with stadium seating for 600 and a maximum capacity of 1,000 persons. There is both stadium seating and lawn seating at the facility. The Stadium is utilized by a variety of organizations including a semi-professional baseball team (SLO Blues), Men's Baseball, Youth Baseball, Cal Poly Club Baseball, and SLO High School Baseball. The stadium is strictly used for games only, as practice sessions are not permitted. The stadium is open for use January through September and is highly impacted from May till Figure 24e. Potentially dangerous railing for children August. On average there are games four days a week that run during the later afternoon to night times. There are a couple access points to the stadium which are locked when not in use. There is one for maintenance from the parking lot, one for ticket sales, and one in the middle of the stadium area. Although there is a ticket booth area, usually the middle entrance is opened and that is where ticket sales occur (Figure 24d). Park maintenance does a good job of maintaining the stadium daily. In 2015, the left field stairs to the field replaced an aging and dangerous stairwell. The backstop at the stadium is planned for a replacement in the Fall of 2018. Small upgrades are funded and completed by the Blues baseball team such as repainting the dug -out area (Figure 24g). The dug -out areas are in fairly good condition. There are water fountains in there that should be replaced in the near future. The facility itself has drinking fountains that could be upgraded to a hydration station given its high use during the summer months. Page 70 Figure 24f. ADA accessible seating (3) There is a BBQ area with multiple large BBQ pits available to rent in conjunction with the stadium use. They are all in good condition, although the over -hang area seems to need some maintenance. The facility at the stadium is, for the most part, well -maintained by the groups who use the concession areas. On the lower level there is a concession area and small prep area which has refrigeration, ice machine, and sinks. There are some storage areas as well. The press box is locations upstairs and has the PA system, chairs, scoreboard reader, and a view of the entire stadium. Figure 24g. Announcer seating and inside VIP area Page 71 Recommendations for improvements: The seating in the stadium has seats that were donated from a professional baseball team a couple decades ago. Since the seats are old and outdated it is difficult to replace seats or find parts for broken seats. There are a couple safety concerns with the seating area. There is a lack of protection around the railing of the seats which allows for the potential for children to fall through and off the ledge of the bleacher area (Figure 24e) There is also a lack of ADA accessibility to the lower seating area. Although there are three ADA accessible seats behind the bleacher area, they are often blocked by viewers seated on the lawn are and are kept separate from the rest of the bleacher area (Figure 24f). The stadium itself is overall not ADA compliant. The bathroom has male and female restrooms with multiple stalls in each. During regular hours the restrooms are available to the public park users, but during games there is fencing that Figure24i. Dugout area for players Figure 24h. View of the lawn area of the stadium on a busy game day restricts them from the park and only allows to the stadium users. One complaint about restrooms is that there are no on field "player only" restrooms. To avoid players from having to go all the way to the public restrooms, two temporary bathrooms are usually brought in for players to use during the SLO Blues season. It is recommended to add permanent on field restrooms for staff and player access. A couple more complaints and recommendations include the following: Page 72 • Storage is an issue for the Blues, and they usually must bring in large temporary storage areas during their season. Provision of a permanent storage area would be ideal. • Parking can also be an issue, especially when all three park amenities are at peak times, parking can spill out into the neighboring areas. • As for the field itself, some of the side board paneling along the edge of the field are falling apart or chipping. • Additionally, the material along the fencing which blocks the views from the outside is ripping and has many holes. This is usually from people attempting to get an outside view. It happens frequently and is expensive to replace. • A final recommendation would to be put in some sort of permanent beverage area in the facility. Usually a beverage truck comes to park in the parking lot, so a useful idea would be to install a permanent area for stadium goers. Page 73 25. STONERIDGE PARK Park Report Address: 535 Bluerock Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Danny Han 2/15/18 Stoneridge Park is a mini park located at 535 Bluerock Drive, adjacent to the South Hills Open Space Preserve. Access is indicated by the "Stoneridge Park" sign and residential street parking is located on Bluerock Drive. This park offers access to trail entrances into South Hills Open Space Area. The closest bus stop to this park is located .3 miles away at the stop Broad at Humbert. The park is composed of a large grassy area, natural area, and hardscaped area in the form of an asphalt walking path through the park. Lighting in this park is non-existent and functionality of this park is limited to daytime use. A recommendation to improve the functionality of the park would be to include water fountains because the main use would typically be basketball related. The main feature of this park is half -court basketball that is in the center of the park. The features that improve the functionality of the park include two picnic tables and 4 benches that are not ADA accessible, located conveniently under shade. Also, to maintain the cleanliness of the park a Mutt Mitt and trash can are located within the park. Overall the park is very well maintained all features received a rating of 3 and located in a quiet residential area (Figure 25a). Figure 25a. Picture of Stoneridge Park Page 74 26. THROOP PARK Park Report Address: 510 Cerro Romauldo, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 Collected By: Danny Han & Kingston Chen 2/2/18 Throop Park is located adjacent to Pacheco Elementary School on 525 Cerro Romauldo Avenue. The park is has with multiple access points from private residences and two public access points --one from Cuesta Drive and one from Cerro Romauldo Avenue. Parking at Throop is not an issue with 47 off street parking spaces including 2 ADA spaces, and a plethora of on street parking alongside Cuesta Drive and Cerro Romauldo Avenue. The parking lot is the responsibility of the school district. Other transportation options are also accommodated for with the closest bus stop, Foothill at Cuesta (W) one block away and a bicycle rack (U-Rack). Lighting throughout Figure 26a. Throop Park entrance sign the park was limited to the parking lot and the youth baseball field. A welcome sign designated the entrance of the park at the corner of Cuesta Drive and Cerro Romauldo Avenue (Figure 26a). Overall, the park felt safe because it was in a quiet residential area. There is plenty of open space that can be used for a wide range of activities such as throwing Figure 26b. Play structure designed for children ages 3-5 around a Frisbee or lawn games. The physical features include a youth baseball field that is well lit and accompanied by a dugout, bleachers, and one equipment storage shed. Additionally, there are two play areas one for 5-12 year old and another for 3-5 year old (Figure 26b) covered with a wood chip surface. Two unisex restrooms were also included within the park. Throop features 7 picnic tables, 8 trash cans, 6 benches most of which were in excellent condition. 2 mutt mitts, and a water fountain located adjacently to the baseball field. Page 75 27. TRIANGLE PARK Park Report Address: 1701 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934011 Collected By: Danny Han 2/2/18 Triangle Park is a mini park located between Osos Street and Santa Barbara Avenue and can be accessed at any point along both roads. There is no park ID feature or any park rule signs. A bus stop is located directly adjacent to park at Santa Barbara Avenue at Church Street There are no lights within the park, but there are street lights on adjacent roads. There are no bike racks or associated parking besides street parking. The park does not have any officially marked sports fields. However, there is a lawn that could be used for small scale field games or sports. Because the park has no lights in it, the field itself does not have unique lighting. There is one trash can in addition to two picnic tables and two benches throughout the park. All amenities were in good condition and received a rating of 2 or 3. Page 76 28. VISTA LAGO PARK Park Report Address: 1269 Vista Del Lago, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 Collected By: Kingston Chen 2/20/ 18 Vista Lago is a small neighborhood park located at 1269 Vista Del Lago, in a quiet residential area. The park can only be accessed from the street Vista Del Lago. Parking is limited to only residential off-street parking; however, it is plentiful. Additionally, the closest bus stop is the SLO Transit LOVR at Laguna Lake stop which is approximately 0.2 miles away. Lighting for the park is non-existent and this park can be most optimally used during the daytime. The overall impression of Vista Lago is that it functions as an outdoor place for local children to play. The signage was limited to a welcome sign that designated the age requirements for the play structure. The only activity feature in Vista Lago is a play structure for 5-12 year old, with a minimal amount of open space. The features are limited to a single mutt mitt, several picnic tables, trash cans, and most uniquely a community library (Figure 28a). The picnic tables have improve the quality of the park (Figure 28b). Figure 28b. Warped picnic table Figure 28a. Community library Page 77 Conclusion Assumptions There were a few assumptions made throughout data collection. There was previous data collected that was available and used for certain features. This data was from the SLO GIs database. This data is from 2009 and was collected by a City GIs intern. This data was obtained from the City GIs manager who stated that the data needed to be rechecked but should be accurate enough. I did my best to recheck data using Ariel imagery. The data that was used solely from the City database was the surface type data, the tree data, and the utility data. Not all the parks had data collected on them in 2009, the parks that I collected surface type data on were Buena Vista Park, Jack House, Mission Plaza Extension, Poinsettia Mini Park and Creek Walk, and the Rodriguez Adobes. The data I collected, since it was by Arial imagery, is a lot more estimated. Utilities Due to a lack of knowledge on utilities, these data points were not altered. Additionally, because a lot of the utilities did not appear to correlate with public use, there isn't mention of them in the inventory, only in the GIs data. Signage Signage was originally going to be collected based on park entrance sign, rule signs, and other. This was found to be very difficult to collect data for rules and other signs since there could be hundreds of repeating rule or other signs in a park. Although entrance sign data is complete, rules and other signs are very inconsistent, so I have removed them from the tables, although there is some data is still in GIs for rules and other signs since some students collected and some students didn't. If this is necessary to have, it can be recollected once we identify what actual signage needs to be collected. Page 78 Ratings Some of the GIS data we collected that we initially gave ratings too, I ended up deciding that they didn't necessarily need a rating because I don't believe there was a cohesive way to rate them. Some of the not rated data may have ratings in GIS because some students rated that feature, and some didn't because it was a challenging thing to assess and rate. The "Rated/Non- Rated" table gives a clear idea of what we ended up consistently giving a rating to or not. ADA ADA was challenging information to collect. Initially the plan was to use the ADA transition plan to insert data on all the park features. After completing several parks, it was apparent that the transition plan did not completely cover all the features that were being examined for the inventory. The ADA data is not comprehensive. If this is a necessary piece of the inventory that is needed, this data can be re-examined and through the ADA transition plan. In general, if it was labeled ADA, or it clearly was not ADA then it was noted as such. If not, it was left blank. Page 79 APPENDIX PARKS INVENTORY + ASSESSMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKS + RECREATION MASTER PLAN Community Needs Assessmeni June 2019 SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKS + RECREATION MASTER PLAN Community Needs Assessment e June 2019 pros consulting I nspiri ng Cammu nities to Action SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment h t i 0 Introduction to the Community Needs Assessment............................................................................................................... page 3 KeyFindings........................................................................................................................................................................................................... page 4 PreliminaryRecommendations................................................................................................................................................................ page 8 1.1 Population......................................................................................................................................................................................... page 17 1.2 Demographic Characteristics.............................................................................................................................................. page 19 2.1 Park and Facilities........................................................................................................................................................................ page 25 2.2 Level of Service: Park Acreage and Access............................................................................................................. page 49 2.3 A View from Benchmark Cities.......................................................................................................................................... page 53 3.1 Recreation Trends........................................................................................................................................................................ page 59 3.2 Program and Services Assessment................................................................................................................................ page 73 4.1 Park Maintenance Assessment........................................................................................................................................... page 83 4.2 Key Recommendations........................................................................................................................................................... page 89 5.1 Background...................................................................................................................................................................................... page 93 5.2 Foundational Public Outreach and Community Engagement................................................................. page 94 5.3 Needs Assessment Survey................................................................................................................................................. page 107 SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment POPOLATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS Tables: 1-1 San Luis Obispo Population Trends.............................................................................................................................. page 17 1.2 Demographic Characteristics............................................................................................................................................... page ... Figures: 1-1 Population Density..................................................................................................................................................................... page 18 L1-2 City Age Distrubution, 2010................................................................................................................................................ page 19 1-3 San Luis Obispo County Racial And Ethnic Composition, 2010.............................................................. page 20 1-4 San Luis Obispo County Racial AndEthnic Composition, Projected, 2025..................................... page 20 1-5 San Luis Obispo Median Household Income(2012-16).................................................................................. page 21 LIM %10= I &%_ o PARKS AND FACILITIES ASSESSMENT 040= Tables: III 2-1 San Luis Obispo Parks And Recreation Facilities................................................................................................ page 26 2-2 San Luis Obispo Joint Use Facilities............................................................................................................................... page 28 2-3 Features Rated And Not Rated In Condition Assessment........................................................................... page 40 2-4 Condition Assessment of Park Features...................................................................................................................... page 42 2-5 Planned Park And Facility Improvements, 2019-21............................................................................................. page 48 2-6 San Luis Obispo Park Acreage Standards And Level Of Service............................................................. page 50 2-7 Park Types By Typical Size, San Luis Obispo And Benchmark Cities ................................................... page 54 2-8 Park Acreage Standards And Current Level Of Service (Los), San Luis Obispo And BenchmarkCities.......................................................................................................................................................................... page 55 2-9 Park Access Standards, San Luis Obispo And Benchmark Cities............................................................ page 55 Figures: 2-1 San Luis Obispo Parks And Recreation System.................................................................................................... page 27 2-2 Play Area and Child Lots........................................................................................................................................................ page 30 2-3 Picnic Tables and BBQ............................................................................................................................................................. page 31 2-4 Baseball and Soccer Fields.................................................................................................................................................. page 32 2-5 Informal Multi -use Fields......................................................................................................................................................... page 33 2-6 Basketball and Tennis Courts............................................................................................................................................. page 34 2-7 Other Recreational Facilities............................................................................................................................................... page 35 2-8 Dog Areas and Community Gardens............................................................................................................................ page 36 2-9 Trail Network................................................................................................................................................................................... page 38 2-10 Bike Network.................................................................................................................................................................................... page 39 N 2-11 Planned Parks and Park Improvements...................................................................................................................... page 46 2-12 Downtown Parks and Open Spaces, Existing and Proposed...................................................................... page 47 2-13 Access to Neighborhood Parks and Service Area Gaps................................................................................. page 51 2-14 Access to Existing and Planned Neighborhood Parks and Service Area Gaps ............................ page 52 N3 RECREATION. . PROGRAM L Tables: 3-1 National Participatory Trends -General Sports.................................................................................................... page 61 0) 3-2 National Participatory Trends -General Fitness.................................................................................................. page 62 0� 3-3 National Participatory Trends - Outdoor/ Advanture Recreation........................................................... page 63 UM 3-4 National Participatory Trends -Aquatics ................................................................................................................... page 64 3-5 National Participatory Trends - Water Sports/ Activities............................................................................... page 65 111116M O3-7 3-6 Top 5 Most Offered Core Program Areas (Offered by Parks and Recreation Agencies) ...... page 67 Top 5 Most Offered Core Program Areas }E (Targeting Children, Seniors, and/or People with Disabilities)................................................................... page 69 N3-8 Core Program Areas.................................................................................................................................................................. page 74 •� 3-9 Age Segment Analysis — Current Segments Served........................................................................................ page 76 3-10 Recreation Program Lifecycle Analysis - Current Distribution................................................................... page 77 3-11 Summary of The Recommended Actions................................................................................................................. page 79 Figures 3-1 2017 Participation by Generation.................................................................................................................................... page 66 3-2 Core Program Areas Offered by Parks and Recreation Agencies.......................................................... page 68 3-3 Core Program Areas Targeting Children, Seniors and/or People with Disabilities ................... page 69 3-4 Market Potential Index for Feneral Sports............................................................................................................... page 71 3-5 Market Potential Index for Fitness.................................................................................................................................. page 71 3-6 Market Potential Index for Outdoor Activity.......................................................................................................... page 71 3-7 Recreation Programs Respondent Households Have Used in the Past 12 Months .................. page 75 3-8 Age Segment Analysis — Current Segments Served........................................................................................ page 76 Tables: 4-1 Righetti Ranch Neighborhood Park.............................................................................................................................. page 85 4-2 Third -Party Contracting of Services................................................................................................................................ page 86 4-3 In-house Maintenance............................................................................................................................................................. page 88 SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment 0 Tables: 5-1 "Report Card" Grades for San Luis Obispo Parks and Facilities......................................................... page 102 5-2 Programs and Activities That Should Be A Focus in the Years to Come ....................................... page 103 5-3 Ideas for Events in Parks...................................................................................................................................................... page 104 5-4 Dreams for Parks and Facilities...................................................................................................................................... page 105 5-5 Getting to Parks - Sites Needing Improvements............................................................................................. page 106 Figures: 5-1 Level of Satisfaction with Facilities.............................................................................................................................. page 108 5-2 Recreation Programs Respodent Households Have Used in the Past 12 Months .................. page 109 5-3 Programs That Are Most Important to Households....................................................................................... page 109 5-4 Amenities That Respodent Households Have A Need for....................................................................... page 110 5-5 Amenities That Are Most Important to Households..................................................................................... page 110 5-6 Top Priorities for Investment for Recreation Amenities............................................................................... page 111 5-7 Respondents' Top 4 Choices for Improving Repurposing, or Expanding Parks and Facilities ... page 112 7 L AL �r � 1 :�6A gag �. � p • or % _ N. ?� T •�� _1 1 mmpHk-- i I� A2.�h4. 7-- - 1._�rL i - r 101 1 L . r L 1. 1 �F 1 WP --dh • Loor + • i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Po _ fit, +.. •}wa �r �,.. - F �-��'- 1 'r 7. N AM so" m INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT This Community Needs Assessment is the culmination of the first phase of work on the San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. Chapter 1 presents the demographic characteristics and population trends of the community. Chapter 2 describes and maps the City's existing park system. Park acreage and distribution are evaluated based on the standards in the current Parks Master Plan, and these standards are compared to a set of benchmark cities. Chapter 3 provides an overview of recreational trends in the U.S. and in the region and makes observations about what San Luis Obispo's demographics suggest in terms of local recreational preferences. The chapter also summarizes and evaluates the Parks Department's current recreational offerings. Chapter 4 describes the City's parks maintenance practices and considers potential improvements. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the themes heard during community engagement activities and the community preferences reflected in the statistically -valid survey. Key findings of each of these chapters are presented in the section that follows, giving readers one place to look to quickly gain an understanding of the setting. These are preliminary in nature, to be refined in the final master plan. The Community Needs Assessment will serve as the foundation for the City's next generation of parks and guide the management of recreation programs and assets for the years ahead. Recommendations range from strategic enhancements to big ideas that propel the system forward. The Executive Summary concludes by offering a set of preliminary recommendations for the Plan Update. Executive Summary KEY FINDINGS POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS As of 2017, San Luis Obispo had a population of 46,724, gaining an estimated 2,545 people since 2000, the year before the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was last updated. The San Luis Obispo General Plan anticipates a population of 56,686 by 2035. This would represent a substantially higher growth rate than the City has recently experienced and add 9,960 people to the community. Young adults age 18-24 comprised a remarkable 35 percent of the City's population in 2010, a proportion mainly attributed to the large student population. For San Luis Obispo County as a whole, the proportionate population between the ages of 20 and 29 grew significantly, along with major growth in adults between the ages of 50 and 70. The relative population of children under 14 and adults between 35 and 44 declined. One-third of City households were earning less than $25,000 in 2010, a high percentage due in large part to the student population. PARKS AND FACILITIES The San Luis Obispo park system includes a diverse mix of some 28 parks and recreation facilities covering approximately 206 acres. There are five school sites where recreational facilities are available to for youth recreation and classes through joint -use agreements. The City also has a joint -use agreement for the baseball/softball fields at El Chorro Regional Park, The City's parks include a broad range of recreational features. Some, like multiuse fields, softball/baseball fields, and basketball courts, are distributed in several parks. Others are concentrated primarily at one park, including soccer fields (Damon - Garcia), tennis courts (Sinsheimer Park), and pickleball courts (French Park) or located only at one or two parks (the skate park at Santa Rosa Park; disc golf courses at Laguna Lake and Sinsheimer.) San Luis Obispo owns and manages 16 open spaces and recreational trails covering nearly 3,800 acres. These are vitally important assets in the community, but are not covered by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. Planned Parks and Park Improvements Some 25 new parks of a variety of types and sizes are defined in specific or master plans, to be provided as part of planned development around the urban periphery. The Downtown Concept Plan identifies several park and public space opportunities that could support a vibrant urban core. More immediately, a number of park and facility improvements or enhancements are scheduled for 2019-21 in the City's current Capital Improvements Program, along with one new neighborhood park on North Broad Street. Condition Assessment A Park and Facility Condition Assessment completed in 2018 evaluated nearly all of the City's current parks and recreation facilities. This analysis provides a narrative describing conditions at each site, and rates the condition of specific features within each site (compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act was not included in this analysis.) Over three quarters of park features were found to be in generally good condition; the most typical exceptions were horseshoe pits, picnic tables and drinking fountains. Anholm Park, Cheng Park, Throop Park, and Jack House and Gardens contain features that were found to be in the best condition overall. Parks whose features were found to be in generally poorer condition included Santa Rosa and Emerson. Separately, facility assessments were conducted on the Parks and Recreation Administration Building, the Ludwick Community Center, the Senior Center, and the SLO Swim Center. The assessments identified needed improvements at all sites, while recommending the Community Center be replaced by a new facility and affirming the Department's vision for a new ranger station in the City. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Level of Service: Park Acreage and Access The current Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan calls on the City to develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As applied to residential development or annexation, five acres per 1,000 are to be dedicated as neighborhood park serving the development, while the remaining five acres may be located anywhere within the City's park system as deemed appropriate. As of 2017, the City's parks inventory translates to approximately 4.4 acres per 1,000 residents. With growth anticipated under the General Plan, San Luis Obispo would need another 361 acres of park land overall, including 249 acres of neighborhood parks, in order to meet current standards. This standard for neighborhood parks alone would mean the need for 25 more 10-acre parks like French —or 2,490 Anholm Parks. The Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study completed in 2018 establishes a maximum in -lieu fee and potential park development impact fee based on a calculated ratio of 4.18 acres per 1,000 residents and 2.69 acres per 1,000 service population. While the City currently only charges the in -lieu fee under the Quimby Act, it may consider newly applying a parks development impact fee to a broader set of development categories, following the Parks Master Plan Update. Access to Parks The current Master Plan also sets a standard for access to parks, calling for City residents to be within a 1/2-to 1-mile walking distance of a neighborhood park. Four neighborhoods or portions of neighborhoods are currently out of this range, including the north side neighborhood directly south of Cal Poly; the neighborhood off South Broad Street south of Meadow Park; and two neighborhoods along South Higuera Street. Some of these park gaps would be addressed by future parks in specific or master plan areas. A View from Benchmark Cities Level of service standards vary significantly amongst San Luis Obispo and five benchmark cities evaluated for this analysis. At 10 acres per 1,000 residents, San Luis Obispo has the highest overall park land standard, followed by Paso Robles at 7 acres per 1,000; Santa Cruz at 4.5 acres per 1,000; Davis at 3.8 acres per 1,000; and Santa Maria at 3.0 acres per 1,000 (or higher, if the City surpasses 3.0 acres per 1,000, up to 5.0 acres per 1,000.) Both San Luis Obispo and Santa Cruz currently use a 1/2-mile standard for neighborhood parks, while the Davis Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Update (2012) strives for a park within 3/8 mile of all residents. RECREATION TRENDS, RECREATION PROGRAMS Recreation Trends As of 2017, the sports most heavily participated within the United States were Golf and Basketball, which have participation figures well in excess of the other activities within the general sports category. Since 2012, Rugby and other niche sports, like Boxing, Lacrosse, and Roller Hockey have seen strong growth, as have fitness activities and, in particular, Fitness Swimming, which has broad, multigenerational appeal. San Luis Obispo has relatively strong participation rates when it comes to almost all recreational activities, resulting in a high "market potential index" indicating demand for sports, fitness, and outdoor recreation. Program and Services Assessment The San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department has a professional staff that is delivering quality programs, services and events to the community. The analysis of programs done for this report features a ranking of programs in terms of priority for improvement, based on both quantitative and qualitative data. These rankings indicate that the City should prioritize expanding programs in Recreational Swimming, Lap Swimming, Swim Lessons, Yoga, Personal Training and Fitness Classes, Sun & Fun and Club Star programs, and Tennis. The rankings Executive Summary also indicate several program areas that should be continued, and programs that should be offered strategically and evaluated. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK Beginning in April 2018, City staff have led a comprehensive public engagement effort —a critical component of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. The kit of tools builds on the existing community engagement culture in San Luis Obispo. Over the course of the summer, Staff conducted some 25 "pop-up" outreach events. Community members also provided comments by email and on the Open City Hall online portal; on comment cards distributed at the Administration office and at recreation facilities; and through direct communications. Supported by this extensive outreach, over 600 people attended a participatory three-hour drop in interactive engagement workshop held at the Ludwick Community Center on September 13, 2018. Input from these engagement activities is summarized here. Parks and Facilities Of all of the City's existing parks, Sinsheimer Park was the subject of the most comments from community members, and was also rated the highest. Sinsheimer was noted for its "wonderful" play area and hill slide; several people noted the need for more shade. Laguna Lake Park was also the subject of a large number of comments; here, the park received poor reviews and people saw the need for a fully -fenced or improved dog park or dredging of the lake. Community members also weighed in on what types of parks and facilities they wanted to see in the future. Pickleball and some variation on a water park or splash pad were popular responses. Many people also weighed in on the need for enhancements to the SLO Swim Center; a new dog park or fenced dog area; new facilities for diamond sports and field sports; new neighborhood and pocket parks; and a new indoor recreation center/community center. Children's responses included new and improved play equipment and unique features like ziplines, foam pits, climbing trees, and giant chess sets. Programs, Activities and Events Recreation programs identified as high priority by the most people at the workshop included swimming, pickleball, yoga, kids' programs, environmental education, and gardening. People also expressed enthusiasm for the idea of more concerts and music in parks. Other popular types of events focused on food, sports, movies, arts, cultural festivals, and community picnics and barbeques. Community members supported the idea of more special events at Mitchell Park, Laguna Lake Park, and Mission Plaza in particular. Access to Parks People's comments showed an overwhelming desire to access the parks and recreation system by biking and walking. Among the many references to biking, there were numerous requests for safer biking routes for all ages, more robust bike infrastructure, and system- wide bike networks linking parks throughout the city. Community members were especially aware of the need for access improvements at Sinsheimer Park, where parking, trail connections, transit access, and the railroad tracks are consistent challenges. The Bob Jones and Railroad trails also emerged as priorities. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS A parks and recreation needs assessment survey was conducted during late summer/early fall of 2018. The survey was professionally administered and designed to achieve a statistically -significant number of responses from a random sampling of households in San Luis Obispo. Results are summarized here. Parks and Facilities Overall the City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department is doing an excellent job providing services to the community. Most survey respondents (79%) reported being either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the Department, and 70% reported high satisfaction with the parks and facilities themselves. The most highly -rated parks and facilities were Sinsheimer Park, Jack House and Gardens; Santa Rosa Park; and Anholm Park, while Mission Plaza, Sinsheimer, Meadow, and Laguna Lake parks were deemed the most important. Almost every survey responded reported having visited at least one of the City's parks and recreation facilities over the past year. Amenities The survey found that types of amenities with the highest level of unmet need in the City are swimming pools, nature parks/ botanical gardens, adventure areas, and shaded areas. Meanwhile, the types of amenities most important to households are open space trails, park trails, swimming pools, and open space that can be passively enjoyed. Taken together —along with other information from the survey —this resulted in a finding that swimming pools, open space trails, park trails, passive enjoyment of open space conservation areas, shaded play areas, dog parks, and nature park/ botanical gardens should be the City's highest priorities. Programs and Activities In terms of recreational programming, the survey found that three program areas were used by about a quarter of San Luis Obispo households: community special events, recreational swimming, and lap swimming. These were also the programs identified as most important by survey respondents — and identified in the survey as the programs that households have the greatest need for. Executive Summary PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS What do all these findings suggest in terms of future improvements to San Luis Obispo's parks and recreation programs? This section provides early guidance meant to start the conversation and inform the Plan Update. PARKS AND FACILITIES Rethink Park Classification and Define Downtown Public Space. The Plan Update is an opportunity to redefine park types in a robust way that serves the City's vision. Downtown Public Spaces. In particular, the Plan should define and describe urban public spaces that support interaction in a highly - walkable, mixed -use downtown, consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan. The farmers' market, the creek, privately -owned public open spaces (POPOS), roof gardens, and temporary plazas, can be leveraged as part of the park system and be recognized as "park equivalencies." In other words, they may be counted toward meeting City standards even if the space is not a traditional park. The Plan should develop a standard and metric accordingly. Rethink Park Acreage Standards. San Luis currently provides 4.4 acres of park land per 1,000 residents — substantially less park land than the current Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Element call for. While San Luis Obispo has demonstrated that a high -quality park system can be achieved within a smaller footprint than the current 10 acres per 1,000, the City retains this aspirational standard. The Master Plan Update should add more specific aspirational standards for each park type. Rethink Park Access Standards and How to Fill Access Gaps. The current'/z to 1-mile standard for neighborhood parks should be adjusted to (a) move the City toward a higher standard for park space within walking distance, using network analysis and a single 1/2-mile threshold and (b) recognize that community parks are also valuable for local use and should be counted. The Plan should also provide neighborhood -specific guidance on strategies to address gaps. For example, the south side of Loomis Street may provide an opportunity for a new linear park to serve the City's northeast neighborhoods. Stoneridge Park may have potential to be expanded from a mini park to better serve its southside neighborhood. Signalized crossings and safe routes to Santa Rosa Park will give better access to the neighborhood west of Santa Rosa Street on the north side. Focus on Key Facilities and Amenities. The new Parks and Recreation Master Plan should provide clear direction on achieving recreation facility priorities revealed SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment through the Community Needs Assessment process. These include swimming pools; pickleball and tennis courts; urban and park trails; shaded play areas; dog parks; and a nature park/botanical garden. The Plan will articulate the needs, program, and geography of need. Implement High -Quality Design. The community's expectation for high quality design and innovative features has increased. SLO Parks should better reflect our time including preservation of natural features, use of drought -tolerant plantings, incorporation of public art, and the relationship between park zones and surrounding uses. The Department should become more nimble to test new programming ideas and implement public art as a placemaking tool. Walking and Biking in Parks and to Parks. Community members clearly communicated the importance of being able to walk and bike to parks and the value they place on walking paths and trails. The Parks Master Plan will identify specific priority park access improvements, such as signalized crossings of busy streets and overcrossings of rail lines. The Plan will prioritize extending the City's system of multiuse trails, and ensure that walking paths are recognized as an important park amenity. There are many opportunities to create safer access to parks for people of all ages traveling on foot or by non - motorized means. The Department should be part of San Luis Obispo's active transportation planning program. Open Space Access. Passive enjoyment of open space is a clear priority for San Luis Obispo residents. Trailheads provide access to the City's treasured open space areas, but these trailheads are also often located in neighborhoods and have limited or no dedicated parking. The City should prioritize the development of pedestrian and bike routes that connect to open space trailheads to enhance access while minimizing impacts. Swimming and Multipurpose Indoor Facilities. Swimming comes through as a high -priority need in San Luis Obispo. Significant improvements are needed to make the SLO Swim Center more usable. That facility should also be expanded to provide more capacity, or a new facility should be developed to meet community need. This new facility could be developed jointly or separately from a multipurpose recreation center developed to replace the Ludwick Community Center. A versatile new facility that can support a combination of activities (fitness and community classrooms, gym, rentable spaces), paired with aquatics, could be a vital addition. Tennis and Pickleball Courts. San Luis Obispo has demand for both more tennis courts and more pickleball courts. These demands should both be addressed and not be forced to compete. Currently, tennis courts are concentrated at Sinsheimer Park and pickleball courts at French Park. Future courts should be developed in the northern and western parts of the City. Shaded Play Areas. The Community Needs Assessment shows a desire for more shaded play areas. Existing play areas should be evaluated systematically, and enhancements scheduled based on need. The City should strive for shaded play areas within a short walk (1/2-mile) of all residents: this should be a core feature of all parks, including mini -parks. Shade trees and shade structures also contribute to distinctive identity and sustainability. Executive Summary PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Dog Parks. San Luis Obispo currently has one dog park, at Laguna Lake Park. Community members are strongly advocating for more dog facilities, and this is borne out as a priority in the Community Needs Assessment. Future dog facilities should be designed in a way that draws on community input, and distributed to be accessible to residents in other parts of the City. Investments in new facilities should be paired with reinvestment in the existing facility at Laguna Lake to ensure equity and to balance use. Nature Park/Botanical Garden. This facility type was indicated in the Community Needs Assessment, and could be a good match for environmental education and gardening programs that were also found to be desired. Quiet, Meditative Areas. Many residents expressed the need for more quiet, meditative areas in parks. The Plan should incorporate this as a desired character zone to be included in future parks and look for opportunities to create these spaces in existing parks. A "zen garden" was specifically requested by residents. Mitchell and Emerson Parks. Mitchell and Emerson need to function more successfully to serve their evolving neighborhoods, while also being part of an ecosystem of downtown -area parks that support events and public art. Programming may be a critical element to maintain a feeling of comfort and security for neighborhood residents. These two parks should be subject to more focused design and programming consideration. (See Community Events recommendation below.) Sinsheimer Park. Sinsheimer Park is an important and favorite park for many San Luis Obispo residents. This is remarkable, because it has potential to be much better than it is. A master planning process for this park can show how its various elements can be tied together to create synergy; how space can be used to accommodate additional use; how access can be improved for all modes of travel, including walking and biking access across the railroad; and how parking issues can be resolved and the creek can become an asset. The adjacent school, school district bus yard, and Johnson Park should also be part of the discussion. Can these parts be rearranged in a way that creates lasting, positive impact? Laguna Lake Park. Laguna Lake Park also has significant untapped potential —that was being explored by a Cal Poly landscape architecture studio. Those ideas and others should inform future direction and provide inspiration for how the City can get the most out of this site. Laguna Lake Park may have space for recreational facilities, space to accommodate large events, and unique opportunities to support enjoyment of the water and the open space preserve beyond. RECREATION PROGRAMS Expand Programs and Services in the Areas of Greatest Demand. Ongoing analysis of the participation trends of programming and services in San Luis Obispo is significant when delivering high quality programs and services. By doing so, staff will be able to focus their efforts on the programs and services of the greatest need and reduce or eliminate programs and services where interest is declining. Based on the Community Needs Assessment, Recreational Swimming, Lap Swimming, Swim Lessons, Yoga, Personal Training and Fitness Classes, and Tennis programs should all be expanded. Continue to Support Sun n Fun and Club Star. The Sun n Fun and Club Star programs are critical for parents and youth. These will remain SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment a high priority for Department support. Program Evaluation. Implement the program assessment and evaluation tool as recommended. Assessment and evaluation tool is provided as an Excel spreadsheet as a stand-alone separate document. Certain programs were identified as being important to evaluate. These included Gymnastics, Lifeguard Training & Junior Guards, Golf, Drop -in Sports, LEGO Camps, Junior Ranger Activity Camps, Junior Giants, Youth Futsal, Tennis Lessons, Ultimate Pick-up, Surfing Lessons, and Youth Fitness & Wellness programs. These programs may have a limited, targeted audience and may be ideal to offer strategically in terms of frequency, days of week, times of day and time of year. Community Events. San Luis Obispo residents have shown a clear interest in more community events in parks. Community members focused on three parks as good sites for events: Mission Plaza, Laguna Lake, and Mitchell. Emerson Park should also be included in this list. The Plan should help the Department identify specific facility needs to support event use, and niches for each event site. Park Activation. Activating parks with informal food truck pods, community picnics, fitness classes and yoga in the park, etc.., is a great way to bring new energy to parks and ensure that parks feel welcoming to all. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES Implement a Work Order Management System. A work order system should be used to track maintenance requirements that are tied to daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal and annual work orders based on the established maintenance standards. This will assist staff in staying on top of the preventative maintenance of both the built (playgrounds, structures, infrastructure, etc.) and natural (turf, trees, etc.) assets of the park system. Further, utilizing a work order management system will provide staff the necessary "actual cost" data for work being performed. Systematic Approach to Contracting Services. Through the development of management processes, the Department must continually evaluate the private sector to determine if the financial resources dedicated to parks maintenance are sufficient as well as effective and efficient. It should be expected that the cost for third -party contracted services will rise in the future. Management of Contract Services. Continue to provide the necessary resources for the management and oversight of all third -party contractors that provide maintenance services for the City of San Luis Obispo's parks and grounds. Update Work Plans Based on Maintenance Standards. SLO's maintenance standards follow best practices as established by the National Recreation and Park Association. Still, the Department should continually update and customize the standards based on the park and recreation values of the San Luis Obispo community. These standards and need to be implemented regardless of whether work is performed by City staff or third -party contractors. Executive Summary PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS SUSTAINABILITY Design and Maintain for Energy Efficiency. Existing parks should be evaluated for their resource use and modified through changes in maintenance practices, material and plant selections. New parks should be designed for low energy use. Water Efficient Initiatives. Stormwater systems should be designed into parks, especially where there is room for treatment, detention and storage of stormwater. Working landscape features can be incorporated into existing and proposed parks to help filter pollutants and capture stormwater. Low water use planting and xeriscaping should be incorporated into new and existing parks where turf is not needed in order to decrease water use. Gray and recycled water systems should be explored and expanded. The details of these practices should be further developed in the Master Plan. Reduce and or Eliminate Chemical Use. In landscape areas, replace chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers with non -toxic treatments, including Low Impact Development (LID) practices for improving soil health. Use organic fertilizer with humic acid and mycorrhizea fungi when possible. Support use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) which focuses on pest prevention through biological control (such as the introduction of a natural predator), habitat manipulation, and modification of cultural practices including site monitoring, cleanliness, routine maintenance, installing pest barriers, physical removal of pests, and as a last resort chemical control. In facilities, replace chemical cleaning products with non -toxic alternatives. Select Low -Allergen Trees. The selection of trees that produce less airborne pollen will allow allergy- SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment sensitive families to better enjoy City parks. One local resource for guidance on tree species may be found at https:llselectree.calpoly. edu/search-trees-by-characteristics. Executive Summary Z r I L i f P •'�• T -Ph Ar off i U*] 0 K'A ULATION ANC DAPUlfn**c ■ yii T� -• --- �ti WEE IP7 Oki 7 kawc- - - �a ------------- -_ Y]y. IL---- - - k San Luis Obispo experienced relatively slow growth between 2000 and 2010, never exceeding a one percent annual growth rate. Between 2000 and 2017, the city grew at an average annual rate of about 0.4 percent, significantly lower than the statewide annual growth rate. The SLOCOG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast for San Luis Obispo County assumes a slightly higher annual growth rate of 0.5 percent. The San Luis Obispo General Plan anticipates growth of approximately one percent annually, and a population reaching 56,686 by 2035. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will use that projection for planning purposes. Table 1-1 POPULATION DENSITY San Luis Obispo has a population density of approximately 3,500 persons per square mile Citywide. Three census tracts —two in the northern part of the City and one centered on Orcutt Road in the southeast —feature some higher - density housing and have over 10,000 people per square mile. Several other central San Luis Obispo neighborhoods exceed 5,000 people per square mile, contributing to a general pattern that describes a denser core with less densely populated neighborhoods interspersed with open spaces around the periphery. See Figure 1-1. SAN LUIS OBISPO POPULATION TRENDS � J " Population 44,179 45,119 46,724 56,686 Sources: US Census, 2010; California Department of Finance, 2017; San Luis Obispo General Plan, 2014. 1. Population and Demographics Figure 1-1 POPULATION DENSITY Cl) 'W - Hate ° � s ooy a � Q, o eww,ivosity wane '�o = 'Rsv sv a Apo a° °P A pd 3 I V° f ••` "ef if Be Natural R�S•erve `o Po Waddell Ranch I y1fr► ° ^sad s.._?v* I '` I D � 4� �� I♦ � _ _son 34 $_ 7 yq �. C°r°m°i r °r °°k�° 227 e •� °~ rneuv�er .. —.. —.. —.. —..� 0 form Rtl i°nt wrm xa I n`� 1 sss °, iL aes 3° fs°a°ro°°xa ,spa m°"b,r, - o, vdw '°von 0 E z a g a r —' L..R City Boundary Population Density (people/sgmi) Rail Lines 0 - 1000 Creeks 1,001 - 2,000 C Water - 2,001 - 5,000 - 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 16,000 N 0 I 0.0.5 1 Miles I r r l r r r l SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment San Luis Obispo is notable for its large student population, owing to the presence of Cuesta College and California Polytechnic State University. The City's ethnic makeup is shifting, with the historically above -average percentage of white residents declining as percentages of Latino/Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander residents rise. Median income in the City is also growing, though it remains lower than County income levels. This demographic analysis is based on US Census data, as well as California Department of Finance (2010) projections and the 2018 San Luis Obispo Community and Economic Profile produced by the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. It should be noted that the most detailed demographic data available dates to the 2010 US Census, and may not be fully descriptive of the City's population today. Figure 1-2 CITY AGE DISTRIBUTION, 2010 ■ D-17 ■ i s-2n ■ 25.44 ■ 45.64 ■ 65 Source: California Dept. of Finance, 2010 POPULATION BY AGE Young adults aged 18-24 comprised a remarkable 35 percent of the city population in 2010, a proportion mainly attributed to the large student population. Other age demographics, namely children, teens, and adults aged 25-44, fall below County and State averages for those age groups. In 2010, 12 percent of the City's population was aged 65 and older, comparable to the State average, but lower than the County population rate. For San Luis Obispo County as a whole, changes in percentage of age cohorts between 2000 and 2010 indicate a decline in children under 14, a significant rise in young adults aged 20-29, an equally significant decline in adults aged 35-44, and major growth in adults aged 50-70 and 80 and over. While the 2010 Census is now considerably out-of-date, it remains the most accurate source of demographic data for the City. RACE AND ETHNICITY In 2010, residents of the City of San Luis Obispo were approximately 76 percent non -Hispanic white, 15 percent Hispanic or Latino, 5.2 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, and 1 percent black/African-American. San Luis Obispo County's 2010 ethnic makeup had a slightly lower proportion of non -Hispanic white and Asian/Pacific Islander residents compared to the City (71.1 percent 1. Population and Demographics and 3.1 percent, respectively), and a greater proportion of Hispanic/ Latino residents (20.8 percent). Both the City and the County are significantly less diverse than the state population as a whole. The City's non -Hispanic white population fell by three percent as a percentage of the total population between 2000-2010. Conversely, the Hispanic and Latino percentage Figure 1-3 of the population grew by three SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY RACIAL AND percent between 2000-2010. These ETHNIC COMPOSITION, 2010 trends are expected to continue. The California Department of Finance projects that by 2025 the County population will be approximately 64 percent non -Hispanic white, 27 percent Hispanic or Latino, 4.3 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.8 percent Black or African American and 0.5 percent Native American. See Figures 1-3 and 1-4. HOUSEHOLD INCOME In 2010, median household income in the City was $42,461, while the County's median household income was $56,967. Median household income in both the City and County increased significantly between 2000- 2010 such that the City's median household income remained at around 75 percent of the County's. One-third of City households qualify as extremely low income, earning less than $24,999 annually, a high percentage due in large part to the student population. Figure 1-5 shows median household income by census tract, including a pattern of lower -income areas adjacent to the University. Hispanic or Lofino white Black or African American Native American Asian / Pacific Islander Other races/ Two or more races Figure 1-4 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION, PROJECTED, 2025 11 II II II !I 11 II Il II II II II !I 41 !I II II II II II II II II II [I II II II�II II II II 11 II 11 II III�II Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 0 Hispanic or Latino 0 White 0 Black or African American Native American 0 Asian / Pacific Islander 0 other races/ Two or more races SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Figure 1-5 SAN LUIS OBISPO MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (2012-16) 0 % store P I rsity _7 N.1.101 101 227 woe \ % Ranch nkF,"Rd Wa ddell . . . .. . . . .. j .r — . .., L City Boundary Median Household Income Rail Lines 0 - 25,000 Creeks 25,001 - 50,000 Water 50,001 - 80,000 80,001 - 100,000 100,001 - 170,000 00.25 1 Miles 1 . I Om5 I I I I I 1. Population and Demographics JJ sy w I PARKS AND FACILITIES ASSESSMENT What does San Luis Obispo's park system look like today? How is it serving today's population based on the standards the City uses today to measure level of service, and how is population projected to change over the coming years? What can be learned from peer cities? This chapter includes a park and facility inventory and assessment; population and demographics; an analysis of existing level of service in terms of acreage and access; and comparison of existing level of service to the standards in the current Parks Master Plan. The memo concludes with a comparison of San Luis Obispo's park classification system, standards, and level of service with those of five benchmark cities. The San Luis Obispo park system includes 28 city parks and 15 special features and recreation facilities covering approximately 206 acres. In addition to mini, neighborhood and community parks, the city provides recreational features including a golf course, a sports complex, a stadium, a swim center, a recreation/ community center, a senior center, a skate park, community gardens, the multipurpose trail, and the historic Jack House. There are also five school sites where athletic fields, multipurpose rooms/gymnasiums, and childcare rooms are available to the community through a Joint Use Agreement with the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD). Additional softball fields are available for community use at El Chorro Regional Park through a joint use agreement with San Luis Obispo County. Finally, San Luis Obispo owns and manages 12 open spaces and recreational trails covering nearly 4,000 acres. These open spaces are not the subject of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The park and recreation inventory, including park type and acreage, is provided as Table 2-1. The park system is shown geographically as Figure 2-1. The sections that follow describe the four park or facility types described in the 2001 San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan. This classification system may be reconsidered as part of the Master Plan Update. COMMUNITY PARKS Community parks in San Luis Obispo have unique features and include a wide range of amenities which attract users from throughout the City. The City has seven community parks totaling approximately 100 acres. Community parks are diverse in character, ranging from downtown's Mission Plaza to the combination of active and passive open spaces and off -leash dog area at Laguna Lake Park. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Neighborhood parks provide convenient and accessible active and passive recreation to residents within one-half to one -mile walking distance. Basic elements could include a turf playfield, playground equipment, and landscaped picnic/ seating area. Other elements may include hard -surfaced courts, restrooms, group barbecue, incorporation of natural or cultural features, and on -site parking. San Luis Obispo has 10 neighborhood parks totaling approximately 35 acres. MINI -PARKS Mini -parks, as defined in the 2001 Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan, serve residents of the immediate area or those frequenting the area. Basic elements are comprised of passive amenities. Currently, San Luis Obispo has 11 mini parks totaling 11.5 acres. These parks range in size from the postage - stamp -sized Anholm Park to the two - acre meandering Poinsettia Creek Walk. RECREATION CENTERS AND SPECIAL FEATURES The Damon -Garcia Sports Complex, Laguna Lake Golf Course, SLO Senior Citizen Center, SLO Swim Center, Sinsheimer Stadium, and Jack House, among other sites, are classified as "Recreation Centers and Special Features," again following the categories described in the current Parks and Recreation Master Plan. See Table 2-1. Notably, the Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study (2018) classifies these sites under" Recreation Facilities." 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment Table 2-1 SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Sources: WRT, 2019; City of San Luis Obispo PARKS AND RECREATION1 ACRES' Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, 2018; City FACILITIES of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation COMMUNITY PARKS SUBTOTAL 7.9 Element and Master Plan, 2001. Exposition Park 7.2 Jack House Gardens 10.8 Laguna Lake Park 140.0 Meadow Park 16.0 Mission Plaza 3.0 Santa Rosa Park 11.0 Sinsheimer Park' 21.7 SUBTOTAL 99.7 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Park 10.1 _Anholm De Vaul Park 0.9 Emerson Park 3.3 Park 10.0 _French Hill Park 6.0 _Islay Johnson Park 5.0 Laguna Hills Park 3.2 Mitchell Park 3.0 Throop Park 3.0 Vista Lago Park 0.2 SUBTOTAL 34.7 MINI PARKS Buena Vista Park 0.5 Cheng Park 0.3 Ellsford Park 1.0 Eto Park 0.2 Las Praderas Park 0.4 Mission Plaza Extension 0.4 Poinsettia Creek Walk and 2.0 Park Priolo-Martin Park 0.5 Rodriguez Adobe Park 1.4 Stoneridge Park 1.0 Triangle Park 10.2 RECREATION CENTERS & Notes: SPECIAL FEATURES Broad Street Community 0.9 1. Acreage is consistent with Capital Facilities Gardens I Fee Nexus Study (2018), except for sites that Damon -Garcia Sports 22.0 were not covered in that Study. For those Complex' sites, calculations were made in GIS for this report. Emerson Park NA Community Gardens' I 2. Sinsheimer and Throop Parks are owned Jack House 10.1 by San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) and subject to a Joint Use Kiwanis Centennial I NA Agreement for park and recreational facilities Garden' developed and managed by the City. _ Laguna Lake Golf Course 127.0 3 Damon -Garcia Sports Complex was Laurel Lane Community 10.3 classified as a Community Park in the 2001 Gardens Parks and Recreation Element and Master Ludwick Community Plan, but as a permit -only sports complex is Center 11.0 better placed in the "Recreation Centers and Meadow Park Center^ 10.1 Special Features" category. Railroad Bike Path 110.0 4 These facilities are located within parks, and acreage is reported for the underlying park. Rotary Garden at Meadow I NA Park Sinsheimer Stadium 11.8 SLO Senior Citizen 0.4 Center SLO Skate Park' NA SLO Swim Center4 NA SUBTOTAL 63.3 TOTAL 205.6 SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Figure 2-1 SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKS + RECREATION SYSTEM ,Bishop Peak - iElementary school I- '= Natural f Lagguln`4 °dw ddle L;,agunaHills scnool VstaLago Park o,0k o` < ti �lemenfary School Laguna Lake golf Course 10 H,odpOo 4 Paclflc ee Dp�Vaul HghSchi Turk 44, ' r �� • . �n 5 City Boundary Rail Lines Creeks Water Schools Residential Area Other Urbanized Area Open Spaces w, °.California la iolytechnicd aa�,@h2Ysltgmeq rd ° '`,heng Mission v`os ° °fark Plaza / Mission Plaza �9 5 Mitchell It scn �\ Extension Jack House Trian egg s. Gardens • ° P Emerson °o Park 0 Howthornea Elementary6 e Hill •�� Eto School Open Spac �•� Park n, sr S °% ns r�; ,I - eadow ins mer El mentary f 1 PeTk k gad chool f Recre Exposition Trai 7R3ialle.,.21 %,i J Park' a ° a oLb'�ige Park j� r io«cnIr fug lch / s of Damon -Garcia ..d H °:tee Sports Complex of Is alayHh(..w� La Praderas ; corm xa Fren� �r o .7rOek ,° R° I Park +�� Rodriguez h /Park ; '7 �"�.:°` Adobe Park 1. �_ ,°e°b°^ad � �'Q•rrr�•�.� "e,:s Poinsettia Creek a .�� f��---Walk and Park `• ;--•—••-- s .1N •� m ©. ion! al Ar!�o E•°^ea-,�yrE.°^: ea -Jyr Parks and Recreation Facilities in San Luis Obispo ■ Mini EL Neighborhood - Community - Recreation Centers & Special Features • Other Special Use Facilities • Joint Use Facilities Railroad Bike Path N 0 0.I 0.5 1 Miles Iilil 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment JOINT USE FACILITIES The City of San Luis Obispo maintains a Joint Use Agreement with San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD), which currently establishes the terms for District and City use at specified school sites and at Sinsheimer Park. At each of the school sites where the Joint Use Agreement is currently effective, the City operates affordable childcare programs, and facilitates use of gymnasiums and athletic fields for youth sports. At Sinsheimer and Throop Parks, the School District may use athletic facilities (the baseball stadium, tennis courts, swim center) without a charge for maintenance, repair, or utilities, in consideration for making the land available on which these facilities are constructed. Ino "PIMM At El Chorro Regional Park, the County owns, maintains, and operates the park for recreational use, while the City has contributed financially to softball field improvements including lighting, irrigation, renovation, enlargement, paving, and planting. The City receives first priority for use of the softball fields for organized recreational use, and is responsible for supporting increased maintenance of the fields that results from that use. The facilities covered at each site currently subject to Joint Use Agreements are summarized in Table 2-21. 1. While the Joint Use Agreement with SLCUSD also names certain other sites, those sites are not currently used and not included here. SAN LUIS OBISPO JOINT USE FACILITIES Bishop's Peak/Teach Elementary School C.L. Smith Elementary School SLCUSD SLCUSD SLCUSD SLCUSD SLCUSD SLCUSD SLO County Hawthorne Elementary School Pacheco Elementary School Sinsheimer Elementary School Sinsheimer Park Throop Park El Chorro Regional Park SLCUSD I 4 Source: Joint Use Agreement Between the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Coastal Unified School District for the Joint Use of Facilities and the Provision of Programs, 2013; Joint Use Agreement Between the City of San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo for Improvements and Use of the El Chorro Regional Park— Softball Fields, 2002; City of San Luis Obispo, 2019. SILO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment PARK FEATURES AND AMENITIES Traditionally, City Parks are comprised of a range of features and amenities, including passive use features like grass areas and walking trails; play equipment for children; picnic tables, barbecues, and restrooms that facilitate gatherings. Active recreational facilities like soccer fields and basketball courts; and special features like a skate area or off -leash dog area are often considered facilities with some required permits for use. In the spring of 2018, Cal Poly students conducted an inventory for the Parks and Recreation Department of the City's parks as well as Sinsheimer Stadium, Meadow Park Center, and Laguna Lake Golf Course. The underlying data from this report is the basis for the summary of San Luis Obispo's park features and amenities below and shown on Figures 2-2 through 2-8. In some cases these maps also reflect the assessed condition of facilities. Park facility conditions are discussed in the Condition Assessment section of this report. PLAYGROUNDS AND PICNIC AREAS Currently there are 26 play areas, or tot lots at 14 parks, including 10 neighborhood parks and four community parks. The city has approximately 189 picnic tables distributed among 16 parks, with the greatest number at Laguna Lake (37), Santa Rosa (30), and French (21) Currently, 27 barbeque facilities are available at eight parks, with 12 of these at Laguna Lake Park. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES A broad range of recreational facilities exist in San Luis Obispo These are summarized below. The City has seven ballfields for softball and baseball at six parks. This includes one ballfield each at French, Islay Hill, Meadow, Sinsheimer, and Throop Parks, and two at Santa Rosa Park. Two additional softball fields are available for San Luis Obispo use at El Chorro Regional Park under the Joint Use Agreement. • The City has four regulation size soccer fields at Damon -Garcia Sports Complex. The City has nine informal multi- use fields at eight parks. They are used for activities including sports practice (rugby, flag football) and pick-up games, as well as for simply enjoying. There are nine full basketball courts at seven parks, including 1 court each at DeVaul, French, Islay Hill, Johnson, and Meadow Parks, and two courts each at Emerson and Santa Rosa Parks. (The courts at Santa Rosa Park are shared with the hockey rink.) • The City has eight tennis courts, concentrated at Sinsheimer Park (six courts), with one each at French and Islay Hill Parks. • The City has ten pickleball courts, including seven at French Park and three at Meadow Park. None of these are designated for pickleball only; rather, they are striped on basketball and tennis courts. As of Summer 2019, there will be three dedicated pickleball courts at French Park. • The City has five volleyball courts, with two at Meadow Park and one each at French, Islay Hill and Sinsheimer Parks. • Santa Rosa Park is home to the SLO Skate Park and also features a lighted roller hockey rink (also striped for basketball, as noted above). • Disc golf courses are located at Laguna Lake Park and Sinsheimer Park. • There are 16 horseshoe courts, including 10 at Santa Rosa Park and two each at Sinsheimer, French and Meadow Parks. • Emerson Park has two bocce co u rts. DOG AREAS San Luis Obispo has one off -leash dog area located at Laguna Lake Park. El Chorro Regional Park features a dog park, operated by the County for use of all County residents. COMMUNITY GARDENS Community gardens are located at Emerson and Meadow Parks, as well as at Laguna Lake Golf Course (the Kiwanis Centennial community garden), Broad Street, and Laurel Lane. 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment Figure 2-2 PLAY AREAS AND CHILD LOTS +0.A 0 0.5 a es SP �%� d`MOo� ,o o Thr04P �g °1Po'lyiechnio a Y� dv QU�,U'S131tya°° /,,�I Par a _ ill Wd r°°ma�e�w ° now.- �fe°°asvrea.,�krs� c M°Oe�°mss1�° Gar L ` ea waem sa �9�ne us wvi brO° o° s—°°�AUG as Boa t it Be 5°coQ/� ' `� �a•; s' �'� N e'tll °� _ j /r, l° R Natural �; '�� r a n O en P. i o I �� M:ITa a°,din hei °rm rison ,I�� o dr/ j l///1 rf ena ' c d ^ Cgguna ark ° / a L o % r�� 4 0 3acd^pe `p �Moia or au% ° u ;ark ay 227r,°4 ..i•' .� ;� �M°° ee - ° I-r-.._.._.._..�.._.I i � e, m 3 � °nan Islay Pa f �/% J� MoapOrO sss� o i IFank Form Rtl rank�rmaa I ICI a �S�o iaw 4 j '�� d'•fi .• ° spallce.' fF�� °`' G� e L �.• I 3 Kiev Id' ilipcal Are 8 r—••� L_.._ City Boundary Residential Area • Play Areas Rail Lines _ Other Urbanized Area Child Lots Creeks Open Spaces - Water - Parks (Mini/ Neighborhood/ Community Parks) - Schools - Recreation Centers & Special Features SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Figure 2-3 PICNIC TABLES AND BBQ 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles ......... e gale M Th r ....... 101 I 61 le, W III d D, MAMI. sci N I c itc i N A j, d1R­ et it B lai°Ncit—i Me d n Si h.i r d ol nson L-41 V* t Vo" nage 0 afur V-1 -v%- 227 -7 ------- Islay Par Fr ch '�.Ik F­ R4 ......... ... 9 -fo—inserria Cree S e Kkilk an'rParr iF A f f .. . .. . .. . .. . : h A. City Boundary Residential Area * Picnic Tables Rail Lines Other Urbanized Area 0 BBQ Creeks open spaces Water Parks (Mini/ Neighborhood/ Community Parks) Schools Recreation Centers & Special Features 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment Figure 2-4 BASEBALL AND SOCCER FIELDS a.� d ea � r r/ m et it Be I yo OQ I'fG;" s°me w;� Natural •` lI�wn^en Oe O en SPac �y DWI •v.O Quo ° ° a �°' ///�cn o � � o s anAewo°°O • � G a° ° ocs, �o °� 101 ra^� ^ � 5 �a � Ra �.7� �e � °`moo°opd I��.�� e° ♦ °° 1cn --e• o o $, a ° �4 Mtoo� s° ' nor � o �4 s i��. j 1, �. s s � •��,° pzo �� c»¢ .o. � `y bP, a°Ra °� 22� /°4 ��• a ••�• ��% `° •� j Damon -Garcia Sports awa°n,°nr^ Sports Comple> y '� �._.._.._.._.._.._ o a ,Islay H Par •,a iFr nc ° a a., ��� . •I o:st o •7ian1, Form Rd sank Fam xa I �! ,•'•' „wo°m°^Ra '• t�?,o70Rt� Fwrorn (+P .a ti o / ••T .•� 9 ° � � �./� � � mac- �..� - �• Pe o° � �- S �. .J/-i r• •�.p. °r�•rw°,e,n ilipponi 'cal Are r—••� L••_ City Boundary Residential Area Baseball Fields Rail Lines ` Other Urbanized Area O Functional but flawed Creeks Open Spaces • Good condition - Water - Parks (Mini/ Neighborhood/ Community Parks) Soccer Fields - Schools - Recreation Centers & Special Features A Functional but flawed A Good condition „ a°A^ 0 25 0.5 1 Miles 0.1 1 I I I I I 3 0 t .1itorniasn r Aa on�, fi •�� .fd�iytechnic $Date Ur♦�uar3ityo�°� ihro p ��"ia,'� _ a roornri eiva Pa III Blvd '�,�•r,"°".,...3lacs..• •• a •I Mroareo R°m°^ o. wne�° .�Cee o uoa°na rreaenczs sr v Mc oeivm ss�1Ov^ez nva a io ��c � sa �f `• ` a PB'.v° 2 in ° j(( c I SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Figure 2-5 INFORMAL MULTI -USE FIELDS 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Y Thro LY,." P % 1. Par ill Wd Sa % c N.t..1 en Spac M ,) 1,q*Par d guna Hp�% Neark 101 Devat 16 7 Park' kP—ld .._.._.._....._.I Islay Par e Fi ch ..k F­ Rd Space A too 5 h A cal Are City Boundary Residential Area Informal Multi -use Fields Rail Lines Other Urbanized Area 0 Good condition Creeks open spaces Water Parks (Mini/ Neighborhood/ Community Parks) Schools Recreation Centers & Special Features 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment Figure 2-6 BASKETBALL AND TENNIS COURTS P� 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 1 1 1 I I I I I gaL/ornfas"s r JI ytechnic g � �n�r w�tate III Blvd a I � 101 ar m5 �.�^ fo°rnri eiva caner° Serra •�9e � o a°na SFreaencss sr �6 rec °ei�m ss�1Ov^ez nva • ��^ "'tl a a N a 1 Gmo �forrsr @� 34 °� �Ee • _ dNeN�D. Rnworr �1, °+. ' / C Rw Hill fs�^a° p et it ■■++rr pen pac Naturals♦ '`^^n sr O S ° y •v� �•�' • Mre ad m sl w Sins °ta o ko Fijf •� ' Bad ohnson — '6 c tiG,�(t' a Park Trai Recr 101 g o � e � 6 � rewd cctlpA '• �•� °� o0 or � '' a � a °.r• M° p�N °v°m afu � � —a � Park• 227 �� �� �° �•.� Me�°, .._.._.._.._.._.. lay H* ' k Par Asa ��. N F e h Tank Tk Form Rtl a I W bar p .�,°^ o •7 •� o�iar're' �r e fib// �rl.• �� � �s°o Ra �� �•t� � Fay°W ' Space ilipponi 'cal ARa r --' City Boundary Residential Area • Basketball Courts Rail Lines ` Other Urbanized Area ■ Tennis Courts Creeks Open Spaces - Water - Parks (Mini/ Neighborhood/ Community Parks) - Schools - Recreation Centers & Special Features SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Figure 2-7 OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES �8s oxi9B01Ab, 2 � P, 's� Safe ' jai . o, o 'eg.slacrv.....5ar►iL..—..—., ""�'>Ra M °�e �e� p foo�n•eiw III Bwd ° O aon II I / 5 101 es� man one �alsaR•° � �� d:,ree,n<r o M° °e�°m ..�_ �° Re a oa V1E • � arty �P w a / o erforyll�r¢4� ellc, k% Par titB it Natural en Spa c'a ' i'vi,� ��` • ad oa, nsh d o .�• � aS° ° °��< ��° °a° ��n` � � t ��€ �ona�e"tee do �oa% 227 c3 Isl `H •�• FretIch s / - f ��• �•%/ Moe�O I Tank farm Rd rank F°rm Re I 4 ° aar •7 SI�pFe ee i s Q h S� p ilipponi 'c al Are a H°^r Re City Boundary I—.._ y y Residential Area Other Recreational Facilities • Skate Park Rail Lines ` Other Urbanized Area • Disc Golf • Roller Hockey Creeks Open Spaces • Bocce A Sand Volleyball Water - Parks (Mini/ Neighborhood/ Community Parks) • Horseshoe Court ■ Pickleball - Schools - Recreation Centers & Special Features • Skate Park ■ Adult Exercise Equipment 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment Figure 2-8 DOG AREAS AND COMMUNITY GARDENS City Boundary Rail Lines ` Other Urbanized Area Creeks Open Spaces - Water - Parks (Mini/ Neighborhood/ Community Parks) - Schools - Recreation Centers & Special Features = Off -leash Dog Area • Community Gardens SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment TRAILS AND BIKE NETWORK The City of San Luis Obispo manages the Railroad Recreational Trail, which currently extends approximately 10 miles in two segments along railroad right-of- way traversing the city from north to south. A segment of the Bob Jones Bike Trail follows San Luis Obispo Creek on the City's southwest side; while this trail is not a City facility, it provides an important recreational resource for City residents and visitors. Several of San Luis Obispo's parks feature walking and multi -use paths, including Meadow Park and Laguna Lake Park. Beyond the parks themselves, San Luis Obispo has an extensive network of walking or multi -use trails in its open spaces . While these trails are not the subject of the Parks Master Plan, the Plan seeks to connect with the larger system. San Luis Obispo also has a robust network of bike lanes and bike routes. The Railroad Safety Trail and Bob Jones Trail provide level, Class I off-street paths. Buffered bike lanes exist along Madonna Road, Los Osos Valley Road, Laurel Lane, and a short segment of Chorro Street downtown, while a network of Class 11 (bike lanes), Class III (shared bike streets), and special "bike boulevards" complete the network. Current plans call for the City's bike network to be expanded substantially. Existing and planned trail and bike networks are shown on Figures 2-9 and 2-10. Laguna Lake Park connects with the adjacent open space trails (top). The Railroad Trail connects Sinsheimer Park to neighborhoods north and south (bottom). 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment Figure 2-9 TRAIL NETWORK '2 ---1 J N 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles zMe°n. ao, 0.s j?01yfechnie Io ?ate + I Thro p �.`•.� i(�� °qP9 ;� Pa �° �� •aS�crv..smcrst..8:ena ill ■•d °` ° o Vise Park •� a° �--� y0v' "iheng oy Mission os°,. _gat i.✓- Plaza 9�e - '• '�' �` /� ion Plaza o tension en°°`� r•o''o_Pa k House ,'•�� T j _ F a dens i Emerson °� z Park er it Be -. •'� I "�°¢ - °.ae, �a r;,r e� c in e .� �..�.,. /r. % �/ krNalurul '�• ��� sr ° ms O enSpac ° e ` Q ° ij4a i�i• \\ m �F .0 a Sinshcl o°,�°r ,� o� ✓✓✓rrr�+--��� °f° Exposition r°m a s� / !j c° == Laguna Lake Park , 115 a L LAguntills Vista'Lago, Park `° Park a o ° br / - Park P- ° r v' ridge on9 La � a "c9� 4 �w am�o.cu wen° n. . .° r . �'"° m'bnve 1k'1 De Vaul Park - �• °v 27 •� .•` C° a Dam G a n ` S ores C �, o V ',� ♦ �• •�:� 0 M .T...—.•—•.—..—•.— •o Islay I ��.. FrePark n N /'. Las Praderas o lank Farm Rd ,, a° I Pam Ro i I Park ,� �•7 � �z.°r o-,�,re � -P ettia space Illpponl - ans Rtl ° 'cal Area, g lZ r ••' L_..■ CitY Boundary O aces Parks and Recreation Facilities in S Trailhead _ ��� open spaces Rail Lines Residential Area - Mini Trails in Parks and Open Spaces Creeks - Other Urbanized Area - Neighborhood Proposed Trails - Water - Community Multiuse Trails - Schools - Recreation Centers & Special Feature Data source: County of San Luis Obispo GIS Open Data, trails as proposed by the 2006 SLO County Parks and Rec Element. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Figure 2-10 BIKE NETWORK r• _.7 ' =yam I J. 3 • � � �'° 0 0.25 0.5 es ° ......._..7 Pot• nic ° i �m ° s a v — •,8� odPilC�er °I€� St Thr Pa Buena I M°uRd sfB••�•, tot Park b R° R mm k sa s Vr Fee a s� �•o j � �• N11�41On °ey � a '� r /Plaza a r' Mission Plaza Extension a.P -.2, �r• '� Joak Houg a ".Trion ^� j Gardens r °r P .• s 1�q •'�• 13a41i •` ' 06 X" t it Be N ral '�• •� j0 errSPac ap JI r" ark , ° IJJ■ o-M,a �. eadow • Vnsh me^ - fro yfiy yy 'J - a° Park 6adwe,. •�' �' � � ^3'Exrosition unit Hills Park r n° Pas /- Vist ago �� a wo�b�Z,�° Park �k � ° / l R � •E . %%//�IRiohendge p°°�'� ��o � � - •,°,°w°°a Laguna Lake °�° / ' o o If Cou � e wee , � •. ° j DyVaul 22 .Wor ri•. ° 9 - o i2. a lk f1t �r r"- "••• a°r� ... �� sre� m°:,,,°. ��� •Damon-G� rya `/% ..�•'� r.._.._.._=f'se ji� Islay ��• w 'e _ Fran ..l ��i/ ` , f Lacs Prade o •• k ksl Ro /Park ,}• y R ° d e a - We r ' .�' sae"r ••.Lj,r:• ......�..r....i..3 � �Nr, 2 ,..r.r.r,:r,r,,.-.;:..- eoaR .} a I+ ili'�oni - . ............ ~� �w- 'calAre o wo. ea °°ter City Boundary Residential Area Existing Bikeways Proposed Bikeways Rail Lines _ Other Urbanized Area Bike Blvd. ----- Bike Blvd. Creeks ��� Open Spaces Bikeway Access ----- Class I water - Parks (Mini/ Neighborhood/ Community Parks) Buffered Lane ----- Class II - Schools - Recreation Centers & Special Features Class I ..... Class III Data source: City of San Luis Obispo, Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2013 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment M PARK INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT The San Luis Obispo Parks Inventory and Assessment, produced in 2018 with support from Cal Poly students, provided a park -by -park narrative summary of park features and general conditions. The feature ratings have been used to identify trends that reflect the system as a whole. Table 2-3 FEATURES RATED AND NOT RATED IN CONDITION ASSESSMENT 0• '` . Adult Exercise Area Access Points Baseball Field AED Basketball Court BBQ Bench Bicycle Rack Bleachers Bocce Ball Concession Stand Disc Golf Drinking Fountain Dumpster Equipment Shed Garden Shed Gazebo Horseshoe Pit ID & Entrance Informal Multi -Use Field Lighting Multi -Use Informal Field Mutt -Mitt Off -Street Parking Other Court Pickleball Court Picnic Table Recycling Can Restroom Roller Hockey Skate Park Stage Area Tennis Court Trash Can Volleyball Court Cell Tower Child Lot Community Garden Compost Area Flag Pole Hardscape area Jack House Main House Landscaped Area (Shrub Area) Meadow Park Nbad. Building Natural Area Off -Leash Dog Area Parks and Rec Office Building Perimeter Fencing Rodriguez Adobe Senior Citizen Center Structure/Building Tot Lot Trail/Walkway Turf Waterbody Public Art Public Fountain Trees Source: City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Parks Inventory and Assessment, 2018; WRT, 2019. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment PARK FEATURES AND RATINGS Some 33 individual types of park features were evaluated, including several types of recreation facilities as well as parking areas, restrooms, drinking fountains, benches, and lighting. Several other features were not evaluated. These included buildings; fencing; hardscape area; turf; trees; and trails. Features that were rated and not rated are identified in Table 2-3. It should be noted that some features in the "Rated" category were not rated in all parks where they were found. The team used a three -class general assessment rating system, as follows 1. Needs replacement or non- functional (e.g. missing pieces or beyond repair). Not serving its primary purpose or functionality. 2. Needs repair or damaged or in state of disrepair but it can be restored to working order (functional but flawed). Only partially adequate for its intended use. 3. Good condition; in good repair and its functioning as intended For several individual features, more detailed definitions were developed to describe a condition assessment of (1), (2), or (3). These more detailed definitions are provided in the San Luis Obispo Parks Inventory Assessment report. FINDINGS Over three quarters of rated park features were found to be in generally good condition, with 78 percent given a rating of (3). Fifteen percent of the features evaluated were rated (2) and six percent were rated (1). Informal multi -use fields, tennis courts, bicycle racks and lighting were found to be in the best condition across all parks. Almost all these features were rated 3 in the assessment. Meanwhile, horseshoe pits, picnic tables and drinking fountains were found to be in the worst condition: only 60 percent of drinking fountains, 66 percent of picnic tables, and 25 percent of horseshoe pits were rated 3, with nearly two-thirds of horseshoe pits given a rating of 1. Anholm Park, Cheng Park, Troop Park, Jack House Gardens contain features that were found to be in the best condition overall. Parks whose features were found to be non- functional or in need of replacement included Santa Rosa and Emerson (see Table 2-4). It is important to note that not all park features were rated by the students. The condition assessment identified specific potential improvements at each park, including potential improvements for features that were assessed but not rated. The recommendations show some general themes: • Landscaped and hardscaped area need better maintenance. This includes areas in Buena Vista Park, Las Praderas Park, and Cheng Park. • Park furnishings (benches, picnic tables, trash cans, drinking fountains) are in need of replacement or repair in most parks, especially in Vista Lago Park, French Park and Johnson Park. • Several parks were observed to lack full accessibility on walkways and trails due to slope, paving, or other conditions. These include Mission Plaza Extension, Islay Hill Park, Exposition Park, Mission Plaza and Emerson Park.' • Some parks lack sufficient lighting. These parks include Ellsford, Emerson, Islay Hill, Exposition and Sinsheimer Parks. • Most sports facilities are in good condition. Horseshoe pits are a notable exception, including those in French Park and Santa Rosa Park. See Appendix A: Site Assessment Summary and Needs for more detail. 1. The San Luis Obispo Parks Inventory and Assessment includes some general observations about accessibility but does not fully assess compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A separate review of ADA compliance at 24 San Luis Obispo parks was conducted by Disability Access Consultants in 2017. 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment FACILITIES ASSESSMENT Table 2-4 CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF PARK FEATURES Adult Exercise Area Baseball Field Basketball Court BBQ — Bench Bicycle Rack Bleachers Bocce Ball Concession Stand Disc Golf Drinking Fountain Dumpster Equipment Shed Garden Shed Gazebo Horseshoe Pit ID & Entrance Multi -Use Field Fighting Multi -Use Informal Field Mutt -Mitt Off -Street Parking Pickleball Court Picnic Table Recycling Can Restroom Roller Hockey Skate Park Stage Area Tennis Court Trash Can Volleyball Court TOTAL 1 1 4 6 2 1 1 10 1 1 11 25 64 2 5 1 9 5 17 26 173 2 24 2 16 2 1 1 7 13 1 10 1 4 4 1 7 11 26 205 26 18 2 1 1 22 2 11 1 4 1(, 4 133 9 32 16 8 192 28 1� 1 1 1 8 181 6 1003 In addition, facility assessments were conducted in 2018 by Ten Over Studio on the Parks and Recreation Administration Building, the Ludwick Community Center, the Senior Center, and the SLO Swim Center. The Ludwick Center was observed to have a combination of building condition and programmatic deficiencies that need to be addressed. Recommendations included: • Easing the space deficiency and improving access control at the Administration Building; • Consolidating the equipment, vehicles, and workspaces of rangers into a new ranger station; • Potentially replacing Ludwick Community Center with a new facility that better supports the Department's vision; • Addressing security issues around the Senior Center; • Making significant improvements to the SLO Swim Center, including a new tot and therapy pool, a replacement pool, new shower and changing rooms, a new dedicated multipurpose room, a separate fitness room. Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2019; WRT, 2019. Note: Table 3-4 summarizes all park features that were rated in the San Luis Obispo Parks Inventory and Assessment. Not all park features were rated. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM SINCE 2001 San Luis Obispo has added five new parks and facilities to the system since the current Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted in 2001, as follows. Certain other parks existed in 2001 but were not documented in the Plan. Cheng Park: Cheng Park is a 0.14- acre mini park featuring a Chinese- style gate and pavilion, located at Marsh and Santa Rosa streets. Damon -Garcia Sports Complex: Damon -Garcia Sports Complex, covering approximately 22 acres in the City's southeast, is home to all four of the San Luis Obispo's regulation -size soccer fields. De Vaul Park: This 0.93-acre neighborhood park on Spooner Drive features a playground, basketball court, picnic tables, paved path, and large grassy area used for pick-up style games. Kiwanis Centennial Garden: The City's fifth community garden opened in 2018 on'/a acre of land at the entrance to the Laguna Lake Golf Course. The 42-plot garden will be the first in San Luis Obispo County to use recycled water. SLO Skate Park: The SLO Skate Park is a 15,500-square foot in -ground concrete park that provides a high - quality, safe skate experience while also providing space for the broader community to enjoy, including a flexible plaza, stage, and perimeter walk and seating. The Skate Park is crowned by four 25-foot tall tree sculptures created by local artists. SLO Skate Park and Cheng Park are key additions to the City's park system since the time of the last Master Plan Update. 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment NEW PARKS AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Some 25 new parks, park expansion or facility improvements are defined in specific or master plans, as follows. In some cases, Development Agreements specify maintenance, ownership and operation of future parks. AVILA RANCH Neighborhood Park, Pocket Parks and Mini Parks: A 9.5-acre neighborhood park will serve the Avila Ranch development. The neighborhood park is planned to include group BBQs, basketball courts, tot lots, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, pickleball courts, tennis courts, a dog park, a skate park, and a community meeting pavilion area. Avila Ranch will also feature eight mini -parks and a pocket park. Each will be one-half to 2.5 acres in size. MADONNA-FROOM The Madonna-Froom Specific Plan area is identified in the General Plan. The City is currently reviewing a Specific Plan request for this area. MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Neighborhood Park, Greenway and Sports Fields: The Margarita Area Specific Plan meets the City's park land standard by providing a 10-acre Neighborhood Park and a 16-acre improved sports field site. The Neighborhood Park will include trees, benches, picnic tables and small cooking stands, children's play equipment, game courts, a restroom, and play fields. Greenways are primarily for cycling and walking paths within linear, landscaped open areas. The Sports Fields will accommodate active recreational use and will include on -site parking. ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Neighborhood Park, Pocket Park and Trail Junction Park: The Orcutt Area Specific Plan features a neighborhood park, several pocket parks, a linear park and bicycle/ pedestrian paths. The neighborhood park will serve as a community gathering place for casual recreation and sports events. The linear park will double as a passive recreation/ viewing area and stormwater management area. The pocket parks provide access points to the railroad bike path and passive recreation facilities such as seating for wildlife viewing. SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN Central Neighborhood Park, Fitness Loop and Parkway, Pocket Parks and Preserve and Trailhead: The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan's park system is intended to provide active recreation, add to the natural beauty of the area, and create a neighborhood with a high quality of life. San Luis Ranch will include a central neighborhood park, pocket parks, an active linear park, green space, greenways, pedestrian and bike paths, and sports fields. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment PARKS AND OPEN SPACES IN THE DOWNTOWN CONCEPT PLAN The Downtown Concept Plan presents the community's high- level vision for how downtown San Luis Obispo should be developed over the next 25 years, and includes principles, goals, and an implementation plan with prioritized major public programs and projects actions. The Downtown Concept Plan envisions the creation of new parks, enhancement of existing parks and facilities, and improvements to the San Luis Creek Walk to provide plentiful and safe public spaces in the city's core. Cheng Park Expansion. Cheng Park is envisioned expanding across the creek onto the existing surface parking lot, with a paseo providing connections from Marsh and Pacific Streets. Courthouse Park. The large lawn at the County building is envisioned as a demonstration garden with seating and interactive public art. Given County ownership, this may not be a City -operated park. Diagonal Paseo. A diagonal plaza is envisioned through the block bounded by Marsh, Broad, Pacific, and Nipomo streets, providing a connection between Emerson Park and the downtown core as well as additional outdoor dining, event, and public art opportunities. Higuera Street Plaza. The City - owned parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo streets is envisioned as a public plaza with seating, interactive elements, and positive activity at this prominent downtown corner adjacent to San Luis Creek. Mission Plaza Expansion. An expanded Museum of Art is shown connecting to Mission Plaza, with a Creek Walk extension underneath the Broad Street bridge. Monterey Street Plaza. A small plaza area with outdoor seating is shown on Monterey Street. Emerson Park. Improvements are envisioned at Emerson Park to provide more opportunities for outdoor recreation for neighborhood residents. Ludwick Community Center. The Ludwick Center would enhanced to include a full-sized gymnasium, multi -purpose rooms, and underground parking. Old Gas Works Site. The Old Gas Works building on Pismo Street could be rehabilitated and incorporated into a mid -block pocket park. Rosa Butron Adobe. The City - owned Rosa Butron Adobe property would be opened to the public and managed as a park. A new connection from Dana Street is shown crossing San Luis Creek. Toro/Marsh Pocket Park. A small pocket park is envisioned on the corner of Marsh and Toro Streets. 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment Figure 2-11 PLANNED PARKS AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I t t I I I I I I ��...°� _ w ^o k a �alitornia o r gate in mva o it N °., g as � _ ������� �,�g °• f Wtlwick tom unity 1 Center Mon 7 City Boundary Rail Lines Creeks - Water - Schools Residential Area - Other Urbanized Area _ road Street Sheet Pl ighborhood Park 4Prthouge. soo` ° Park o y `TorkMet!` 1, Mission Plaza esos �;s. o PocketP k _= � �\ Expansion �A s° Chen, P'.A • Rosa Higuer�, Q+� Expansion „ btrodm Street �0/agonal Ell W ' Emerson Park •` m Old Gas c h ••� yo �Q Works .md .. h- 7 Hill °5 or Call -k oad ; ••' o sit 4 �syoo �// a is ch SP a° 'rd c °ate ^ad Po tear +� ao ° I aa�or� afu µo LBi° Ranch SP San Luis nct yP ° — _ a" . s , i!i + Preserve and Can eig :bofhop �cw ma w,�:' OrcuttAr aSP °c Trailhea _ M °sg eo Neighh P rk an Luis Ran SP Margarita SP Pacific Be ao as °z 227 ° Or Are .,,fitness Loop& arkway ei hbarhood Park ri, HS sit San Luis eh um mien g \ rail JUNI ��//R°' SPei�ife Pl 3� eD aape°r v�•� OrcuttFrea SP s. ,Area �i' y Margarita SPG ways Pocket Park Oz '/� .�°M°a M 111...�........ +••�¢ t Orcutt Area SP SpI Margarita Specie oO Pgarksy} — ) Plan Area cket P oo �� !7,.lank Farm Rd rank 1—as I %%% .�•'.. �°°�6� Fs°o°no„xa 'r ��'7AFe.����w""""'.°°° '` sST ' ••%• rAin"Nbnd P-' •� � Al y ' Pocket ParJ{e`'inePa ks (8 nla Ranch SP i•� to orhood Park � !/ /, Illpponi cal Are Open Spaces - Parks (Mini/ Neighborhood/ Community Parks) - Recreation Centers & Special Features Planned Parks and Park Improve - New Parks - Existing Park Expansion - Existing Park Improvements ! ! Specific Plan Boundaries Park SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Figure 2-12 DOWNTOWN PARKS AND OPEN SPACES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED csi `a 0 3 Venable St o� ��� " ° o O eo 3 o i Montalban S 1 o i° Phillips Ln o °oa ell � uo` Ci,. b�°iC Peachphillips Aly 0 O.OFS%, 0.1 0.2 Miles I t t I r r t ;h. o ao �° c•iirorem �s ed�s .c Fc �o roryr.en��c s°deipo o ware bs uni.ersiry o JciOpJ 2� o JiSi jl 7c .�•♦•,�e : or ,to u e �e Park j MOo •f ~•' �C Ludwick ;� j• .•� Community 6V �, .• Center Pi�,.�� ! ll�onterey yo j .gym �! O �.� o���• j o •� ♦ r.�` ��. 0. Street Plaza j X '♦• • •' j Si s� CourtAQ. `� ♦ �, a5i Park t a j / e o Toro/Marsh O J I 7 ♦ ` / a Q PocketPark r ♦ / X Q Qa��j• Os Cl - ° o ♦Q • c • MI Chile rk ♦ Son y° ._ •• ,n P� aai 101 i►i st lion Plaza kpansion J r° ♦• e```\°� sa `� °o /�/guera ��+�' " ��•'��• Mitchell f o Rosa y Park �,�'� Street C0 B ♦ Plaza •r. •`•:` c use �.•'�•• Diagonal � Paseo oY Emerso � Triangle /Cz Park ti Park o° Qo3 ° Pi9 0 Geo�9 Qac(° rocs �v �JG / o� j 3a Jennifer St ; 101 `r a gt Si CrJs S op Old Gas ° o �5i ' r Terr Works y oaa as opera o m �: O o S e o °h hs p p y� Bianchi Ln QS FoY mX ((/�rroad N h High m Re y a rl� o City Boundary Residential Area Proposed Parks and Park Improvements in Downtown Concept Plan I•�•• Downtown Concept Plan Area - Other Urbanized Area New Parks Rail Lines Park Existin Pk Expansion source: pans Margarita Specific Plan Area Specific Plan Creeks Existing Park Improvements - g p Son u San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Water Froom Ranch Specific Plan Avila Ranch Development Plc - Schools/ Joint Use Facilities Downtown Concept Plan General Plan 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment PARK IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED FOR 2019-21 The City's current Capital Improvement Plan, subject to approval by the City Council, earmarks funding for numerous improvements to San Luis Obispo's parks and recreation facilities. Projects address park maintenance; public art; recreational amenities; building and infrastructure renovations; and —most notably —a new park on North Broad Street. In addition to these projects, Parks staff report that three designated pickleball courts will be constructed at French Park; this will involve relocating a basketball court and removing a volleyball court. CIP Projects are identified in Table 2-5. Table 2-5 PLANNED PARK AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS, 2019- 21 CATEGO�ITE PROJECT PARKS MA1V_TEVA.VCE Mission Plaza Restroom Replacements & Enhancements Cheng Park Revitalization Mission Plaza Railing Upgrade Various Play Surfacing Sinsheimer Park Irrigation Sinsheimer Park Stadium Drainage Various Water Stations & Supply Lines Emerson Park Parking Lot Maintenance French Park Parking Lot Maintenance Emerson Park Fitness Equipment Replacement Islay Hill Park Playground Equipment Replacement Meadow Park Par Course Vista Lago Park Playground Equipment Replacement Various Urban Forest Maintenance RECREATIONAL SPORTS Various Laguna Lake Park Laguna Lake Golf Course North Broad Street Neighborhood Park NATURAL RESOURCES Laguna Lake Park Laguna Lake Park BUILDING MAINTENANCE SLO Swim Center SLO Swim Center SLO Swim Center SLO Swim Center SLO Swim Center SLO Swim Center SLO Swim Center Development -Related Park Improvements Laguna Lake Improvements Golf Course Maintenance New Park Development Dredging Docks, Ramp, Shoreline Olympic Pool Thermal Blankets Bath House Roof Bath House Ceiling Re -Plaster Therapy Pool Therapy Pool Boiler Shower System Repair Therapy Pool Chemical Pumps Source: City of San Luis Obispo Capital Improvements Plan, 2019; City of San Luis Obispo, 2019. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment How well does San Luis Obispo serve its residents recreation and parks needs? This section reports on two measures that are used as standards in the current San Luis Obispo Parks Master Plan: park acreage level of service and park access level of service. The section then goes on to consider potential changes to the park classification system and park acreage and access standards, based on practices from peer cities and observations about what's working and what's not in San Luis Obispo. ACREAGE STANDARDS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE IN SAN LUIS OBISPO The current Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan calls on the City to develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As applied to residential development or annexation, five acres per 1,000 are to be dedicated as neighborhood park serving the development, while the remaining five acres may be located anywhere within the City's park system as deemed appropriate. As of 2017, San Luis Obispo has 205.6 acres of City park and recreation facilities serving a population of 46,724. The City's parks inventory translates to 4.4 acres per 1,000 residents. San Luis Obispo would need another 361 acres of park land to meet its overall park acreage standard of 10 acres per 1,000 in 2035, for a projected population of 56,686. Of this additional park land, 249 acres would need to be Neighborhood Parks, to meet the current 5 acres/1,000 standard. See Table 2-6. Parkland In -Lieu Fee and Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee San Luis Obispo's most recent Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, completed in 2018, establishes the maximum parkland in -lieu fees under the Quimby Act and the maximum development impact fees that can be charged for parks and recreation improvements under the Mitigation Fee Act. The Nexus Study calculated the current park level of service at 4.18 acres per 1,000 residents' or 2.69 acres per service population (taking into account both city residents and jobs.) Maximum fees are then calculated using assumptions about land value and the costs to develop recreational space. Currently, the City applies an in - lieu fee to new single-family and condominium development, under the Quimby Act, for the creation of new parks. The City does not currently have a park development impact fee under the Mitigation Fee Act. This fee could be applied to rental multifamily and non-residential development in addition to the categories currently subject to the in -lieu fee. 1. The Nexus Study did not account for some parks and facilities which are included in the inventory for this report: Exposition Park, Eto Park, Mission Plaza Extension, Broad Street Community Gardens, Laurel Lane Community Gardens, and Sinsheimer Stadium. For all other parks and facilities, this report uses the Nexus Study as the source for park acreage. 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment Table 2-6 SAN LUIS OBISPO PARK ACREAGE STANDARDS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Community Parks' 99.7 2.1 NA NA Neighborhood Parks 134.7 0.7 5 249 Mini Parks 17.9 0.2 NA NA Recreation Centers & Special Features 163.3 1.4 NA NA TOTAL 1205.6 4.4 10 361 Note: 1. Laguna MS Joint -Use Facility is counted as Community Park in 2001 PRIMP. For 2018, this facility is included among joint -use facilities. Source: San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2001; San Luis Obispo General Plan, 2015; California Department of Finance, 2017; City of San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Study, 2018; City of San Luis Obispo, 2019; WRT, 2019. ACCESS STANDARDS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE The current Master Plan also establishes the following access standard: San Luis Obispo residents shall have access to a neighborhood park within one-half to one -mile walking distance of their home. Specific service areas are not identified for other park types. GAPS IN PARK ACCESS As shown on Figure 2-13, much of San Luis Obispo and most City residents are within a one-half or one mile walk to a neighborhood park. Four neighborhoods or portions of neighborhoods are currently out of this range from a neighborhood park, including the neighborhood directly south of Cal Poly; the neighborhood off South Broad Street south of Meadow Park; and two neighborhoods along South Higuera Street. Development of parks indicated in the Margarita and Avila Ranch specific plans may be expected to fill gaps in the southern part of the city, while parks planned as part of the San Luis Ranch, Froom Ranch, and Orcutt Area specific plans should create parks within walking distance of new development in those areas. See Figure 2-14. Our analysis of walking distance from future parks uses simple radii instead of the street grid, since data on future streets are not readily available. In reality, these radii are overly generous in their assessment of walking distance. At least two service area gaps would remain, using current standards: in the neighborhood south of Cal Poly and the neighborhood south of Meadow Park. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Figure 2-13 ACCESS TO NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND SERVICE AREA GAPS E t c�,., � � ono F.,�°ee �.°°e a_ 39p67ytechnics, 0", guna Hills P" oa Open 0 0.25 0&5 1 Miles K aa vi 1R. Wstai'�ago ..Johns6n Park aa P k 101 'fu De Vaul Park 227 Da,*-"-G spc ............ ... Islay H P r a N 7` La Praderas 5 Y..k F.I. R. Park Rodrig Park Adope J III Po- 'etlia space oY 111pponi 'al Are S City Boundary Parks and Recreation Facilities in San Luis Obispo Population Density (people/ sq mile) Rail Lines Mini Creeks Neighborhood 0 1,200 Water Community Schools Recreation Centers & Special Features Open Spaces Service Area 1/2 mile walkshed 1 mile walkshed 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment Figure 2-14 ACCESS TO EXISTING AND PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND SERVICE AREA GAPS 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles o I t t t l t t t l ,' S �, 'sa KRa California ar � `Polytechnic °t $late SFalt \]fj o. ■ -_ °°°-��� as sva�lilr. I �� � wo��.' •j sNrtsl...p� Buena � �,° . � J .Sl9�ri' goWn —Pgr�f °a ��• � i 1 k El elln, r ° Y Chang Park 3 - Plaza Mitchell/ Mission Plaza Extension Park r Jack House Trian Park .Gardens Emerson e°¢,�,so ✓� / I Park -'-tet it Be y`y l t Naura'�, ,� �t Eto Park to -Martin �� ,l - Meadow Sinsheimer m /'Park Park Park 0�,�1. !y, \ Exposition 'N \ N� Psa / -"�/ i� Park Johnson �dguna Hill. / / Vista Lago 9• ag —Park a � p0 �.i \ e" a �, Park Park / Park \ Stgneridge o a b ,�f1 / `t ,� 101 "e 1✓/� Park _ La duna Lake GglrCoume Moa San IsRanch a °'t \ \ I'° aso I o cu a eighborhood Pa A Orcutt Area SP s I 1 °, o 'Q g I m°a6rc°J"° i Mar a tiSP I '' , %,Neighbor d Park •` I De Vaul °q ° r I b gyp= o ri \ a Park \ aq ° San Luis Ranch I 1 .f3a'+° ' hborhoAdPark I �1 Spelcirc Pla x �°mae,° w Are. I // �\ \`--P- I ,. woJ orcutt Areo •',�° Damon-Gdreia \ ,;� °` 1 �,m • / c I . f,'L c, Me So, \ Margarita Specific rts CoMplex ` m\ „a IXspc�.P1Ar­ Pla,Ae.cifan / rspa - Is�aY H..r�� / Park L Praderes o/ r aka,,,, ad Park Rodriguez �� S /- Park \v ° — — v�' i ���°- 'Adobe Park r� ill / ` = � ) ` \°P "r•__- Poinsettia Cr>;e space J Walk and Park I _ - I ••J • rF _,� Avilaltan SP I •�.^ 5r Neighborho d Palk-,. S ` I Avila.85inCh ni 5 mile elopme� i an Area f c h , \ I4 - ilipponi m Parks and Recreation Facilities in San Luis Obispo Service Area I _ I Specific Plans Boundary - Mini 1/2 mile walkshed Neighborhood 1 mile walkshed Planned Neighborhood Parks* Community , 1/2 mile radius from planned neighborhood parks Population Density (people/ sq mile) - J Recreation Centers & Special Features 1 mile radius from planned neighborhood parks 0 1,200 SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment San Luis Obispo has identified five cities to serve as relevant "benchmarks" in terms of their approach to creating and managing park systems. These cities —Santa Maria, Paso Robles, Davis, Santa Cruz, and Santa Barbara —are comparable to San Luis Obispo for a variety of reasons. Each is a distinct small city with a natural and/or agricultural setting in California. The cities range in population from about 31,000 (Paso Robles) to 106,000 (Santa Maria). Paso Robles and Santa Maria share a specific central California coastal geographic region with San Luis Obispo, while Davis, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara share San Luis Obispo's characteristic of having large public universities. This section reports on the way each of the benchmark cities defines park types in their relevant planning documents, and what standards they set for parks in terms of acreage and access. PARK TYPE DEFINITIONS San Luis Obispo and the five benchmark cities define park types to categorize their parks in terms of size, amenities, and targeted users. These park types vary somewhat between cities —each city does not define a park type in each category —but there are significant overlaps. In general, there is a consistent relationship between park type and size, and approximate size ranges can be observed, as follows: • Mini Parks: 0-5 acres • Neighborhood Parks: 3-10 acres • Community and District Parks: 10 to 25 acres • Regional Parks: largest area, often undefined Table 2-7 summarizes park types as defined by San Luis Obispo and each benchmark city, in terms of park size and other characteristics. ACREAGE STANDARDS Level of service standards vary significantly amongst San Luis Obispo and the benchmark cities. At 10 acres per 1,000 residents, San Luis Obispo has the highest overall park land standard, followed by Paso Robles at seven acres per 1,000; Santa Cruz at 4.5 acres per 1,000; Davis at 3.8 acres per 1,000; and Santa Maria at three acres per 1,000 (or up to the City's existing acreage level of service, up to 5.0 acres/1,000). San Luis Obispo currently has a separate acreage standard for Neighborhood Parks (five acres per 1,000). This compares to Neighborhood Park standards of two acres per 1,000 (Santa Cruz), 1.8 acres per 1,000 (Davis), and approximately one acre per 1,000 (Santa Maria). Again, San Luis Obispo's acreage standard far exceeds those of benchmark cities. Santa Cruz and Davis also provide acreage standards for Community Parks: 2.5 and 1.8 acres per 1,000, respectively. Only Davis provides an acreage standard for Mini Parks, at 0.2 acres per 1,000. Acreage standards are not used for other park types (e.g. Regional Parks) defined by any of the benchmark cities. Of the benchmark cities, Davis is the only one to reach its park land level of service, and this only after including a planned 100-acre sports complex. Santa Cruz meets its target for community parks, but has an overall deficit of park acreage. Santa Maria's total park acreage falls short of its target for new development. Table 2-8 compares each city's acreage standards with current level of service. ACCESS STANDARDS The Davis Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Update (2012) describes one-half mile as a standard radius for neighborhood parks. Indeed, both San Luis Obispo and Santa Cruz currently use a one -half - mile standard for neighborhood parks. At 3/8 mile, Davis has the highest access standard among the benchmark cities, at 3/8 mile. Meanwhile, both Davis and Santa Cruz set a 1.5 mile access standard for community parks. Table 2-9 compares San Luis Obispo's access standards with those of benchmark cities. 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment Table 2-7 PARK TYPES BY TYPICAL SIZE, SAN LUIS OBISPO AND BENCHMARK CITIES Mini < 1 acre,typ. Serve residents of immediate area; passive amenities < 5 acres Recreation/ aesthetic benefit, especially in areas of high population density. < 3 acres Serve concentrated or limited population. Often for unique/single purpose, i.e. recreation facility, plaza, or natural feature preservation NA NA NA City does not currently diffierentiate. NA NA Neighborhood 3-5 acres, typ. Min. 5 acres 3-10 acres Not stated 0 — 6 acres 4-6 acres Convenient and Meet needs of the Landscaped park; Often adjacent Meet needs of Provide a accessible for neighborhood; limited size; passive to elementary those within'/z balanced system active and passive playgrounds, picnic recreation with school and serving mile; playgrounds, of parks and recreation areas, fields, natural designated active approximately same picnic areas, fields, recreation areas. areas; scenic/ service area natural areas. facilities accessible aesthetic value; to all residents sports fields/ facilities. District NA NA 8-12 acres NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Community 0.75 — 40 acres Min. 15 acres > 30 acres Not stated 1.25 —100 acres (approx. 10-25 Pref. 25 acres (approx. 10-15 acres, typ.) acres, typ.) Unique features; i Designed to meet -- Coincide with high Designed to serve wide range of needs of entire school or junior entire community; facilities attracting community and to high school, with unique facilities; users from meet specialized complementary recreation facilities; throughout the City needs; sports facilities community events. facilities. Regional NA NA Not stated Not stated I > 150 acres NA NA NA Extensive park Combination of I Serve regional - areas that provide Special Use Park population's needs; service and facilities and Recfreational active and passive that are specialized facility recreation; unique or of Citywide or amenities not found regional interest. in other parks Special Use Not stated Not stated Respond to specific e.g. golf course, needs or desires for tennis courts, bird specialized facilities refuge, beach areas. or landscapes. Source: City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan (2001); City of Davis Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Update (2012); City of El Paso de Robles General Plan (2003); City of Santa Barbara Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element (2011); City of Santa Cruz Parks Master Plan 2030 (2018, DRAFT); City of Santa Maria General Plan, Resources Management Element (1996, 2001). Note: Some of the benchmark cities' planning documents also define other types of recreation facilities, joint -use facilities, and open spaces. These are not included here. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Table 2-8 PARK ACREAGE STANDARDS AND CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS), SAN LUIS OBISPO AND BENCHMARK CITIES AWN in M4111Ma Standard 10 ac/1000 3.8 ac/1000 7.0 ac/1000 Unavailable 4.5 ac/1000 3.0 to 5.0 ac/1000 Existing LOS 4.9 or 6.2 3.0 ac/1000 3.3 ac/1000 3.7 ac/1000 2.2 ac/1000 MINI Standard NA 10.2 ac/1000 NA Unavailable NA NA Existing LOS Not known NEIGHBORHOOD Standard 5 ac/1000 1.8 ac/1000 NA Unavailable 2.0 ac/1000 1.0 ac/1000a Existing LOS 10.8 1.4 ac/1000 0.8 ac/1000 2.2 ac/1000 COMMUNITY Standard NA 11.8 ac/1000 NA Unavailable 2.5 ac/1000 NA Existing LOS 1.3 ac/1000 2.9 ac/1000 Sources: City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan (2001); City of Davis Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Update (2012); City of El Paso de Robles General Plan (2003); City of Santa Barbara Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element (2011); City of Santa Cruz Parks Master Plan 2030 (2018, DRAFT); City of Santa Maria General Plan, Resources Management Element (1996, 2001). Notes: Santa Maria's neighborhood park standards is 1 park per 5,000 residents. Assuming average neighborhood park size of 5 acres, this translates to 1 acre per 1,000 residents. Table 2-9 PARK ACCESS STANDARDS, SAN LUIS OBISPO AND BENCHMARK CITIES Neighborhood 1/2 to 1 mile 3/8 mile NA Unavailable 'h mile NA Community NA 1 '/z mile NA Unavailable 1 '/z mile - Sources: City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan (2001); City of Davis Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Update (2012); City of El Paso de Robles General Plan (2003); City of Santa Barbara Open Space, Parks and Recreation Element (2011); City of Santa Cruz Parks Master Plan 2030 (2018, DRAFT); City of Santa Maria General Plan, Resources Management Element (1996, 2001). Note: Only park types for which San Luis Obispo or any of the benchmark cities provide access standards are included in Table 2-7. 2. Parks and Facilities Assessment ."'A' 3� 3P� OF Jor L. �i& NO 4 RECREATIAN TREND AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENT w;� �J ,� 1 + r �;�..' ' fir.- .. '{ e.• .44.�f�ce � �• �� rb� . , ''�—'' }� >ry � � � �^ �.; '.wry , �:� 47 R'r l .l+ Ili!!!111..' •'rlot j� `&ii , ��� � �� v;s• L....�tt��� Y +. �� 4 :lRw. 4 �i *a �- J ML --�Lip 1+3� lt�1�1tSt1�ySti 1+y11 c 111}i�j+ i ��� �At' i NATIONAL RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS The national recreation trends analysis provides an understanding of national, regional, and local recreational trends. This analysis examines participation trends, activity levels, and programming trends. It is important to note that all trends are based on current and/or historical patterns and participation rates. NATIONAL TRENDS IN RECREATION METHODOLOGY The Sports & Fitness Industry Association's (SFIA) Sports, Fitness & Recreational Activities Topline Participation Report 2018 was utilized in evaluating the following trends: • National Trends in Sport and Fitness Participation • Core vs. Casual Participation • Activity by Generation The study is based on findings from surveys carried out in 2017 and the beginning of 2018 by the Physical Activity Council, resulting in a total of 30,999 online interviews — both individual and household surveys. A sample size of 30,999 completed interviews is considered by SFIA to result in a high degree of statistical accuracy. A sport with a participation rate of five percent has a confidence interval of plus or minus 0.27 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence interval. Using a weighting technique, survey results are applied to the total U.S. population figure of 298,325,103 people (ages six and older). The purpose of the report is to establish levels of activity and identify key participatory trends in recreation across the U.S. CORE VS. CASUAL PARTICIPATION In addition to overall participation rates, SFIA further categorizes active participants as either core or casual participants based on frequency. Core participants have higher participatory frequency than casual participants. The thresholds that define casual versus core participation may vary based on the nature of each individual activity. For instance, core participants engage in most fitness and recreational activities more than 50 times per year, while for sports, the threshold for core participation is typically 13 times per year. In a given activity, core participants are more committed and tend to be less likely to switch to other activities or become inactive (engage in no physical activity) than causal participants. This may also explain why activities with more core participants tend to experience less pattern shifts in participation rates than those with larger groups of casual participants. INACTIVITY RATES / ACTIVITY LEVEL TRENDS SFIA also categorizes participation rates by intensity, dividing activity levels into five categories based on the caloric implication (i.e., high calorie burning, low/med calorie burning, or inactive) and the frequency of participation (i.e., 1-50 times, 50-150 times, or above) for a given activity. Participation rates are expressed as 'super active' or 'active to a healthy level' (high calorie burning, 151+ times), 'active' (high calorie burning, 50-150 times), 'casual' (high calorie burning, 1-50 times), 'low/med calorie burning', and 'inactive'. These participation rates are then assessed based on the total population trend over the last five years, as well as breaking down these rates by generation. NATIONAL SPORT AND FITNESS PARTICIPATORY TRENDS NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS The sports most heavily participated in the United States were Golf (23.8 million in 2016) and Basketball (23.4 million), which have participation figures well in excess of the other activities within the general sports category. The popularity of Golf and Basketball can be attributed to the ability to compete with relatively 3. Recreation Trends and Program Assessment small number of participants. Even though Golf has experienced a recent decrease in participation, it still continues to benefit from its wide age segment appeal and is considered a life-long sport. Basketball's success can be attributed to the limited amount of equipment needed to participate and the limited space requirements necessary, which make basketball the only traditional sport that can be played at the majority of American dwellings as a drive -way pickup game. Since 2012, Rugby and other niche sports, like Boxing, Lacrosse, and Roller Hockey have seen strong growth. Rugby has emerged as the overall fastest growing sport, as it has seen participation levels rise by 82.8% over the last five years. Based on the five-year trend, Boxing for Competition (42.6%), Lacrosse (35.1 %), and Roller Hockey (34.2%) have also experienced significant growth. In the most recent year, the fastest growing sports were Boxing for Competition (13.1 %) and Pickleball (11.3%). During the last five years, the sports that are most rapidly declining include Ultimate Frisbee (-39.1%), Touch Football (-22.8%), Tackle Football (-16.0%), and Racquetball (-13.4%). For the most recent year, Ultimate Frisbee (-14.9%), Badminton (-12.6%), Gymnastics (-10.7%), and Volleyball-Sand/Beach (-9.9%) underwent the largest declines. In general, the most recent year shares a similar pattern with the five-year trends; suggesting that the increasing participation rates in certain activities have yet to peak in sports like Rugby, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, and Competitive Boxing. However, some sports that increased rapidly over the past five years have experienced recent decreases in participation, including Squash, Ice Hockey, Roller Hockey and Volleyball-Sand/Beach. The reversal of the five-year trends in these sports may be due to a relatively low user base (ranging from one to five million) and could suggest that participation in these activities may have peaked. CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL SPORTS The most popular sports, such as Basketball and Baseball, have a larger core participant base (engaged 13+ times annually) than casual participant base (engaged at least one time annually). Less mainstream, less organized sports such as Ultimate Frisbee, Roller Hockey, Squash, and Boxing for Competition have larger casual participation. Although these sports increased in participation over the last five years, the newcomers were mostly casual participants that may be more inclined to switch to other sports or fitness activities, resulting in the declining one-year trends. NATIONAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS Overall, national participatory trends in fitness have experienced strong growth in recent years. Many of these activities have become popular due to an increased interest among Americans to improve their health and enhance quality of life by engaging in an active lifestyle. These activities also have very few barriers to entry, which provides a variety of options that are relatively inexpensive to participate in and can be performed by most individuals. The most popular fitness activity, by far, is Fitness Walking, which had about 110.8 million participants in 2017, increasing 2.7% from the previous year. Other leading fitness activities based on total number of participants include Treadmill (52.9 million), Free Weights (52.2 million), Running/Jogging (50.7 million), Weight/Resistance Machines (36.2 million), and Stationary Cycling (36.0 million). Over the last five years, the activities growing most rapidly are Non - Traditional / Off -Road Triathlons (74.7%), Trail Running (57.6%), and Aerobics (32.7%). Over the same time frame, the activities that have undergone the most decline include: Boot Camps Style Cross Training (-11.3%), Stretching (-7.5%), and Weight/Resistance Machines (-6.9%). In the last year, activities with the largest gains in participation were Triathlon Non-Traditional/Off Road (10.1%), Running/Jogging (7.1%), and Trail Running (6.6%). From 2016-2017, the activities that had the most decline in participation were Traditional/Road Triathlon (-8.9%), Cardio Kickboxing (-3.0%), and Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise (-2.6%). SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Table 3-1 NATIONAL PARTICIPATORY TRENDS - GENERAL SPORTS Activity Participation Levels % Change 2012 2016 2017 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend Golf * (2011, 2015, and 2016 data) 25,682 24,120 23,815 -7.3% -1.3% Basketball 23,708 22,343 23,401 -1.3% 4.7% Tennis 17,020 18,079 17,683 3.9% -2.2% Baseball 12,976 14,760 15,642 20.5% 6.0% Soccer (Outdoor) 12,944 11,932 11,924 -7.9% -0.1% Softball (Slow Pitch) 7,411 7,690 7,283 -1.7% -5.3% Football, Flag 5,865 6,173 6,551 11.7% 6.1% Badminton 7,278 7,354 6,430 -11.7% -12.6% Volleyball (Court) 6,384 6,216 6,317 -1.0% 1.6% Football, Touch 7,295 5,686 5,629 -22.8% -1.0% Soccer (Indoor) 4,617 5,117 5,399 16.9% 5.5% Football, Tackle 6,220 5,481 5,224 -16.0% -4.7% Volleyball (Sand/Beach) 4,505 5,489 4,947 9.8% -9.9% Gymnastics 5,115 5,381 4,805 -6.1% -10.7% Track and Field 4,257 4,116 4,161 -2.3% 1.1% Cheerleading 3,244 4,029 3,816 17.6% -5.3% Racquetball 4,070 3,579 3,526 -13.4% -1.5% Pickleball N/A 2,815 3,132 N/A 11.3% Ultimate Frisbee 5,131 3,673 3,126 -14.9% Ice Hockey 2,363 2,697 2,544 7.7% -5.7% Softball (Fast Pitch) 2,624 2,467 2,309 -12.0% -6.4% Lacrosse 1,607 2,090 2,171 35.1% 3.9% Wrestling 1,922 1,922 1,896 -1.4% -1.4% Roller Hockey 1,367 1,929 1,834 34.2% -4.9% Rugby 887 1,550 1,621 82.8% 4.6% Field Hockey 1,237 1,512 1,596 29.0% 5.6% Squash j 1,290 1 1,549 1 1,492 15.7% -3.7% Boxing for Competition 1 959 1 1,210 1 1,368 42.6% 13.1% NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend: Large Increase (greater than25%) Moderate Increase (0%to25%) Moderate Decrease (0%to-25%) Large Decrease %) *2017 information not available for Golf. Information to be released by National Golf Foundation. Participation figures above reflect 2011, 2015, and 2016 data. 3. Recreation Trends and Program Assessment CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN GENERAL FITNESS It should be noted that many of the activities that are rapidly growing have a relatively low user base, which allows for more drastic shifts in terms of percentage, especially for five-year trends. Increasing casual participants may also explain the rapid growth in some activities. For instance, core/casual participation trends showed that over the last five years, casual participants increased drastically in Non -Traditional/ Off Road (119.6%) and Tai Chi (26.9%), while the core participant base of both activities experienced significantly less growth. Table 3-2 NATIONAL PARTICIPATORY TRENDS - GENERAL FITNESS Activity Participation Levels % Change 2012 2016 2017 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend Fitness Walking 114,029 107,895 110,805 -2.8% 2.7% Treadmill 50,839 51,872 52,966 4.2% 2.1% Free Weights (Dumbbells/Hand Weights) N/A 51,513 52,217 N/A 1.4% Running/Jogging 51,450 47,384 50,770 -1.3% 7.1% Weight/Resistant Machines 38,999 35,768 36,291 -6.9% 1.5% Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright) 35,987 36,118 36,035 0.1% -0.2% Stretching 35,873 33,771 33,195 -7.5% -1.7% Elliptical Motion Trainer* 28,560 32,218 32,283 13.0% 0.2% Free Weights (Barbells) 26,688 26,473 27,444 2.8% 3.7% Yoga 23,253 26,268 27,354 17.6% 4.1% Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise N/A 25,110 24,454 N/A -2.6% Choreographed Exercise N/A 21,839 22,616 N/A 3.6% Aerobics (High Impact) 16,178 21,390 21,476 32.7% 0.4% Stair Climbing Machine 12,979 15,079 14,948 15.2% -0.9% Cross -Training Style Workout N/A 12,914 13,622 N/A 5.5% Stationary Cycling (Group) 8,477 8,937 9,409 11.0% 5.3% Trail Running 5,806 8,582 9,149 57.6% 6.6% Pilates Training 8,519 8,893 9,047 6.2% 1.7% Cardio Kickboxing 6,725 6,899 6,693 -0.5% -3.0% Boot Camp Style Cross -Training 7,496 6,583 6,651 -11.3% 1.0% Martial Arts 5,075 5,745 5,838 15.0% 1.6% Boxing for Fitness 4,831 5,175 5,157 6.7% -0.3% Tai Chi 3,203 3,706 3,787 18.2% 2.2% Barre N/A 3,329 3,436 N/A 3.2% Triathlon (Traditional/Road) 1,789 2,374 2,162 20.8% -8.9% Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road) 1,075 1,705 1,878 74.7% 10.1% NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend: Large Increase (greater than 25%) M oderate Increase (o% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) *Cardio Cross Trainer is merged to Elliptical Motion Trainer SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment NATIONAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION Results from the SFIA report demonstrate a contrast of growth and decline in participation regarding outdoor/adventure recreation activities. Much like the general fitness activities, these activities encourage an active lifestyle, can be performed individually or within a group, and are not as limited by time constraints. In 2017, the most popular activities, in terms of total participants, from the outdoor / adventure recreation category include: Day Hiking (44.9 million), Road Bicycling (38.8 million), Freshwater Fishing (38.3 million), and Camping within'/4 mile of Vehicle/ Home (26.2 million). Table 3-3 From 2012-2017, BMX Bicycling (83.4%), Adventure Racing (56.3%), Backpacking Overnight (38.3%), and Day Hiking (30.1%) have undergone the largest increases in participation. Similarly, in the last year, activities growing most rapidly include: BMX Bicycling (10.0%), Backpacking Overnight (8.1%), and Day Hiking (6.6%). The five-year trend shows activities declining most rapidly were In -Line Roller Skating (-20.7%), Camping within'/4 mile of Home/Vehicle (-16.5%), and Birdwatching (-9.2%). More recently, activities experiencing the largest declines were Adventure Racing (-15.7%), Traditional Climbing (-9.4%), and In -Line Roller Skating (-2.1 %). CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION Regarding the national trend of outdoor activities participation is on the rise, all activities, except for In -Line Roller Skating and Freshwater Fishing, underwent increases in casual participation over the last five years. Any decline in participation over the last five years was mainly ascribed to decreases in core participants for activities such as In -Line Roller Skating (-32.6%), Skateboarding (-10.7%), Road Bicycling (-10.4%), Camping Recreational Vehicle (-10.0%), and Archery (-3.2%). NATIONAL PARTICIPATORY TRENDS - OUTDOOR/ ADVENTURE RECREATION Activity Participation Levels % Change 2012 2016 2017 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend Hiking (Day) 34,519 42,128 44,900 30.1% 6.6% Bicycling (Road) 39,790 38,365 38,86 --2.3% 1.3% Fishing (Freshwater) 39,002 38,121 38,346 -1.7% 0.6% Camping (< 1/4 Mile of Vehicle/Home) 31,454 26,467 26,262 -16.5% -0.8% Camping (Recreational Vehicle) 15,903 15,855 16,159 1.6% 1.9% Fishing (Saltwater) 12,000 12,266 13,062 8.9% 6.5% Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home) 13,535 11,589 12,296 -9.2% 6.1% Backpacking Overnight 7,933 10,151 10,975 1 38.3% 8.1% Bicycling (Mountain) 7,265 8,615 8,609 18.5% -0.1% Archery 7,173 7,903 7,769 8.3% -1.7% Fishing (Fly) 5,848 6,456 6,791 16.1% 5.2% Skateboarding 6,227 6,442 6,382 2.5% -0.9% Roller Skating, In -Line 6,647 5,381 5,268 -20.7% -2.1% Bicycling (BMX) 1,861 3,104 3,413 183.4% 10.0% Adventure Racing 1,618 2,999 1 2,529 56.3% -15.7% Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering) 1 2,189 2,790 2,527 15.4% 1 -9.4% NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend: Large Increase (greater than 25 Moderate Increase (0%to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0%to-25%) Large Decrease (less than-25%) 3. Recreation Trends and Program Assessment NATIONAL TRENDS IN AQUATIC ACTIVITY Swimming is unquestionably a lifetime sport, which is most likely why it has experienced such strong participation growth among the American population. In 2017, Fitness Swimming is the absolute leader in overall participation (27.1 million) for aquatic activities, due in large part to its broad, multigenerational appeal. In the most recent year, Fitness Swimming reported the strongest growth (2.0%) among aquatic activities, while Aquatic Exercise and Competitive Swimming experienced decreases in participation. Aquatic Exercise has had a strong participation base of 10.4 million, however it also has recently experienced a slight decrease in participants (-1.1%). Based on previous trends, this activity could rebound in terms of participation due largely to ongoing research that demonstrates the activity's great therapeutic benefit coupled with increased life expectancies and a booming senior population. Aquatic Exercise has paved the way as a less stressful form of physical activity, while allowing similar benefits as land -based exercises, such as aerobic fitness, resistance training, flexibility, and balance. Doctors are still recommending Aquatic Exercise for injury rehabilitation, mature patients, and patients with bone or joint problems. Compared to a standard workout, Aquatic Exercise can significantly reduce stress placed on weight -bearing joints, bones, and muscles, while also reducing swelling. CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN AQUATIC ACTIVITY While all activities have undergone increases in participation over the last five years, most recently, casual participation (1-49 times) is increasing much more rapidly than core participation (50+ times). For the five-year timeframe, casual participants of Competition Swimming increased by 56.2%, Aquatic Exercise by 24.8%, and Fitness Swimming by 21.0%. However, core participants of Competition Swimming decreased by -6.5% and Aquatic Exercise declined by -4.6% (from 2012 to 2017). NATIONAL TRENDS IN WATER SPORTS / ACTIVITIES The most popular water sports / activities based on total participants in 2017 were Recreational Kayaking (10.5 million), Canoeing (9.2 million), and Snorkeling (8.3 million). It should be noted that water activity participation tends to vary based on regional, seasonal, and Table 3-4 NATIONAL PARTICIPATORY TRENDS - AQUATICS Activity Participation Levels % Change 2012 2016 2017 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend Swimming (Fitness) 23,216 26,601 27,135 16.9% 2.0% Aquatic Exercise 9,177 10,575 10,459 14.0% -1.1% Swimming (Competition) 2,502 3,369 3,007 20.2% -10.7% NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend' Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0%to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0%to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment environmental factors. A region with more water access and a warmer climate is more likely to have a higher participation rate in water activities than a region that has long winter seasons or limited water access. Therefore, when assessing trends in water sports and activities, it is important to understand that fluctuations may be the result of environmental barriers which can greatly influence water activity participation. Over the last five years, Stand - Up Paddling (138.9%) was by far the fastest growing water activity, followed by White Water Kayaking (33.1%), Recreational Kayaking (28.7%), and Sea/Tour Kayaking (20.8%). Although the five-year trends show water sport activities are getting more popular, the most recent year shows a different trend. From 2016-2017 Stand -Up Paddling Recreational Kayaking reflect much slower increases in participation (3.3% and 5.2%), while White Water Kayaking (-2.0%), Sea/Tour Kayaking (-5.4%) both show decreases in participation numbers. From 2012-2017, activities declining most rapidly were Jet Skiing (-22.6%), Water Skiing (-19.4%), and Wakeboarding (-10.8%). In the most recent year, activities experiencing the greatest declines in participation included: Boardsailing/Windsurfing (-9.4%), Canoeing (-8.2%), and Scuba Diving (-7.6%). CORE VS. CASUAL TRENDS IN WATER SPORTS / ACTIVITIES As mentioned previously, regional, seasonal, and environmental limiting factors may influence the participation rate of water sport and activities. These factors may also explain why all water -based activities have more casual participants than core participants, since frequencies of activities may be constrained by uncontrollable factors. Table 3-5 NATIONAL PARTICIPATORY TRENDS - WATER SPORTS/ ACTIVITIES Activity Participation Levels % Change 2012 2016 2017 5-Year Trend 1-Year Trend Kayaking (Recreational) 8,187 10,017 10,533 28.7% 5.2% Canoeing 91813 10,046 9,220 -6.0% -8.2% Snorkeling 8,664 8,717 8,384 -3.2% -3.8% Jet Skiing 6,996 5,783 5,418 -22.6% -6.3% Sailing 3,841 4,095 3,974 3.5% -3.0% Water Skiing 4,434 3,700 3,572 -19.4% -3.5% Rafting 3,756 31428 3,479 -7.4% 1.5% Stand -Up Paddling 1,392 3,220 3,325 138.9% 3.3% Wakeboarding 3,368 2,912 3,005 -10.8% 3.2% Kayaking (Sea/Touring) 2,446 3,124 2,955 20.8% -5.4% Scuba Diving 2,781 3,111 2,874 3.3% -7.6% Surfing 21545 2,793 2,680 5.3% -4.0% Kayaking (White Water) 1,878 2,552 2,500 33.1% -2.0% Boardsailing/Windsurfing 11372 1,737 1,573 14.7% -9.4% NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over Legend: Large Increase (greater than25%) Moderate Increase (0%to25%) Moderate Decrease (0%to-25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 3. Recreation Trends and Program Assessment ACTIVITY BY GENERATION Analyzing participation by age for recreational activities reveals that fitness and outdoor sports were the most common activities across all generations. Breaking down activity level by generation shows a converse correlation between age and healthy activity rates. Generation Z (born 2000+) were the most active, with only 17.6% identifying as inactive. Approximately 65% of individuals within this generation where active in 2017; with 26.3% being active to a healthy level, 18.5% being active & high calorie, and 20.1% being casual active & low/med calorie. Almost half (46.7%) of millennials (born 1980-1999) were active to a healthy level (35.4%) or active & high calorie (11.3%), while 24.0% claimed they were inactive. Even though this inactive rate is much higher than Generation Zs (17.6%), it is still below the national inactive rate (28%). Figure 3-1 2017 PARTICIPATION RATES BY GENERATION US Population, Aged 6+ Generation Z (2000+) 26.3% T Generation X (1965 - 1979) Millennials (1980 - 1999) The Boomers (1945 - 1964) Times per year: Casual (1-50), Active (51-150), Active to Healthy Level (151+) Generation X (born 1965-1979) has the second highest active to a healthy level rate (35.0%) among all generations, only being 0.4% less than Millennials. At the same time, they also have the second highest inactive rate, with 28.1% not active at all. The Boomers (born 1945-1964) were the least active generation, with an inactive rate of 33.3%. This age group tends to participate in less intensive activities. Approximately 34% claimed to engage in casual & low/med calorie (4.3%) or low/med calorie (29.6%) burning activities. ■ Active to a Healthy Level ■ Active & High Calorie ■ Casual & Low/ Med Calorie ■ Low/ Med Calorie ■ Inactive SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMING TRENDS Programs Offered by Park And Recreation Agencies (Pacific Southwest Region) NRPAs Agency Performance Review 2018 summarize key findings from NRPA Park Metrics, which is a benchmark tool that compares the management and planning of operating resources and capital facilities of park and recreation agencies. The report contains data from 1,069 park and recreation agencies across the U.S. as reported between 2015 and 2017. The report shows that the typical agencies (i.e., those at the median values) offer 161 programs annually, with roughly 60% of those programs being fee -based activities/events. According to the information reported to the NRPA, the top five programming activities most frequently offered by park and recreation agencies, both in the U.S. and regionally, are described in the table below. When comparing Pacific Southwest agencies to the U.S. average, team sports, themed special events, social recreation events, fitness enhancement classes, and health and wellness education were all identified as top five most commonly provided program areas offered regionally and nationally. �+ HI ,•.•,,� • ■ Pacific Southwest Region Table 3-6 TOP 5 MOST OFFERED CORE PROGRAM AREAS (Offered by Parks and Recreation Agencies) Team sports (86%) Themed special events (84%) Social recreation events (81%) Fitness enhancement classes (78%) Health and wellness education (78%) Team sports (88%) Themed special events (84%) Fitness enhancement classes (83%) Social recreation events (81%) Health and wellness education (81%) 3. Recreation Trends and Program Assessment In general, Pacific Southwest park and recreation agencies offered programs at a slightly higher rate than the national average. Based on a discrepancy threshold of 5% or more, Pacific Southwest agencies are offering fitness enhancement classes, safety training, aquatics, martial arts, performing arts, and cultural crafts at a higher rate than the national average. Contradictory, the Pacific Southwest Region is trailing the national average in regards to trips and tours and natural and cultural history activities. A complete comparison of regional and national programs offered by agencies can be found below. Figure 3-2 CORE PROGRAM AREAS OFFERED BY PARKS AND RECREATION AGENCIES (Percent of Agencies) US 0 Pacific Southwest Team sports Themed special events Social recreation events Fitness enhancement classes Health and wellness education Safety training Aquatics Individual sports Trips and tours Racquet sports Martial arts Performing arts Cultural crafts Visual arts Natural and cultural history activities Golf 45% 47% 44% 86% - 88% - 84% - 84% - 81% - 81% - 78% - 83% - 78% � 81% - 70% 77% 69% 74% - 68% - 66% - 64% 57% - 62% 58% - 61% 75% - 61% 71% 58% - 65% 56% 60% 53% SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Targeted Programs For Children, Seniors, And People With Disabilities For better understanding of targeted programs by age segment, the NRPA also tracks program offerings that cater specifically to children, seniors, and people with disabilities, on a national and regional basis. This allows for further analysis of these commonly targeted populations. According to the 2018 NRPA Agency Performance Review, approximately 79% of agencies offer dedicated senior programming, while 62% of park and recreation agencies provide adaptive programming for individuals with disabilities. Based on information reported to the NRPA, the top three activities that target children, seniors, and/ or people with disabilities most frequently offered by park and recreation agencies are described in the table below. Agencies in the Pacific Southwest tend to offer targeted programs at a significantly higher rate than the national average. This is especially evident when looking at specific teen programs, after school programs, and preschool school programs. A complete comparison of regional and national programs offered by agencies can be found below. Table 3-7 TOP 3 MOST OFFERED CORE PROGRAM AREAS (Targeting Children, Seniors, and/or People with Disabilities) Summcr camp (84%) Senior programs (79%) Teen programs (631/o) Figure 3-3 Summcr camp (801/o) -- Senior programs 78%) Teen programs (701/6) CORE PROGRAM AREAS TARGETING CHILDREN, SENIORS AND/OR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES (Percent of Agencies) Summer camp Specific senior programs Specific teen programs Programs for people with disabilities After school programs Preschool Before school programs Full daycare M US E Pacific Southwest 84% Yo 3. Recreation Trends and Program Assessment LOCAL SPORT AND MARKET POTENTIAL The following charts show sport and leisure market potential data from ESRI. A Market Potential Data (MPI) measures the probable demand for a product or service within the City and its surrounding service area. The MPI shows the likelihood that an adult resident of the target area will participate in certain activities when compared to the US National average. The national average is 100, therefore numbers below 100 would represent a lower than average participation rate, and numbers above 100 would represent higher than average participation rate. The service area is compared to the national average in three (3) categories — general sports, fitness and outdoor activity. Overall, San Luis Obispo demonstrates extremely high market potential index (MPI) numbers. Looking at the three categories (general sports, fitness and outdoor activity), even though they each have a few activities with MPI scores below the national averages, the majority of the activities' MPI scores fall well above 100+. These overall MPI scores show that San Luis Obispo has relatively strong participation rates when it comes to almost all recreational activities. This becomes significant for when the City considers building new facilities or starting up new programs, giving them a strong tool to estimate resident attendance. It must be noted that San Luis Obispo is a college -town and that the high MPI numbers are likely influenced by California Polytechnic State University's student body population High index numbers (100+) are significant because they demonstrate that there is a greater potential that residents of the service area will actively participate in offerings provided by the City. MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR GENERAL SPORTS VOLLEYBALL 102% above national average PO PING PONG 72% above national average BASKETBALL 71% above national average ® FOOTBALL 68% above national average 0 DISC GOLF 64% above national average MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR GENERAL FITNESS YOGA 43% above national average YWEIGHT LIFTING 42% above national average JOGGING 42% above national average SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR OUTDOOR ACTIVITY BACKPACKING 71% above national average IA.BICYCLING (MOUNTAIN) 61% above national average BICYCLING (ROAD) 61% above national average Figure 3-4 MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR GENERAL SPORTS San Luis Obispo ---- National Average 100 200 150 100 50 0 202 171 168 164 172 Baseball Basketball Football Frisbee/ Ping Pong Soccer Softball Tennis Volleyball Disc Golf Figure 3-5 MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR FITNESS San Luis Obispo ---- National Average 100 14� 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Aerobics Jogging/ Pilates Swimming Walkingfor Weight Yoga Zumba Running Exercise Lifting Figure 3-6 MARKET POTENTIAL INDEX FOR OUTDOOR ACTIVITY San Luis Obispo ---- National Average 100 171 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Archery Backpacking Bicycling Bicycling Canoeing/ Fishing Hiking Horseback Target (Mountain) (Road) Kayaking (Fresh Water) Riding Shooting 3. Recreation Trends and Program Assessment SUMMARY It is critically important for the San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department to understand the local and national participation trends in recreation activities. In doing so, the Department can gain general insight into the lifecycle stage of recreation programs and activities (emerging, stable and declining) and thereby anticipate potential changes in need and demand for the programs and activities that it provides to the residents of San Luis Obispo. Here are some major takeaways for local and national recreation trends: • Golf remained the most popular sport both nationally and locally. • Nationally, rugby has emerged as the overall fastest growing sport over the past five years and though it has yet to make its presence felt in San Luis Obispo. • Ultimate Frisbee, tackle football and touch football are losing participants both nationally. • All listed aquatic activities have experienced strong participation growth nationally. Swimming on a team saw significant increases in casual participation. • Fitness walking remained the most popular fitness activity nationally and will likely grow in popularity in San Luis Obispo given the strength of the trail system in the City. • Outdoor recreational activities are on the rise nationally. Hiking is extremely popular both nationally and locally. • Based on national measurements, income level has a negative impact on inactivity rate. Lower income households tend to have higher inactivity rate. Age is also a significant factor to inactivity level. Generation Z (age 6-17) had the lowest inactivity rate while the boomers (age 55+) had the highest inactivity rate. • Besides income and age factors, non -participants are more likely to join sports or fitness activities if a friend accompanies them. • Ownership of health and fitness tracking devices has increased in recent years. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment The San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department has a professional staff that d meets the parks and recreational needs of its community through wide array of programs and services. Department staff are responsible for the management and production of recreation programs including community and neighborhood events, and the operation of multiple facilities including pools, a golf course, baseball stadium, sports fields, skate park, roller hockey rink and more. Employees are engaged year-round in planning, managing, producing, conducting, and evaluating programs and events. The functions within the Department combine to provide hundreds of offerings in the areas of youth activities and camps, outdoor adventure, aquatics, sports, health, fitness, activities geared to seniors, and special events. In addition to the programs and activities provided directly by the Department, partnerships with other organizations are utilized to enhance recreational offerings to the community particularly in the areas of youth and adult activities. Through formal and informal cooperative relationships with the San Luis Coastal School District and nonprofit agencies, partners assist with delivering select programs and indoor space required for programs provided by the Department. CORE PROGRAM APPROACH It is the opinion of PROS Consulting that publicly produced recreation is challenged by the premise of being all things to all people, especially in a community such as San Luis Obispo with a an active, engaged population with a diversity of recreational needs. The philosophy of the "Core Program Area" is to assist staff, policy makers, and the public focus on what the most important recreational programs are in the San Luis Obispo community. As defined by PROS Consulting, program areas are considered as Core if they meet a majority of the following categories: • The program area has been provided for a long period of time (over 4-5 years) and/or is expected by the community. • The program area consumes a relatively large portion (5% or more) of the agency's overall budget. • The program area is offered 3-4 seasons per year. • The program area has wide demographic appeal. • There is a tiered level of skill development available within the program area's offerings. • There is full-time staff responsible for the program area. • There are facilities designed specifically to support the program area. • The agency controls a significant percentage (20% or more) of the local market. SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKS AND RECREATION CORE PROGRAM AREAS The Department currently offers programs and services in five Core Program Areas, identified in the Table 3-11. ENSURING THE RIGHT CORE PROGRAM MIX The Core Program Areas provided by San Luis Obispo currently appear to meet the major needs of the San Luis Obispo residents as identified through the community input received during the community input phase of the master plan project, but the program mix should be evaluated on a regular and recurring basis to ensure that the offerings within each Core Program Area — and the Core Program Areas themselves — align with changing leisure trends, demographics, and needs of residents. Best practice guidelines as provided by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) recommends that six determinants be used to inform what programs and services are provided by the Department. According to NRPA, those determinants are: 3. Recreation Trends and Program Assessment Table 3-8 CORE PROGRAM AREAS Aquatics Provide a safe and well -maintained facility offering diverse aquatic activities. Recreation swimming, lap swimming, and swimming instruction. Community Services Manage recreational sports for youth and teens (age 5-18 years old), adult and boomers (50+). Produce community - wide special events, including events at the Historic Jack House, Mission Plaza, Downtown San Luis Obispo, Sinsheimer Pool and other city parks. Manage enrichment programs including Contract Classes, Community Gardens, Senior and Boomer Activities, and the SLO Skate Park. Serve as liaison to the Jack House Advisory Committee. Coordination the City -Wide Volunteer program. Facilitate the City -Wide Special Event program and permitting process. Facility Rentals Manage, supervise and schedule internal and external uses of City buildings, facilities, fields, and reserved park areas. Coordinate the scheduling of facility maintenance with various City departments and user groups. Oversee the issuance of facility rental permits; facilitate the review and approval of permits for special events, banner and film permits. Golf Operate and maintain the 26-acre, 10-hole executive length Laguna Lake Golf Course 362 days of the year. Maintain a safe, attractive course while offering a reasonably priced recreational opportunity with an emphasis on senior and youth patrons. Focus on new program initiatives and increased sustainable practices in ongoing maintenance. Youth Services Provide services to over 1,200 children and their families before and after school, during spring and other school academic breaks and throughout the summer. Youth Services provides essential child care to families, while programs focus on the healthy and positive development of children, including both cognitive, academic and social development. Progressive and antibias curriculum offers a variety of activities, social exp4eriences, and opportunities that promote learning, awareness of community, fitness and health, academic support and fun. • Conceptual foundations of play, recreation, and leisure — Programs and services should encourage and promote a degree of freedom, choice, and voluntary engagement in their structure and design. Programs should reflect positive themes aimed at improving quality of life for both individuals and the overall community. • Organizational philosophy, mission, and vision — Programs and services should support the Department's mission and vision statements, values, goals, and objectives. These generally center on promoting personal health, community well-being, social equality, environmental awareness, and economic vitality. • Constituent interests and desired needs —Departments should actively seek to understand the recreational needs and interests of their constituency. This not only ensures an effective (and ethical) use of taxpayer dollars, but also helps to make sure that programs perform well and are valued by residents. Creation of a constituent - centered culture — Programs and services do reflect a departmental culture where constituents' needs are the prime factor in creating and providing programs. This should be reflected not only in program design, but in terms of staff behaviors, architecture, furniture, technology, dress, forms of address, decision -making style, planning processes, and forms of communication. • Experiences desirable for clientele — Programs and services should be designed to provide the experiences desirable to meet the needs of the participants/clients in a community and identified target markets. This involves not only identifying and understanding the diversity of needs in a community, but also applying recreation programming expertise and skills to design, implement, and evaluate a variety of desirable experiences for residents to meet those needs. Community opportunities —When planning programs and services, a Department should consider the network of opportunities afforded by other organizations such as nonprofits, schools, other public agencies, and the private sector. Departments should also recognize where gaps in service provision occur and consider how unmet needs can be addressed. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment SURVEY FINDINGS As part of the process for developing a Park and Recreation Master Plan, ETC conducted a statistically valid citizen survey to identify satisfaction with park and recreation facilities, identify needed park and recreation facilities and programs, and gain input from citizens that will assist City officials in park and recreation resource allocation, budget and policy decisions. A total of 507 households participated in the survey. Participants rated the City of San Luis Obispo as having a current or anticipated need for the following recreation programs, ranked in order of importance (full results on this topic can be found in a separate document ) as noted in the chart to the right. Understanding the experiences desired by residents is a key component of developing a program plan that can effectively and efficiently utilize resources allocated by the San Luis Obispo's City Council for community services. Figure 3-7 RECREATION PROGRAMS RESPONDENT HOUSEHOLDS HAVE USED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Community special events Recreational swimming Lap swimming Swim lessons Yoga Personal training & fitness classes Tennis Sun n' Fun & Club Star Music lessons Historic Jack House & Gardens tours Ranger -led hikes Aqua aerobics & Pilates Adult softball Triathalon Adult soccer Kidz Love Soccer Gymnastics classes & camps Warm water exercise class Youth basketball Senior Center classes & activities Lifeguard training & Junior Guards Pickleball Golf instruction LEGO camps Skate park camps, clinics, & activities Golf tournaments Youth futsal Tennis lessons & training Ludwick drop in sports Junior Ranger Activity Camp Surfing lessons Youth fitness & wellness programs Junior giants Ultimate pick-up Other 0% Source: ETC Institute (2018) 10% 20% 30% 3. Recreation Trends and Program Assessment AGE SEGMENT ANALYSIS The table below depicts each program along with the age segments they serve. Recognizing that many programs serve multiple age segments. Primary and secondary markets were identified by staff. Findings from the analysis show that the Department provides a good balance of programs across all age segments. All segments are targeted as a primary market for multiple programs. AGE SEGMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The Department age balance should be maintained moving forward, and the Department should update this Age Segment Analysis every year to note changes or to refine age segment categories. Given the growing population trend for residents ages 55 and over and the growing demand for services in this age bracket, it is also recommended that the Department further segment this group into 65-74 and 75+. These two sub -segments will have increasingly different needs Table 3-9 AGE SEGMENT ANALYSIS - CURRENT SEGMENTS SERVED and expectations for programs and services in coming years, and program planning will be needed to provide differing requirements for active seniors. Age Segment Analyses should ideally be done for each individual program offered by the Department. Program coordinators/managers should include this information when creating or updating program plans for individual programs. An Age Segment Analysis can also be incorporated into Mini Business Plans for comprehensive program planning. 311111W 2111; U A A' 11 L I AXILI Af.;TITL AkILT SENIOR Aquatics Primary Primary Secondary Primary Primary Primary Primary Facilities Secondary Secondary Secondary Primary Primary Primary Primary Golf Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Primary Primary Community Services Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Youth Services Primary Primary Secondary Rangers Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS A lifecycle analysis involves reviewing every program identified by City of San Luis Obispo staff to determine the stage of growth or decline for each as a way of informing strategic decisions about the overall recreation program portfolio. The various stages of program lifecycles are as follows: • Introduction - New program; modest participation • Take -Off - Rapid participation growth • Growth - Moderate, but consistent participation growth • Mature - Slow participation growth • Saturated - Minimal to no participation growth; extreme competition • Decline - Declining participation This analysis is not based on strict quantitative data, but rather is based on staffs knowledge of their program areas. The table below shows the percentage distribution of the various lifecycle categories of the Department's recreation programs. These percentages were obtained by comparing the number of programs in each individual stage with the total number of programs listed by staff. Overall, the lifecycle analysis results indicate an unbalanced distribution of all programs across the life cycle. A combined total of 77.1% of programs fall into the Introduction, Take -off and Growth stages, primarily due to growth of programs introduced in the last three years. RECOMMENDATIONS While it is important to provide new programs to align with trends and help meet the evolving needs of the community, it is also important to have a stable core segment of programs that are in the Mature stage. Currently, the Department has only 16.1% of their programs in this category. The consulting team recommends this be approximately 40% so as to provide stability to the overall program portfolio, but without dominating the portfolio with programs that are advancing to the later stages of the lifecycle. Programs in the Mature stage should be tracked for signs they are entering the Saturation or Decline stages. There should be an ongoing process to evaluate program participation and trends to ensure that program offerings continue to meet the community's needs. A total of 6.8% of programs are in saturated or declining phases. The consulting team recommends keeping as few programs as Table 3-10 possible in these two stages, but it is understood that programs eventually evolve into saturation and decline. If programs never reach these stages, it is an indication that staff may be "over -tweaking" their offerings and abbreviating the natural evolution of programs. This prevents programs from reaching their maximum participation, efficiency, and effectiveness. For departments challenged with doing the most they can with limited resources, this has the potential to be an area of concern. As programs enter into the Decline stage, they must be closely reviewed and evaluated for repositioning or elimination. When this occurs, the consulting team's recommendation is to modify these programs to begin a new lifecycle with the introductory stage or to add new programs based upon community needs and trends. Staff should complete a lifecycle review on an annual basis and ensure that the percentage distribution closely aligns with desired performance. RECREATION PROGRAM LIFECYCLE ANALYSIS - CURRENT DISTRIBUTION Introduction 9% 11 Take -Off 1 20% 24 77.1% 50 - 60% Growth 147% 56 Mature 16% 19 16.1% 40% Saturated 3% 3 6.8% 0 - 10% Decline 4% 5 TOTAL 100% 118 3. Recreation Trends and Program Assessment OTHER KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS • Participation: The San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department has a holistic tracking method for all programs and services it offers. • Program Evaluation: Assessment and evaluation tools to measure the success of programs and services are in place. • Customer Satisfaction and Retention: The Department currently tracks customer satisfaction ratings but not customer retention percentages. • Staff Training/Evaluation: The Department has a staff training program and solid evaluation methods in place. • Public Input: The Department utilizes survey tools to continually gather feedback on needs and unmet needs for programming. • Pricing: The Department has an updated pricing policy that includes pricing strategies and cost recovery goals. • Marketing: The Department utilizes a number of marketing strategies to inform City residents of the offerings of the community. • Volunteers: The Department has strong foundational elements in place for its volunteer program. • Partnerships: The Department utilizes a number of partner providers to deliver programs to San Luis Obispo residents and has a formal partnership policy in place. • Competition: The Department has a general understanding of other service providers. Expand programs and services in the areas of greatest demand: Ongoing analysis of the participation trends of programming and services in San Luis Obispo is significant when delivering high quality programs and services. By doing so, staff will be able to focus their efforts on the programs and services of the greatest need and reduce or eliminate programs and services where interest is declining. Program Evaluation: Implement the program assessment and evaluation tool as recommended. Assessment and evaluation tool is provided as an Excel spreadsheet as a stand- alone separate document. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment SUMMARY The Department is delivering quality programs, services and events to the community, however, does have opportunity for improvement. The chart below provides a summary of the recommended actions that the Department should implement in developing a program plan to meet the needs of residents. The listing of the program and service areas are consistent with the choices provided to the community during the outreach phase of the plan (public meetings, intercept surveys and statistically valid survey). =41 m m SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS PROGRAM ACTION 'M TIMELINE PRIORITYHIGH Community Special Events Expand Long -Term (Facility Development) Fitness & Wellness Programs Expand Short -Term Adult/Senior Programs and Services Expand Short -Term Gardening/Farm-to-Table Classes Expand Short -Term (Partnerships) Art Classes Expand Short -Term Outdoor Programs Expand Short -Term (Partnerships) Socialization with Dogs Expand Short -Term (Dog Park Development) Visiting Parks Facilities Short -Term (Enhance Parks) MEDIUM PRIORITY Performing Arts Programs Develop Environmental Education Programs Facilitate Walking/jogging/running events and Develop clubs Water Fitness Running Events Music Classes After School/Out of School Camps Long -Term (Facility Development) Short -Term (Partnerships) Short -Term (Partnerships) Expand Short -Term (Seasonal) Facilitate Short -Term (Partnerships) Facilitate Short -Term (Partnerships) Continue Short -Term LOW PRIORITY Youth Learn to Swim Programs Continue Short -Term Youth Sports Continue Short -Term (Partnerships) Youth Enrichment/Learning Consider Short -Term (Partnerships) Programs Golf I Consider Short -Term (Partnerships) Adult Sports I Consider Long -Term (Facility Development) Gymnastics Continue Short -Term (Partnerships) Programs for people with special Consider Short -Term (Partnerships) needs Competitive Swim Teams Consider Long -Term (Facility Development) Bicycle Lessons and Clubs Consider Short -Term (Partnerships) Note: Programs listed as low priority should not be interpreted as programs that should not be offered. These programs typically have a limited, targeted audience due in part to general appeal, age segment, and/or specific skills required to participate. These programs should be offered strategically in terms of frequency, days of week, times of day and time of year. 3. Recreation Trends and Program Assessment mjp mml t MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT --amm A willohl.- _ - - Parks and amenities that are clean and functioning efficiently are critical elements to delivering high quality experiences, programs, and services. The following park maintenance assessment for the City of San Luis Obispo has been conducted based on the analysis of information provided by the City and discussions with the Public Works Parks Maintenance Program and Parks and Recreation Golf Maintenance staff. OVERVIEW The Public Works Parks Maintenance Program maintains City owned parks and landscaped areas, including irrigation management and recreation support. This Program has the responsibility for actively managing and maintaining 211 (or 40%) of the City's 530 acres of parks and public grounds'. The City's Laguna Lake Golf Course is maintained by Parks and Recreation Department staff. Parks Maintenance staff are also supplemented by contract services forjanitorial maintenance of restrooms and park buildings, and some smaller parks. All staff and contractors engaged in maintaining parks and park facilities share the goal of safe, clean, and attractive parks and landscaped areas. 1. These acreage numbers are from the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, 2010-2011 Outsourced Landscape Maintenance table, received in April 2019. ACTIVITIES Park Maintenance: Maintaining large landscaped areas in developed parks for informal and formal City recreation programs; providing janitorial maintenance for park restrooms and other park buildings; collecting and disposing of waste from trash containers in parks; servicing and repairing landscape maintenance equipment; proposing improvement projects for parks; managing minor capital maintenance projects for parks; inspecting playgrounds for compliance with safety regulations; monitoring irrigation water use and proposing conservation measures. Cleaning up homeless encampments, and railroad right of way cleanup. Landscape Maintenance: Maintaining landscaped areas around small parks, community garden irrigation, parking lots, street medians, sound walls, and City buildings; proposing improvement projects for landscape areas; managing minor capital maintenance projects for landscaping; monitoring irrigation water use and proposing conservation measures. Training: Conducting safety training required by the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA); conducting technical training for new equipment and emerging landscape maintenance technologies; conducting ongoing pesticide safety training required by County and State regulatory mandates. Event Support: Grooming and marking playing fields; sweeping and maintaining game courts; assisting sponsors of events using City facilities. Provide the preparation, maintenance and renovation services for the Damon -Garcia Sports Complex to promote league play. KEY FINDINGS Lines of Service: Within the acreage noted above, the core lines of service (functions) performed by the Parks Maintenance Program are numerous and are as follows: Athletic Field Maintenance: The Parks Maintenance Program manages maintenance of athletic fields (turf and baseball/softball) for informal and formal utilization by the community. Contract Management: The Parks Maintenance Program maintains small equipment with Fleet Maintenance performing larger maintenance needs with the rolling stock, including mowers and trucks. Equipment Maintenance: The Parks Maintenance Program maintains small equipment with Fleet Maintenance performing larger maintenance needs with the rolling stock, including mowers and trucks. Golf Course Maintenance: The Parks and Recreation Golf Maintenance Division manages the maintenance of the ten -hole executive -length golf course including turf and irrigation maintenance, small 4. Maintenance Assessment equipment maintenance, ° Landscape Maintenance: • Third -Party Contracting of landscape maintenance, third Pest infestations present Services: Given the "varying" party contract services, and significant risk to the cycles of the economy, it is citizen inquiries. environment, biodiversity, imperative that the Program Playground, Furniture, health and safety, public continually evaluates the Fixture and Amenity infrastructure, recreational capacity and cost of service in Maintenance: The Parks opportunities and landscapes. the private sector. Without this Program maintains the The Parks Maintenance level of analysis, the Program built environment within Program uses best practices in will not be able to determine if the parks, including but implementing Integrated Pest it is more effective and efficient not limited to, playground Management Systems. to perform work "in-house" equipment benches, ° Playground Maintenance: or to "contract it out." The fencing, water fountains Playground maintenance is Program currently contracts out and picnic tables. Regular performed in accordance with custodial services and landscape inspection and preventative National Playground Safety maintenance of approximately maintenance is performed. Institute standards. 19 acres (or 9%) of the 211 The Program maintains all of Response to Citizen acres that it actively manages. The chart below details the the playground's in the parks system in accordance with the Inquiries: Staff n respond to, landscape standards and National Playground Safety meet with and resolve citizen areas/acreage maintained by Institute's guidelines. inquiries on an as needed contractors. Parks Maintenance basis. also does irrigation repairs on Integrated Pest Management Special Event Facilitation: these 55 locations maintained (IPM° Pest infestations The Parks Maintenance by contractors and is required to present present significant risk to the Supervisor meets in the field perform safety checks on parks environment, , p with all major special events, and playgrounds. public health and safety, public safety, in particular those hosted infrastructure, recreational in Mission Plaza, to ensure opportunities and landscapes. conditions of permits are met. The Parks Maintenance Program uses best practices in Urban Forestry: The City's implementing Integrated Pest Urban Forest Program of Management Systems. Public Works ensures the Turf and Irrigation health of individual trees and staff and/or contractors Maintenance: Irrigation perform maintenance. encompasses the application and conservation of water for Maintenance Standards: environmental enhancement Through the review of data, the of turf grass, trees and consulting team determined that landscape plants. This includes the Parks Maintenance Program maintaining and monitoring has best practice maintenance technical irrigation systems, standards with task, frequency to optimize water usage and and season of year in which work delivery. Diagnosing and is performed in parks and public making complex repairs on grounds. The following table is irrigation systems to help keep an example of the maintenance turf and landscape areas up to standards that the Program has standards. in place to guide its work. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Table 4-1 RIGHETTI RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Mowing Acres 0.5 3.71 Edging KLF 1 2600 Blowing KLF 1 1800 Walkways Blowing Play 1 Court 0.5 7 Courts Litter Each 1 0.5 Removal Trash Cans Each 0.083 30 Landscape Each 1 16 Maint. Graffiti/ Each 1 1 Vandalism Openings/ Each 1 1 Inspections Irrigation Each 1 1 Maint/Repair Structure Each 1 1 Maint/Repair Electrical/ Each 1 1 Lighting Line painting/ Each 1 1 stringing Annual Each 1 1 Renovation Restroom Each 1 1 Cleaning 1.9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 96 182.4 2.6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 48 124.8 1.8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 48 86.4 3.5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 414 4 48 168 0.5 28 28 28 28 28 35 35 35 28 28 28 28 357 178.5 2.49 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 102 254 16 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 48 768 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 24 24 1 31 28 31 30 31 30 131 31 30 31 30 I I 31 365 365 1 10 10 12 12 14 14 14 14 12 12 110 110 144 144 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 I96 96 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 16 16 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 48 240 40.6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 40.6 1 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 130 31 365 365 4. Maintenance Assessment Table 4-2 THIRD -PARTY CONTRACTING OF SERVICES R. Category A Service Level 2 Neighborhood Vista Lago Park 0.30 i Category A Service Level 2 Neighborhood Priolo Martin Park 0.20 E Category A Service Level 2 Neighborhood Anholm Park 0.03 = Category A Service Level 2 Landscape Only Buena Vista Circle 0.41 Category A Service Level 2 Turf only Margarita Islands 0.94 Category A Service Level 2 Mini Osos Triangles (Two) 0.28 Category A Service Level 2 Mini Stoneridge Park 0.50 Category A Service Level 2 Walkway Poinsettia Creek Walk 1.50 Category A Service Level 2 Mini Poinsettia Mini Park 0.05 Category A Service Level 2 Neighborhood De Vaul Ranch Park 0.73 aCategory A Service Level 2 Facility Landscape Fire Station 1 0.25 Category A Service Level 2 Facility Landscape Fire Station 4 0.27 i Category A Service Level 2 Facility Landscape City Hall- Little Theater 0.30 o Category A Service Level 2 Facility Landscape Police Facility 0.18 Category A Service Level 2 Facility Landscape Ludwick Center 0.16 DCategory A Service Level 2 Neighborhood Emerson Park- Recreation Offices 1.36 R Category A Service Level 2 Full Service Mitchell Park- Senior Center 2.35 Category A Service Level 2 Landscape Only Mission Plaza Extension 0.06 Category A Service Level 2 Facility Landscape City County Library 0.06 e Category B Service Level 3 Landscape Only Madonna Road Islands 0.07 Category B Service Level 3 Landscape Only Murray Islands 0.44 yCategory B Service Level 3 Natural Elsford Park 0.26 o Category B Service Level 3 Mini ETO Park 0.14 Category B Service Level 3 Mini Cheng Park 0.14 Category B Service Level 3 Landscaped Walk Railroad Recreation Trail (Also Railroad ROW) 0.87 aCategory B Service Level 3 Landscaped Walk Bill Roalman Bicycle Boulevard 0.05 u u Category B Service Level 3 Landscape Only South Street Sound wall 0.05 e " Category B Service Level Landscape Only Tank Farm Road Sound wall 0.72 Category B Service Level 3 Landscape Only Tank Farm Road Extension 0.46 Category C Service Level 4 Landscape Only Los Osos Valley Road Islands 0.70 A 0 Category C Service Level 4 Landscape Only Los Osos Valley Road Sound wall 0.15 y Category C Service Level 4 Natural Madonna/Higuera Triangles 0.02 Category C Service Level 4 Landscape Only Grand Avenue Islands 0.31 C Category C Service Level 4 Landscape Only Broad Street Islands 0.19 ° Category C Service Level 4 Landscape Only Orcutt Islands & Frontages 0.02 oCategory C Service Level 4 Natural Santa Rosa Street Median Islands 1.30 " Category C Service Level 4 Natural Cypress Island 0.68 c Category C Service Level 4 Landscape Only Portola Fountain Triangle 0.04 Category C Service Level 4 Landscape Only Calle Joaquin 0.28 Category C Service Level 4 Landscape Only Las Praderas Sound wall & Tank Farm Islands 0.05 Category C Service Level 4 Natural Las Praderas Park 0.09 Category C Service Level 4 Landscape Only San Luis Drive Frontage 0.22 Category C Service Level 4 Landscape Only Goldenrod Frontage 0.10 FCategory C Service Level 4 Landscape Only Brizzolara Sound wall 0.22 Category C Service Level 4 Natural Monterey Street Railroad Underpass 0.04 u Category D Service Level 5 Natural Auto Park Way Circle 0.16 L U Category D Service Level 5 Natural Anacapa Circle 0.15 Category E Service Level 2 Landscape Only Amtrak/Railroad Square 0.72 Category E Service Level 2 Landscape Only 630 Monterey Lot 14 0.14 o Category E Service Level 2 Natural Art Center Lot 15 0.04 aCategory E Service Level 2 Landscape Only Nipomo Lot 10 0.03 Category E Service Level 2 Landscape Only Muzio's Lots 3 and 11 0.03 Category E Service Level 2 Landscape Only Public Works Offices Lot 18 0.03 Category E Service Level 2 Landscape Only Palm Street Parking Garage 0.05 Category E Service Level 2 Landscape Only Marsh Street Pazking Garage 0.03 TOTAL 1 1 SERVICE 18.93 Categories A. Landscaped areas, parks, and facilities with turf B. Landscaped areas, parks, and facilities without turf C. Traffic median islands, roadside, and sound walls D. Sound walls, circles, islands and frontages with minimal vegetation E. Parking lots F. Railroad Right -of -Way (ROW) (per City agreement with railroad to obtain the lease for SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment In -House Maintenance: • Annual Park and Grounds • Annual Golf Maintenance Parks Maintenance performs Operation and Maintenance Funding: Based on analysis landscape maintenance of Funding: Based on analysis conducted by PROS Consulting, approximately 192 acres (or 91%) conducted by PROS Consulting, unit costs are in alignment with of the 211 acres that it actively unit costs are in alignment with best practice cost per acre. manages. The chart below best practice cost per acre. Annual Golf Maintenance details the areas and standards o Annual Park Maintenance Budget = $412,634 for acreage maintained by Budget = $2,779,205 City of San Luis Obispo's Parks » Staffing (salaries/wages/ Maintenance Program. The Golf » Staffing (salaries/wages/ benefits of City employees) Maintenance Division performs benefits of City employees) _ $215,674 or 53% landscape maintenance of 26 = $1,332,848 or 48% acres within the municipal golf > Contracted Custodial course. > Contracted Custodial Services = $6,960 or 1% Work Order Management Services = $90,000 or 3% System: The Parks Maintenance > Contracted Labor Services = Program does utilize a Work > Contracted Park Landscape $7,100 or 1% Order Management System Services = $311,600 or 11% that tracks work and the cost > Supplies and Materials = of work against its established > Supplies and Materials = $67,050 or 16% maintenance standards. $196,887 or 7% Staffing: The Parks Maintenance >> Professional Development = Program is comprised of 12 full- >> Professional Development = $3,150 or 0.7% time employees and five part- $11,720 or 0.4% time supplemental maintenance Utilities = $112,700 or 28% workers (14.5 FTEs) to actively >> Utilities = $836,150 or 31 Total Developed Golf Course manage 191 acres. Best practice ratio of staff per park acres is ° Total Developed Park and acres ACTIVELY Maintained: 1:10-15 acres. San Luis Obispo's Grounds Acres ACTIVELY 26 acres staff to acreage ratio is 1:13. Maintained: 211 acres Actual Annual Cost per Acre = With the responsibility of actively ° Actual Annual Cost per Acre = $15,870 managing and maintaining 191 $13,172 Best Practice Cost per Acre acres, the staff has the capacity - Best Practice Cost per Acre as defined by numerous costs to manage the lines of service as defined by numerous costs of service projects that PROS they perform as noted previously of service projects that PROS Consulting in California has Consulting in California has performed = $15,000-$20,000 performed = $10,000-$15,000 per acre per acre Based on the analysis of the standards provided and the scope of work for the third -party contractors, the Program has the required resources that are necessary to provide best practice maintenance of the parks system. 4. Maintenance Assessment Figure 4-3 IN-HOUSE MAINTENANCE CATEGORY' ACREAGO Category A Service Level 2 Sports Complex El Chorro Regional County Park -Ball Fields 0.64 Category A Service Level 2 Full Service Laguna Lake Park 71.30 Category A Service Level 2 Neighborhood Throop Park 3.05 Category A Service Level 1 Full Service Jack House Gardens 0.57 RCategory A Service Level 2 Full Service Santa Rosa Park 10.18 ?• �y Category A Service Level 2 Landscape Only Rodriguez Adobe 1.36 Category A Service Level 2 Full Service Sinsheimer Park/Stadium 32.60 3 Category A Service Level 2 Neighborhood Mission Plaza 1.80 a ; Category A Service Level 2 Full Service Meadow/Exposition Park 17.81 �? Category A Service Level 2 Neighborhood Laguna Hills Park 3.50 Category A Service Level 2 Neighborhood Islay Hill Park 10.80 Category A Service Level 2 Full Service Johnson Park 4.31 Category A Service Level 2 Full Service French Park 9.70 Category A Service Level 1 Sports Complex Damon -Garcia Sports Facility 23.56 w Z Category B Service Level 3 Landscape Only Butrone Adobe 466 Dana St. 0.69 TOTAL "IN-HOUSE" MAINTENA 191.87 Categories A. Landscaped areas, parks, and facilities with turf B. Landscaped areas, parks, and facilities without turf SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment Management of Contract should be incorporated into have a pesticide free park. We Services Management: new and existing parks where also use IPM practices and focus Continue to provide the turf is not needed in order to on removal of pests rather than necessary resources for the decrease water use. Gray and chemical treatments. management and oversight of recycled water systems should Select Low -Allergen Trees. The all third -party contractors that be explored and expanded. The selection of trees that produce provide maintenance services details of these practices should less airborne pollen will allow for the City of San Luis Obispo's be further developed in the allergy -sensitive families to parks and grounds. Master Plan. better enjoy City parks. One Update Work Plans Based Reduce and/or Eliminate local resource for guidance on on Maintenance Standards: Chemical Use: In landscape tree species may be found at Maintenance standards are areas, replace chemical https://selectree.calpoly.edu/ based on a Level (1), (2) and (3) herbicides, pesticides, and search -trees -by -characteristics. modes (tasks and frequencies fertilizers with non -toxic of each task) and follow best treatments, including LID practices as established by the practices for improving soil National Recreation and Park health. Use organic fertilizer with Association. The department humic acid and mycorrhizea should continually update and fungi when possible. Support use customize the standards based of Integrated Pest Management on the park and recreation (IPM) which focuses on pest values of the San Luis Obispo prevention through biological community. These standards control (such as the introduction and need to be implemented of a natural predator), habitat regardless of whether work is manipulation, and modification performed by City staff or third- of cultural practices including party contractors. site monitoring, cleanliness, Design and Maintain for routine maintenance, installing Energy Efficiency: Existing pest barriers, physical parks should be evaluated for removal of pests, and as a their resource use and modified last resort chemical control. through changes in maintenance In facilities, replace chemical practices, material and plant cleaning products with non - selections. New parks should be toxic alternatives. These designed for low energy use. recommendations will have impacts on staffing and budget Water Efficient Initiatives: since non -toxic chemicals are not Stormwater systems should as effective and require multiple be designed into parks, applications to achieve the especially where there is desired effect. These products room for treatment, detention are usually up to 10 times and storage of stormwater. more expensive and require Working landscape features increased application rates. We can be incorporated into have made significant strides to existing and proposed parks greatly reduce the amount of to help filter pollutants and chemicals used in parks. Most of capture stormwater. Low water our weed abatement is done by use planting and xeriscaping mechanical methods and we also 4. Maintenance Assessment A c wao� I f A a d i �1 DREAMS OF PARKS + FACILI7fE5.......... .,...r..� bp empow. r�r,rr• Mw.dre ►r# w OWAutr PW* � -,G., 4f ANf M ail Am 7 1a I►i 7+4� . r ow A67 amw* r be MI Mwr �iM rl N ice! am" go in ow if i-f 0t+aa+t+rr/ rT++ tlwf� rM ++y1 rvr 4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY SURVEY In 2017, the City, as directed by Council, funded and initiated the update of the Parks and Recreation General Plan Element and Master Plan update (the "Update"). The purpose of the update of the Element and Master Plan is to address current and future needs for the City of San Luis Obispo's parks, recreation facilities, programs, and services consistent with the objectives outlined in the adopted 2017-2019 financial plan and 2020 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan (2020 Strategic Plan). The creation of a prioritized Master Plan is intended to provide a comprehensive statement of the City's parks and recreation, priorities, goals, and implementation actions for the next 20 years. The Element and Master Plan policies and programs will serve as a blueprint, guiding the City and its various entities in priority setting and resource allocation. It is understood that the availability of financial resources can and will affect the timing of implementation but will not change the goals and intent. The Parks and Recreation Commission was assigned the duty of being the primary advisory body to for this project. A project plan and request for adjunctive consultant services was approved by Council, November 7, 2017. In February 2018, WRT was selected as the City's lead consultant to provide support during this process. In April 2018, WRT held focused meetings with key community partners and stakeholders. Community engagement is vital to identifying, understanding, and incorporating San Luis Obispo residents' needs, values, and aspirations into the update of the City's Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and a Master Plan. During the first phase of the Update, City Staff and the Consultant Team conducted a diverse set of outreach activities intended to inform community members about the process and collaborate with on their needs and vision for parks and recreation. 5. Community Engagement and the Community Survey As identified in the Project Plan for the Update, determining community needs has four primary components: • Community Engagement • Park and Facility Analysis • Recreation Services Analysis • Management and Operations Analysis Following the PRC's approval of the Community Engagement Plan in April 2018, staff developed a comprehensive public engagement effort for the Community Engagement component of the "determining community needs" phase of the Update process. Because it is such a critical component of the Update, the Community Engagement Plan identifies goals and a preferred series of outreach components to inform, consult and collaborate. The kit of tools builds on the existing community engagement culture in San Luis Obispo, consistent with the City's Public Engagement and Noticing Manual. First, Parks and Recreation Department Staff arranged "foundational meetings" with a range of residents, current and former commissioners, parks and recreation user groups, representatives of cultural organizations and others. As consultant for the City on the Plan Update project, WRT met with 45 individuals in 16 half-hour to one - hour meetings on April 10 and 11, 2018. City Staff were not present, to encourage candid dialogue about issues. Meanwhile, Staff worked to inform the public about the project itself, and the opportunity it presented for the community to share hopes and dreams about the future of parks and recreation in San Luis Obispo. With this in mind, outreach efforts conducted June through August focused on two foundational questions: • What do you love about City of SLO Parks, Activities, and Recreational Facilities? • What do you wish to have in 20 years for City of SLO Parks, Activities, and Recreational Facilities? Pop -ups. Over the course of the summer (May through August), City Staff conducted over 25 "pop-up" events with the Parks and Recreation "Bright Ideas" bicycle to reach San Luis Obispo residents and visitors in parks, facilities, programs, and events. During these pop -ups, the public had an opportunity to provide comments on portable white boards and take photos with the "Bright Ideas" bicycle for sharing on the Parks and Recreation Instagram account. Comment cards were also provided, which included the two foundational questions identified above, as well as City contact information, and space for the commenter to provide contact information. These cards could be handed to City staff, mailed to the Parks and Recreation Department, or dropped into comment card collection boxes and Parks and Recreation facilities. Additional marketing materials included "Bright Ideas" stickers and a "Save the Date" magnet for the public workshop held in September 2018. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING At the request of the Las Praderas neighborhood, City Staff met with interested neighbors to discuss the Update and the hopes and dreams for the Las Praderas Park and city as a whole. Staff continues to be available to go out into San Luis Obispo neighborhoods at the request of residents. SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBSITE To foster engagement in the process, Parks and Recreation Staff maintained and updated the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update website with new information, and posted updates and photos on the Department's Facebook page. Photos from pop-up events and meetings were posted to the Department's Instagram. At all events, Staff collected contact information, allowing individuals to add their names and email addresses to the growing interested parties list in order to receive all email updates regarding workshops, key Parks and Recreation Commission meetings, and opportunities for input and engagement. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT Staff also received comments by email and on the Open City Hall online portal. Additional pipelines for public comments included direct communications with Staff via phone and email, distribution of comment cards at the Parks and Recreation Department office, facilities, and events, and through the Open City Hall online portal. In addition, a survey was conducted August to October 2018 to establish residents' priorities for parks and recreation in the City of San Luis Obispo. The survey was mailed to a random sample of San Luis Obispo households. A total of 507 surveys were returned, allowing the survey to exceed its response rate goal and achieve a high level of statistical confidence. "BRIGHT IDEAS" PUBLIC WORKSHOP Supported by this extensive outreach, including multiple emails to a list over 6,000, over 600 people attended a participatory three-hour drop in interactive engagement workshop held at the Ludwick Community Center on September 13, 2018. Utilizing a drop -in format yielded great results. The extended timeframe allowed people to come for as brief or long a period as desired. Both main entrances of the Ludwick Center were open and staffed, and the gym was set up with one informational and seven interactive "stations," each designed to get different types of input on parks, facilities, and recreation in San Luis Obispo. At sign -in stations, Staff gave members of the public Passports to be stamped (encouraging attendees to stop at each interactive station) and returned for eligibility for entrance in a drawing for a FitbitTM. The first station, in the main foyer, was informational about the Update process itself and staffed by Community Development planners. Those staff were able to address general questions about the Update and the overall planning process. Within the main gym were six activity stations where workshop attendees could address focused questions or complete various exercises; a seventh "station" was provided for children. Each of these activities, and the resulting feedback, is summarized below. Over 600 people attended the "Bright Ideas" workshop at the Ludwick Center in September 2018. 5. Community Engagement and the Community Survey THEMES FROM THE FOUNDATIONAL MEETINGS In April 2018, WRT met with 45 individuals in small groups. Individuals represented a range of organizations and perspectives, including advocates for swimming, open space, dog parks, the senior center, golf, organized sports, cultural organizations, and neighborhoods, as well as members of the Planning Commission and City Council. During these discussions, there was a clear sense that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update can serve an important role in advancing quality of life in San Luis Obispo. We heard a great deal of appreciation for San Luis Obispo's natural and cultural attributes, and the potential for the Parks and Recreation Department to sustain these qualities. The following provides a summary of themes, priorities, goals, opportunities, and challenges that emerged from these meetings. PLAN PROCESS AND GOALS REACH BEYOND THE USUAL VOICES Several participants spoke about the need to reach beyond "the loudest voices and most organized groups" during the planning process. Specific guidance included: • Outreach has to be multigenerational; • Outreach should be focused on San Luis Obispo residents; • Reach the young Latino community; • Try to reach not only current users but former or potential users; • Be sensitive to seniors by scheduling events during the day; • Hold outreach events in neighborhoods; • Provide consistent and adequate advance notice. PROVIDE A STRONG FOUNDATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION According to various participants, the Master Plan Update should: • Provide a strategy and prioritization that are currently lacking; • Be comprehensive, not limited to the "hot spots" the receive the most debate • Provide a strong foundation for CIPs over the next 20 years; • Provide the foundation for an additional future funding source (e.g. a tax or bond) for a set of needed improvements the community can get behind; • Focus on opportunities for partnerships that both stretch limited public dollars and help to build community; • Be a user-friendly document that uses common language, and can be quickly referenced. PARKS ARE WHERE YOU BUILD COMMUNITY Two key points were made about the "message" and overarching goal for the Plan Update: • We should be clear that the Master Plan is about parks, not open spaces. • The core message should be that "parks are where you build community." We should not lose sight of this even as it addresses specific facility and program needs. NEW PARKS AND TRAILS PUBLIC SPACES DOWNTOWN AND ALONG THE CREEKS Downtown was a focus of attention. People recognized the unique functions and needs ahead compared with the outer neighborhoods. Participants spoke positively about new public spaces being created downtown as part of new development, making the connection between downtown growth and livability and open space preservation around the edges. "That's part of San Luis Obispo's DNA." Several participants agreed that the creeks that flow through San Luis Obispo are a great potential asset, and could be the backbone of a creek walk or park. Ashland, Oregon was pointed to as a great model for successful integration of creek, SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment park, and downtown activity. Use of the creeks by homeless people was identified as a serious issue to be addressed. NEW PARKS IN NEIGHBORHOODS One participant emphasized that the City may not be able to meet its ambitious park land standards, but he and others were supportive of continuing to strive to provide new parks, especially in densifying neighborhoods near downtown and in the North Broad Street area. TRAILS AND TRAIL CONNECTIONS Several participants were eager to see the City build on its trail system by extending key trails and creating spurs to parks and neighborhoods. One participant pointed out that San Luis Obispo has 55 miles of trails, but is missing shorter one- to three-mile trails that people can walk in an hour. Others pointed to the plan to extend the Railroad Safety Trail to Tank Farm Road; to connect that trail to Sinsheimer Park; and to connect the Bob Jones Trail to the Octagon Barn. FACILITY NEEDS MORE FACILITIES FOR SOCCER AND OTHER FIELD SPORTS Users of the Damon -Garcia Sports Complex explained how the sports complex has been challenging to maintain due to floodplain soils with poor drainage, causing the City to close the fields to practice play and during the summer. Planned improvements are intended to extend the usability of Damon - Garcia. Still, sports advocates believe there is a need for additional fields, pointing to the large numbers of both youth and adult soccer participants in San Luis Obispo, and the growing popularity of other field sports (rugby, lacrosse and field hockey). There was considerable interest in developing a complex of fields large enough to support tournaments. Potential sites for a future sports complex included Los Osos Valley Road at Foothill; San Luis Ranch; and the airport overflight area. Meanwhile, existing parks where land could be repurposed as fields included Laguna Lake, French, and Meadow parks. DOG PARKS AND DOG AREAS Several participants brought up the need for dog parks and/or off - leash dog areas. The City does not currently have a fenced dog park, and only one formal off -leash area, at Laguna Lake Park. While three dog parks are currently in development plans, two of these are only a quarter acre in size, which may be too small, based on current community input. We heard of the need for fencing at the Laguna Lake off -leash dog area to make it usable for "puppies, bolters and wanderers." Other desired improvements at the Laguna Lake dog area included more shade trees for the summer and a ground treatment that would mitigate the clay adobe soil which sticks to shoes in the winter. Others advocated for a dog park at Sinsheimer Park. Some participants also want at least one area for dogs with responsible owners to go without a leash, noting that Laguna Lake Park may be large enough to support both a fenced dog park and an off -leash area, perhaps shared with the disc golf area. BIKE PARKS Other participants noted an unmet need for a bike park. One made the case that bike parks oriented to kids help to build confident bikers who feel comfortable getting around without a car. A velodrome was proposed as a better way to support bike racing compared to closing roads and managing cyclist/vehicle conflicts. 5. Community Engagement and the Community Survey TENNIS AND PICKLEBALL Tennis and pickleball got a few mentions. We heard that: • The Sinsheimer Park tennis courts are rarely used because there's no backstop to practice on for solo players; and • There are no dedicated pickleball courts in San Luis Obispo. INDOOR RECREATION One person noted that much of the demand for volleyball and basketball is currently absorbed at gyms and colleges. We were told that the Ludwick Community Center gym is not highly -used —and that given the small size of that gym and the poor condition of the facility, starting over with a new facility would be best. This could potentially be located where the Police Department's offices are, through a land swap. A joint -use agreement for use of school gyms was also mentioned. One participant suggested that a facility for indoor soccer could fill a niche in SLO. Another observed that there's not much for families to do when it's dark and the weather is bad, and suggested that indoor rock climbing could be popular. SWIM CENTER IMPROVEMENTS Swimmers were positive about the SLO Swim Center, and identified some areas where improvements are needed. To address the parking crunch, it was suggested that the City work with Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County (CAPSLO) to relocate long- term bus parking and arrange for shared -use overflow parking, and also look at providing additional parking. The design of the entrance drive and parking lot were also an area of concern. Swimmers supported the creation of a separate kids' area at the pool, which would both reduce conflicts with "grayhairs" and make the pool ,'more of a community place." One person suggested creating a spray ground adjacent to the pool, ideally using the same infrastructure. MANAGING AND PRESERVING THE GOLF COURSE Laguna Lake Golf Course users emphasized the important role the golf course plays in giving seniors an affordable and healthy activity while also supporting a good level of use by young people in the afternoons and evenings, including First Tee and Middle School programs. There was concern that recent management decisions have not been helpful. SENIOR CENTER Representatives from the Senior Center felt that the facility limits the programming they can offer. Others noted that the use of Mitchell Park by transients was also an issue. Participants emphasized wanting to be more successful in reaching younger, more active seniors. PARK AMENITIES People proposed several ideas for specific park features: walking trails; new play equipment; splash pads; and —last but not least—restrooms. STRATEGIES FOR PARK AND FACILITY DEVELOPMENT Development of new parks and facilities will require the commitment of significant resources. Three potential strategies emerged from our conversations. REGIONAL COORDINATION Several participants noted that there has been a movement toward regional cooperation, and that this could be a great match for parks and recreation issues. Specifically, a regional strategy could be applied to planning for tournament -level facilities for field sports, diamond sports, and/or bike racing. The County's parks master planning process and Cal Poly's campus master plan may be vehicles for this coordination. PARTNERSHIPS Sports league representatives saw the opportunity to "band together" to advocate and raise funds for new SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment facilities. They to the success of the skate park as a positive recent model in San Luis Obispo, and suggested that the Parks Master Plan can "help set the table." LEVERAGING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Some participants noted the way parks are provided through new development should be improved. First, the proposed mix of new park types and amenities is not always well -suited to needs (as in the example of dog parks that are too small.) Second, parks are being created late in the development process. PARK ACTIVATION AND PROGRAMMING PARK ACTIVATION Several people spoke about parks in San Luis Obispo being under -used, while certain parks had too much use by transients. Greater activation of parks to make them more attractive to all segments of the community was seen as the best solution. Activating Public Space Downtown Mission Plaza is home to numerous festivals and events, but the plaza, the creek, and downtown streets were still seen by some as having untapped potential. A shortage of restrooms and the City's limitations on alcohol and single -use containers were seen as barriers to greater downtown activation. Greater coordination between City agencies, downtown organizations, police and social services providers may be needed. Mitchell and Emerson Parks Transient use of Mitchell Park was a concern. Ideas for activating the park included evening festivals; a bocce court; and facilities that have better synergy with the Senior Center. Emerson Park was also seen as having potential for greater activation, and was cited as a potential location for a dog area. PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES Where should the Parks and Recreation Master Plan focus attention in terms of programming? Youth Programs Multiple participants stated that affordable programs for children and youth should be high -priority. One participant felt that the Department should try to make programs more accessible to families with working parents by providing later evening activities. Serving Active Seniors Various participants felt that there is a significant cohort of "active seniors" in San Luis Obispo whose needs are not being met. This community may benefit from updated programming at the Senior Center, as well as activities at parks. Embracing Apps and Educational Games Two people we spoke with referred to the recent "Pics on Peaks" program as an example of creative programming that embraces the smart phone and has multigenerational appeal. PARKS DEPARTMENT ROLE AND PARTNERSHIPS Some people saw room for improvement in the Parks and Recreation Department's programming practices. Observations included: • The separation of maintenance and programming may not be a good model; • The Parks and Recreation Department does a great job at youth sports, but should work with outside organizations to achieve park activation; • Parks and Recreation should focus on helping people connect with their community of interest, and helping groups coordinate activities. 5. Community Engagement and the Community Survey MANAGING ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE The Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update will not address San Luis Obispo's natural reserves. Still, open space trails are an important part of San Luis Obispo's recreation scene. People we spoke with recognized the great value community members place on open space, and the importance of being able to experience open space. Some emphasized conservation, while others emphasized connection and use. OPEN SPACE CONSERVATION EMPHASIS Active use of open space should only be allowed where it does not degrade habitat or create conflicts with neighbors, and should be managed to preserve a peaceful and quiet experience. OPEN SPACE CONNECTION/ USE EMPHASIS Others emphasized the importance of connecting people with the land for conservation to be successful in the long-term. According to this view, increased trail use is generally a positive, indicating the need for more opportunities for people to connect with nature in a responsible way. Specific ideas included: • Following the Prescription to Open Space model of connecting health and well- being with open space; • Designating a trail for nighttime wa I ks; • Allocating more ranger time to education, trail building and maintenance. City parks were seen as a "gateway" for less active residents to connect with the land. ROLE OF PARKS RANGERS Rangers' responsibilities range from enforcement to education, wildlife protection, and trail maintenance. One person reported that there are seven rangers but only three are full-time; making the ranger program a "career track" would retain skilled staff with institutional knowledge. MANAGING CULTURAL RESOURCES Some felt that the Parks and Recreation Department is not adequately managing its cultural facilities. Cultural organizations have a strong interest in collaborating more deeply with the Department; in rethinking the public art in -lieu fee; creating installations in parks and along creeks; providing interpretive signage; and activating cultural facilities. MAKING THE MOST OF THE JACK HOUSE AND GARDENS The Jack House and Gardens were described as underused and/or poorly taken care of, and in need of clear direction. Some people reported a lack of trust between City staff and docents at the Jack House. Some questioned why the City invests significant resources in a building it that is rarely open. Others questioned why the Gardens weren't being better managed to generate revenue. Specific improvement ideas included making the Jack House and Gardens "more friendly," adding signage, and creating safe crosswalks across Marsh Street. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment COMMENTS FROM THE POP-UP OUTREACH AND OPEN CITY HALL Over the course of summer 2018, City Staff conducted over 25 "pop-up" events to reach San Luis Obispo residents and visitors in parks and facilities, at programs and events. worked to inform the public about the project itself, and the opportunity it presented for the community to share hopes and dreams about the future of parks and recreation in San Luis Obispo. Staff also distributed comment cards and solicited feedback online through Open City Hall. The outreach during this stage focused on two foundational questions. Key themes in the responses to each question are summarized here. What Do You Love About SLO Parks, Activities and Recreational Facilities? Community members' responses to this question can be grouped into three categories. First were activity -related responses. The most commonly cited activities community members loved were youth sports (12 responses), community events and programs (10 responses), hiking, and softball (7 responses each). The second group of responses referred to specific parks or facilities. Here, Sinsheimer Park got by far the greatest response (19) followed by Santa Rosa Park/Skate Park (9 responses). Third, responses described certain qualities of San Luis Obispo's parks. These included comments about the parks being clean and well maintained (11); accessible, bike -friendly, or providing easy access to trails (9), and family - friendly and nice for all ages (8). What do you wish to have in 20 years for City of SLO Parks, Activities, and Recreational Facilities? Many people identified the need for new parks or facilities. These included more parks, open spaces or trails (14); more soccer fields basketball courts or pickleball courts (11); more bike trails or better connectivity between the bike and open space networks (11); more pools, splash pads, or water parks (8); and more skate parks or ramps (6). Other people focused on programming. Some 21 responses described a range of recreation classes or activities including wildlife education, yoga, gardening, art, music, and summer camps. Night hiking (7 responses); more opportunities for people of all ages (6); better hours and/or fee for the pool (5); and more off -leash time and/or more dog park (4 responses) were also notable. 5. Community Engagement and the Community Survey COMMENTS FROM THE "BRIGHT IDEAS" WORKSHOP Community input received during the workshop, the pop -ups, emailed responses, and received comment cards, and open City Hall are condensed to a series of key topics as they were presented at the workshop. ASSESSING PARKS AND FACILITIES At the "Parks in Need of Love" station, attendees were given an opportunity to fill out a "report card" on the condition of one or more parks and provide comments on specific needs at those parks or facilities. Generally, the community rated the condition of San Luis Obispo's parks facilities as average to slightly above average. Ten parks received the greatest share of report cards. Average "grades" for each of these parks, along with the number of report cards received, is shown in Table 5-1 "Report Card" Grades for San Luis Obispo Parks and Facilities. Sinsheimer Park was both the most - often graded park and the one that attendees gave the highest ratings, with a B average. Sinsheimer was noted for its "wonderful" play area and hill slide; several people noted the need for more shade. Sinsheimer Stadium, a facility within Sinsheimer Park, however, was given poor marks (a D- average). The Stadium's restrooms and public address system were especially identified for improvements. Table 5-1 "REPORT CARD" GRADES FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKS AND FACILITIES PARK VERAGE GRADE�iiiIlllllllllllllllll�1REP0RT CARDS Sinsheimer Park B 47 Meadow Park DeVaul Park French Park Santa Rosa Park Damon -Garcia Sports Complex Cuesta Park Throop Park Anholm Park SLO Swim Center Mitchell Park Johnson Park Emerson Park Mission Plaza Laguna Lake Park Islay Hill Park Sinsheimer Stadium Las Praderas Mini Park Other parks that received substantial feedback included: B- B- B- B- B- C+ C+ C+ C C C C- C- D+ D D- F • • Laguna Lake Park (average grade: D+) was described by several commenters as needing a fully -fenced or otherwise • improved dog park. Some called for dredging of the lake. • Meadow Park (average grade: B-) was described as pretty and serene, but noted that the community building, the paths, bridges, and workout stations all needed updating, and others commented on the park's use by those appearing to be experiencing homelessness. 21 4 18 6 5 6 4 11 10 10 2 10 3 25 16 13 3 At French Park (B-), many commenters requested dedicated pickleball courts, and some felt maintenance had slipped. Islay Hill Park (D) was described as a park with a great location in need of updated equipment and new ground material, as well as better signage for the trailheads. • Anholm Park (C+) was the subject of affectionate comments, and is well -liked for its shade, but some felt that the neighborhood needs a "real" park. SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment • Emerson Park (C+) is well -liked but needs restrooms. • Mitchell Park (C) is well -liked as a gathering place near downtown, with a nice combination of facilities; homeless activity and trash are reported as problems. • SLO Swim Center (C) also received many positive comments; people wanted shade over the seating area and longer operating hours. PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES The "Dreams of Programs and Activities" workshop station gave participants a chance to express their priorities for programs and activities. A presentation board at the station showed a range of examples of people engaging in activities at parks and recreation facilities. Workshop participants were asked to write, using sticky notes, what types of activities they felt should be the focus in the coming years. Children at the "Parks, Jr." station also got a chance to express their preferences, responding to images of different types of facilities and activities using "dots" to communicate their favorites. People of all ages cited a diverse array of programs and activities. Programs identified by the most people at the "Dreams of Programs and Activities" included swimming, pickleball, yoga, kids' programs, environmental education, gardening, and others shown on Table 5-2 Programs and Activities that Should be a Focus in the Years to Come. The programs and activities may be seen as "clumping" into a number of broad core program areas: aquatics, health/fitness/wellness, enrichment and life skills, environmental education and stewardship, outdoor recreation, youth, and special events. Children expressed many specific requests that could loosely be grouped into a few broad categories. The most popular of these was new/improved play equipment, both indoor and outdoor, including unique features like ziplines, foam pits, climbing trees, and giant chess sets. Most of the remaining responses fell into one of these categories: recreational classes (e.g. dance, Spanish, karate), events and excursions (e.g. overnight camping, outdoor movies, visits to the zoo), activities related to video games, requests for more shade at parks and the pool, and improvements to the Sun and Fun and Club Star facilities and resources (e.g. more food, splash pad, dodgeball). Table 5-2 PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES THAT SHOULD BE A FOCUS IN THE YEARS TO COME ACTIV� RESPONSES Swimming 32 Pickleball 23 Yoga 15 Kids' programs 14 Environmental education 11 Gardening 10 Aqua aerobics 8 Biking 7 Dogs 7 Youth programs 7 Youth sports 7 Family activities 6 Bike education 5 Clean up events 5 Fitness 5 Hiking 5 Camps 4 Chess 4 Community activities 4 Dance classes 4 Kayaking 4 Language classes 4 Martial arts 4 Tai chi 4 5. Community Engagement and the Community Survey EVENTS IN PARKS Special events were the subject of the "Events in Parks" workshop station, where participants were asked to indicate what parks are good locations for events, and what type of events they wanted to see, using dots to identify parks and sticky notes to summarize events. Concerts and other ideas for music in parks were by far the most popular type of event based on workshop feedback. Other top event categories were food trucks and events, sports tournaments and events, movies, arts events and fairs, cultural festivals, and community picnics and barbecues, among others (see Table 5-3 Ideas for Events in Parks). Mitchell Park (15 dots), Laguna Lake Park (12), Mission Plaza (11), French Park (6), Sinsheimer Park (6), and Jack House and Gardens (6) were most -cited as places where events should take place. When comments about events at Sinsheimer Stadium and SLO Swim Center are included, ten responses described events at Sinsheimer. People cited a diverse array of programs and activities, including swimming, pickleball, yoga, kids' programs, environmental education, and gardening. Table 5-3 IDEAS FOR EVENTS IN PARKS Music, concerts 60 Food trucks, events 29 Sports tournaments, 24 events Movies 17 Arts & crafts fairs, arts 16 events Events for families, kids 14 Cultural festivals 11 Community picnics, 9 BBQs, gatherings Outdoor exercise 8 Games, obstacle courses 7 Environmental education 5 Farmers' markets 5 Kids' events 5 Biking, cyclocross 4 Organized work days 4 Weddings 4 SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment DREAMS OF PARKS AND FACILITIES At the "Dreams of Parks and Facilities" station, the presentation board showed a variety of types of amenities and facilities in parks, including a range of sports facilities as well as passive recreation, cultural and sustainable features. Using these examples as a starting point, workshop attendees were asked to use sticky notes to share ideas for new park facilities or amenities. A great diversity of ideas were shared. Pickleball and some variation on a water park or splash pad were the subject of the most responses (44 and 40, respectively). Many people also weighed in on the need for enhancements to the SLO Swim Center; a new dog park or fenced dog area; new facilities for diamond sports and field sports; new neighborhood and pocket parks; and a new indoor recreation center/community center. Table 5-4 identifies facility types that garnered the most responses; in many cases, responses were more detailed and specific (i.e., shade over playgrounds; zip lines). Children at the workshop were enthusiastic about new and improved play equipment, and features like ziplines, foam pits, climbing trees, and giant chess sets. 22 18 17 16 16 14 13 13 11 11 Table 5-4 DREAMS FOR PARKS AND FACILITIES Pickleball 44 Water park, splash pad i 40 Swim Center 33 enhancements Dog park 28 Baseball, softball 24 New parks 23 Recreation or community center Soccer, rugby Shade Bike park New pool Bike paths Adventure park Walking trails Play equipment Swim Center operating hours Stadium enhancement Water refill stations Charging stations Community gardens Trees 5. Community Engagement and the Community Survey GETTING TO PARKS At the "Getting to Parks" station, community members were asked to indicate where they'd like to see improvements that make it easier and safer to get to parks, and to say what those improvements would be. People's comments showed an overwhelming desire to access the parks and recreation system by biking and walking. Among the many references to biking, there were numerous requests for safer biking routes for all ages, more robust bike infrastructure, and system -wide bike networks linking parks throughout the city. Table 5-5 The location most often cited as needing access improvements was Sinsheimer Park (28), where parking, trail connections, transit access, and the railroad tracks are consistent challenges. Completion of the Bob Jones Trail (11) also emerged as a top priority among responses. Other priority sites include the Railroad Trail (10), Meadow Park (9), Laguna Lake Park (8) and French Park (7). Table 5-5 Getting to Parks — Sites Needing Improvements shows the ranked list of sites where access improvements were indicated. GETTING TO PARKS - SITES NEEDING IMPROVEMENTS Sinsheimer Park 28 Bob Jones Trail Railroad Trail Meadow Park Laguna Lake Park French Park General Bike/Multi-Use Trail 11 10 9 8 7 48 OTHER BRIGHT IDEAS At the "Your Ideas Here" station, residents were asked to share ideas for how they'd like to see the parks system and recreation programs change in the years ahead. This station was open-ended. While responses varied widely, several themes emerged among the residents' ideas. Comments pertaining to bike lanes (27), pools/ aquatic programs (22), and children's programs and trails (18) were the most commonly mentioned. Other standout themes included walking/ biking paths and trails (14), pickleball (13), a "splash pad" water feature (12), and concerns about the homeless population (11). SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment OVERVIEW ETC Institute administered a parks and recreation needs assessment survey for the City of San Luis Obispo during late summer/early fall of 2018. The survey was administered as part of a comprehensive update to the its Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan. The survey and its results will be used to identify residents' priorities for parks and recreation in the City of San Luis Obispo. METHODOLOGY ETC Institute mailed a survey packet to a random sample of households in the City of San Luis Obispo. Each survey packet contained a cover letter, a copy of the survey, and a postage -paid return envelope. Residents who received the survey were given the option of returning the survey by mail or completing it online at www.slosurvey.org. Ten days after the surveys were mailed, ETC Institute sent emails and placed phone calls to the households that received the survey to encourage participation. The emails contained a link to the online version of the survey to make it easy for residents to complete the survey. To prevent people who were not residents of the City of San Luis Obispo from participating, everyone who completed the survey online was required to enter their home address prior to submitting the survey. ETC Institute then matched the addresses that were entered online with the addresses that were originally selected for the random sample. If the address from a survey completed online did not match one of the addresses selected for the sample, the online survey was not counted. The goal was to obtain completed surveys from at least 400 residents. The goal was far exceeded, with a total of 507 residents completing the survey. The overall results for the sample of 507 households have a precision of at least +/-4.4% at the 95% level of confidence. This report contains the following: • Charts highlighting the overall results of the survey; • Priority Investment Rating (PIR) that identifies priorities for facilities and programs from the survey participants; • Benchmarking analysis comparing the City's survey results to national results; and • Tabular data showing the overall results for all questions on the survey. • Open ended survey comments have been provided as a separate appendix to this report. The major findings of the survey are summarized on the following pages. 5. Community Engagement and the Community Survey PARK/FACILITY USE, RATINGS, AND IMPORTANCE From the list of 39 San Luis Obispo parks/facilities, respondents were asked to indicate all of the parks/ facilities their household has used in the past 12 months. There are five parks/facilities that at least 50% of households have used in the past 12 months: • Mission Plaza (70%) • Sinsheimer Park (60%) • Laguna Lake Park (56%) • Meadow Park (53%) • Mitchell Park (50%) Respondents were then asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the parks/facilities their household has used in the past 12 months. The overall level of satisfaction with City parks/facilities is very high. There are 30 parks/facilities that at least 70% of respondents gave a rating of "very satisfied" or "satisfied". The parks/ facilities that received the highest satisfaction ratings are: • Sinsheimer Park (90%) • Historic Jack House & Gardens (90%) • Santa Rosa Park: SLO Skate Park (90%) • Anholm Park (87%) • Jack House Gardens (86%) Figure 5-1 LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH FACILITIES by percentage of respondents who have used facilities during the past 12 months From the list of 39 parks/facilities, respondents were then asked to rate which four parks/facilities are the most important to their household. Based on the sum of their top four choices, the parks/facilities that households rated as the most Important are: • Mission Plaza (37%) • Sinsheimer Park (33%) • Meadow Park (26%) • Laguna Lake Park (23%) • SLO Swim Center (19%) Sinsheimer Park 54 36% ; 7% 3% Historic Jack House & Gardens 61% 28% ; 8% 3% Santa Rosa Park SLO Skate Park 32% 9% 2% Anholm Park �� 39% 13% Jack House Gardens 51% amm 35% 11% 3% Laguna Hills Park 39%' �; 45% 12% 4% SLO Swim Center 39% ■ 44% 8% OW Poinsettia Creek Walk & Park 44% 39% 11% Ill SLO Senior Citizens Center 53 % 29% :39% 15% 3% Mission Plaza 43b/ 12% 6% Santa Rosa Park Hockey Rink g0% 31% 12% 8% Sinsheimer Stadium 44% ; 37% 11% 8% Priolo-Martin Park 40% ' i; 40% 20% Throop Park 25% ' ■ 55% - 15% 5% Islay Hill Park 36%: 44,% 14% 7% Vista Lago Park 29% 50% : 7% 14% French Park 34% ; 45! 17% 4% Damon -Garcia Sports Complex 32% 46%' 15% 7% Meadow Park 35% 43% : 15% 8% Laguna Lake Golf Course 32% 45%: 18% 5% Sinsheimeer Tennis Courts 28%Will 47% 20% 5% Laguna Lake Park 28% 47% 20% 6% Santa Rosa Park 31% 43% 22% 4% Buena Vista Park 32% 42%; 26% Triangle Park 37% 37% -16% 1 11% Mitchell Park 31% ; 42% ;18% 9% De Vaul Park 28/ 44% 24% 4% Johnson Park 29% ; 22% 7% Exposition Park 48% 23% 7% Ludwick Community Center % 47% ; 24% 6% Stoneridge Park 34% 34% 26% 166% Eto Park 25% 43% 29% 4% Meadow Park Center Laguna Off Leash Dog Area 37% 29% 25% 10% 24% ■ Ellsford Park 3R% 30% 20% 12% 410% Emerson Park ■' 40%; 24% 18% jill Rodriguez Adobe Park 18% 36% 9� Las Paraderas Park 27% 27% Cheng Park I♦Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral I♦Dissatisfied/ Very Dissatisfied Source: ETC Institute (2018) SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment PROGRAM USE, RATINGS, AND IMPORTANCE From a list of 34 San Luis Obispo recreation programs, respondents were asked to indicate all of the programs their household has participated in during the past 12 months. There are three programs that about 25% of households have participated in during the past 12 months: • Community special events (27%) • Recreational swimming (27%) • Lapswimming (24%) Respondents were then asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the recreation programs their household has participated in during the past 12 months. The overall level of satisfaction with programs is high. There are 17 programs that over 60% of respondents gave a rating of "very satisfied" or "satisfied". The programs that received the highest satisfaction ratings are: • Triathlon (86%) • Sun n' Fun Club Star (79%) • Community Special Events (78%) • Kidz Love Soccer (78%) From the list of 34 programs, respondents were then asked to rate which programs are the most important to their household. Based on the sum of their top four choices, the programs that households rated as the most important are: • Recreational Swimming (20%) • Community Special Events (18%) • Lap Swimming (17%) Figure 5-2 RECREATION PROGRAMS RESPONDENT HOUSEHOLDS HAVE USED IN THE PAST 12 by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) Community special events Recreational swimming Lap swimming Swim lessons Yoga Personal training & fitness classes Tennis Sun n' Fun & Club Star Music lessons Historic Jack House & Gardens tours Ranger -led hikes Aqua aerobics & Pilates Adult softball Triathalon Adult soccer Kidz Love Soccer Gymnastics classes & camps Warm water exercise class Youth basketball Senior Center classes & activities Lifeguard training & Junior Guards Pickleball Golf instruction LEGO camps Skate park camps, clinics, & activities Golf tournaments Youth futsal Tennis lessons & training Ludwick drop in sports Junior Ranger Activity Camp Surfing lessons Youth fitness & wellness programs Junior giants Ultimate pick-up Other 0% 10% 20% Figure 5-3 MONTHS 30% PROGRAMS THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO HOUSEHOLDS by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their four choices Recreational swimming Community special events Lap swimming Yoga Sun n' Fun & Club Star Swim lessons Personal training & fitness classes Tennis 7ff Music lessons Adult softball 7 2. Ranger -led hikes Adult soccer ■ 6% ; Aqua aerobics & Pilates J 6% Triathalon 111111111111111116% ; Senior Center classes & activities 05% Historic Jack House & Gardens tours 11111111111111111114% Warm water exercise class 04% Pickleball 4% Youth basketball 111111111114% Kidz Love Soccer 11111111113% Ludwick drop in sports ■3% Lifeguard training & Junior Guards =3% Golf instruction ■3% Golf tournaments 13% Junior Ranger Activity Camp J2% LEGO camps 11111111111111111112% Gymnastics classes & camps �2% Youthfutsal 11111111112% Junior giants ■2% Skate park camps, clinics, & activities 11% Tennis lessons & training 11% Ultimate pick-up 11% Surfing lessons ■1% Youth fitness & wellness programs 11% Other Most Important 2nd Most Important Source: ETC Institute (2018) 3rd Most Important IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII14rd Most Important 5. Community Engagement and the Community Survey AMENITY NEEDS AND PRIORITIES Amenity Needs: Respondents were Figure 5-4 asked to indicate if their household AMENITIES THAT RESPONDENT HOUSEHOLDS has a need for 28 various recreation HAVE A NEED FOR amenities. There are four recreation by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made) amenities that at least 50% of households have a need for: 1. Swimming pools — 71 % 2. Nature park/botanical garden — 63% 3. Adventure area — 60% 4. Shaded play area — 50% Figure 5-4 shows the percent of households that have a need for each of the 28 recreation amenities. Respondents were also asked to identify if their household had an unmet need for each of the 28 various recreation amenities. Based on this analysis, ETC Institute was able to estimate the number of households in the City of San Luis Obispo that had the greatest "unmet" need for various amenities. The recreation amenities with the highest level of unmet need were: 1. Swimming pools 2. Nature park/botanical garden 3. Adventure area 4. Shaded play area Open space trails Park trails Passive enjoyment of open space Swimming pools Nature park/ botanical garden Shaded play area Dog park Playgrounds 30% Adventure area Enrichment classes 30% Outdoor exercise/ fitness area 29% Indoor exercise facility 27% Covered picnic areas & BBQ pits for rental 26% Environmental education center 23% Sports complex 22% Tennis courts 21% Community center 21% Splash pads ;20% Soccer fields 18% Outdoor basketball/volleyball courts ]8% Baseball/Softball fields Disc golf 17% 16✓ Indoor basketball/volleyball courts 13% ' Additional garden plots 11% Pickleball courts 11% Table tennis 6% Football/Rugby fields 5% Lacrosse fields 2% Other 77% Figure 5-5 71% AMENITIES THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO HOUSEHOLDS by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top choices Open space trails Park trails Swimming pools Passive enjoyment of open space Dog park Playgrounds Shaded play area Nature park/ botanical garden Splash pads Soccer fields Baseball/Softball fields Adventure area Outdoor exercise/ fitness area Sports complex Enrichment classes Tennis courts Indoor exercise facility Covered picnic areas & BBQ pits for rental Disc golf Pickleball courts Outdoor basketball/volleyball courts Environmental education center Additional garden plots Community center Football/Rugby fields Table tennis Indoor basketball/volleyball courts Lacrosse fields � 53% �28% ■20% �16% ■ W9% ■ ■9% ■ 18% 1 M8% 1 ■7% ■ 7% ■ 17% M7% 5% 111115% 1 15% 115% ■4% 1 14% 04% 12% 12% 12% Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important 1111111111111111114rd Most Important Source: ETC Institute (2018) SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment AMENITY IMPORTANCE In addition to assessing the needs for each recreation amenity, ETC Institute also assessed the importance that households placed on each amenity. Based on the sum of respondents' top four choices, the four most important recreation amenities to households were: 1.. Open Space Trails (53%) 2. Park Trails (35%) I Swimming Pools (32%) 4. Passive enjoyment of open space (28%) The percentage of respondents who selected each recreation amenity as one of their top four choices is shown in Figure 5-5. PRIORITIES FOR FACILITY INVESTMENTS The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) was developed by ETC Institute to provide organizations with an objective tool for evaluating the priority that should be placed on parks and recreation investments. The PI R equally weights: (1) the importance that residents place on facilities; and (2) how many residents have unmet needs for the facility. Based on the PIR, the following seven facilities were rated as high priorities for investment: 1. Swimming Pools (PIR=161) 2. Open Space Trails (PIR=154) I Park Trails (PIR=129) 4. Passive Enjoyment of Open Space Conservation Areas (PIR=124) 5. Shaded Play Areas (PIR=110) 6. Dog Park (PIR=109) 7. Nature Park/Botanical Garden (PIR=105) The chart below shows the Priority Investment Rating for each of the 28 facilities/amenities that were assessed on the survey. Figure 5-6 TOP PRIORITIES FOR INVESTMENT FOR RECREATION AMENITIES based on the Priority Inverstment Rating Swimming pools Open space trails Park trails Passive enjoyment of open space conservation areas Shaded play area Dog park Nature park/ botanical garden Adventure area Outdoor exercise/ fitness area Enrichment classes Indoor exercise facility Splash pads Environmental education center Playgrounds Community center Sports complex Covered picnic areas & BBQ pits for rental Tennis courts (lighted) Soccer fields Outdoor basketball/volleyball courts Baseball/Softball fields Disc golf Pickleball courts Indoor basketball/volleyball courts Additional garden plots Table tennis Football/Rugby fields Lacrosse fields '161 164 129 High Priority L�L17,0 124 (100+), 109 ,05: 99 89 83 78 �7 Medium Priority 68, (50 - 99J 62 60 55 53 52 Low Priority (0.49) Source: ETC Institute (2018) 5. Community Engagement and the Community Survey PARKS AND FACILITIES THAT COULD BE IMPROVED, REPURPOSED, OR EXPANDED From a list of 26 choices, respondents were asked to indicate the parks and recreation facilities they feel it's most important for the City to improve, repurpose, or expand. Based on the sum of their top four choices, households rated the following as the most important 1.. Existing land to be used for open space & trails (44%) 2. Designated areas for walking & biking (32%) 3. Existing land to be used for small neighborhood parks (28%) 4. Park design, materials and programs that are sustainable (26%) 5. Existing land to be used for pools (22%) Figure 5-7 are the percent of respondents who rated each of the 26 options as one of their top four most important. Figure 5-7 RESPONDENTS' TOP 4 CHOICES FOR IMPROVING, REPURPOSING, OR EXPANDING PARKS AND FACILITIES by percentage of respondent households that selected the items as one of their top four choices Used for open space & trails Designated areas for walking & biking Used for small neighborhood parks Are sustainable Pools Dog parks Are welcoming to a diverse population Used for athletic fields Playgrounds & similar play facilities Incorporate public art Nature & environmental interpretive areas Connect people with cultural heritage Additional park bathrooms Adding lights to existing athletic fields Enhancements to park landscaping Picnic areas Used for multi -sport indoor gymnasium Synthetic turf fields Fitness circuit stations Pickleball courts Golf course improvements Bocce ball courts BMX/Pump track Sand volleyball courts Hockey rinks Golf clubhouse improvements Other �44% �32% -28r 26% 22% � �15% 15% ' 12% � OR12% , 1% � =t0% E9$ 111111111111119% =8% r8%' M6% 75% 15% 13% 12% 11% 1% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important 1111111111111111114rd Most Important Source: ETC Institute (2018) SLO Parks + Recreation Master Plan: Community Needs Assessment CONCLUSION Overall the City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department is doing an excellent job providing services to the community. Most survey respondents (79%) are either "very satisfied" or "satisfied' with the overall value their household receives from the City of San Luis Obispo's Parks and Recreation Department. This is significantly higher than the national average of 59%. The City is experiencing extremely high usage of its parks and recreation facilities. In the past 12 months, 97% of households have visited at least one of the 39 parks and recreation facilities listed in Q1, which is significantly higher than the national average of 81 %. The City's parks and recreation facilities also received very high satisfaction ratings; for 30 of the 39 parks/ facilities, at least 70% of respondents indicated they are "very satisfied" or "satisfied". The types of programs that households have the most need for are: community special events, recreation swimming, and lap swimming. These are also the programs that are the most important to survey respondents. The types of amenities with the highest level of unmet need in the City are: swimming pools, nature parks/botanical gardens, adventure areas, and shaded areas. The types of amenities that are the most important to households are: open space trails, park trails, swimming pools, and passive enjoyment of open space. In order to ensure that the City of San Luis Obispo continues to meet the needs and expectations of the community, the Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan should focus on sustaining and/or improving performance in areas that were identified as "high priorities" by ETC Institute's Priority Investment Rating (PIR). Based on the PIR, the amenities that should be the City's highest priorities are: swimming pools, open space trails, park trails, passive enjoyment of open space conservation areas, shaded play areas, dog parks, and nature park/ botanical gardens. 5. Community Engagement and the Community Survey APPENDIX RK AMENITY NEEDS Table D-1: Park Amenity Needs Recreation Component 2020 San Luis Obispo Inventory 2020 Cal Poly Inventory (35% of daytime population served) Total Additional Facilities Needed to Serve Population Today Additional Facilities/ Amenities Needed to Serve Population in 2035 Planned Facilities Total Additional Facilities Needed to Serve Population in 2035 if Planned Facilities Are Developed Diamond Athletic Fields: Youth Field Field Field 4 2 3 1 2 ....................... ...................................................................... Diamond Athletic Fields: :....................................... i....................................... :........................................................................... Field d...............................................................................................................i.........................................i.................................... Field Field Youth/Adult 1 4 5 5 ....................... ........................................... ...........................:....................................... Diamond Athletic Fields: Adult s....................................... :..................... ...................................................... Field :............................................................................................................... Field ............................................................................... Field 1 1 2 3 3 .............................................................................................:.......................................:.......................................:......................................:....................................:..................................:....................................:.......................................s.........................................t.................................... Rectangle Athletic Fields Field Field Field 4 3 4 b 4 2 .............................................................................................:.......................................s.......................................:......................................:....................................:..................................€....................................:.......................................s.........................................€.................................... Disc Golf Course (18 hole) Course Course Course 2 - - - - .............................................................................................:.......................................i.......................................:......................................i.................................... Playground/Tot Lot Site d..................................i....................................:.......................................i.........................................i.................................... Site Site 26 10 18 12 6 .............................................................................................:....................................... Dog Park/Off-Leash Dog Area s....................................... :...................................... :.................................................................................................................................................... Site Site .......................................... .................................... Site 1 6 7 3 5 ..... ................................................................................................................................. Tennis Court ......................................................................................................... ..........:..................................:....................................:.......................................s.........................................t.................................... Court Court Court 8 2 7 10 5 5 .............................................................................................:.......................................:.......................................:......................................:....................................:..................................:......................................................................................................................:.................................... Pickleball Court Court Court Court 3 9 12 8 4 .............................................................................................:... Outdoor Basketball Court .................................... s.......................................:...................................... :.................................... Court d..................................€.................................... Court :....................................... s......................................... €................................... . Court 6 2 6 8 4.5 3 .............................................................................................:.......................................i.......................................:......................................i.................................... Group Picnic Areas Site d...............................................................................................................i.........................................i.................................... Site Site 9 1 6 9 1 8 .............................................................................................:....................................... Swim Centers s....................................... :....................... ............... :.................................... Expansion Pool :............................................................................................................... Pool .......................................... .................................... Pool APPENDIX PARK -BY -PARK IMPROVEMENTS Table E-1: Planned Park Improvements Park :Area Condition' Planned Improvements Improvement Proposed Phasing Tier (1-V Community Parks -.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Exposition Park 7.2 Fair Pathway replacement, Fitness Equipment 1 Mid-term (5-10 planned pedestrian bridge replacement Years) ...................................................:................................:......................................i......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Laguna Lake 40 Fair i................................................ Complete a comprehensive master plan based on focused community ......................................................... 3 Near -term (0-5 Park outreach and input to determine the appropriate balance of active and Years), Mid-term passive uses within the park. Plan will revitalize the connection to the (5-10 Years) aquatic environment of the lake; identify enhancements to natural aquatic and upland functions; explore the potential of adding sports fields and other active and informal play uses; add amenities including fencing, shade, and ground treatment to the off -leash dog area; and include facilities to allow the park to better accommodate community events. Evaluate this site for a future community center with both indoor and outdoor activity areas and architecture and/or as a site for a second pool or aquatics center. Consider incorporation of a nature center, youth day camp programming, and educational materials, presentations, docent walks, and concessions. Master plan and park development will be supported by dedicated funding available through development agreements. Incorporate more active uses, such as basketball courts, pickleball courts, a bike pump track, adventure playground/obstacle course, exercise walking path, and lighted or unlighted multi -use sports fields and courts. A botanical garden was also well -supported as a passive use. Implement Phase 1 of Laguna Lake Park Plan, which should include lighted and/or unlighted sports fields (these may be diamond, rectangular, or multi- use fields). Phase 1 should also include fencing, shade, and ground treatment for the Laguna Lake Dog Area. Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all - ability. Implement Phase 2 of Laguna Lake Park Plan, which may include other uses envisioned in the Plan. Note: the question of how to address indoor recreation needs will be addressed by a separate planning process. See Ludwick Center summary. Meadow Park and Meadow Park Center W Good Complete a comprehensive Plan. Plan should expand field use by extensive programming and/or installing synthetic turf (softball and soccer); reconfigure multi -use fields; improve walking paths and fitness equipment within Exposition Park (located adjacent to Meadow Park); expand the playground footprint and add an enclosed tot lot; incorporate a dog park; consider this site for a second aquatics/pool facility; reprogram and rebuild areas around the Meadow Park Center as part of that facility improvement planning such as outdoor shade structures and tables for community rental, platforms for classes, parking lot redesign to create shared space/mini plazas for special events. Incorporate a teen, senior, or multi -generational center into the park. The park -specific Plan should also address use and long-term maintenance of the shared paths within the park. Implement Phase 1 of comprehensive Plan. This should include reprogramming and rebuild areas around the Meadow Park Center. Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all - ability. Implement Phase 2 of comprehensive Plan. Near -term (0-5 Years), Long-term (10-20 Years) Santa Rosa Park 11 Good Restore horseshoe pit, incorporate street crossing enhancements into the 2 Long-term (10-20 City's Circulation Element and Active Transportation Plan, improve Years) basketball court functions, enhance lawn areas to enable flexible recreational use by regrading and adding fencing along street. Sinsheimer Park Neighborhood Parks Anholm Park 21.7 Good 0.1 Good Complete a comprehensive Plan to identify new and expanded park programs. Park should include lighted or additional unlighted tennis courts, pickleball courts, a bike/roller pump track, remodeled restrooms, and new pathways. The plan should address parking, accessibility, and improvements that enable efficient and effective long-term operations. Implement Phase 1 of Plan, which should include: Address parking issues Add bike/roller pump track along Railroad Safety Trail Add dog park or dog area Address Sinsheimer Park area connectivity, including inclusive non -vehicular access both to the Sinsheimer Park area and through the park. Provide for an inclusive and accessible paved trail connecting the Railroad Safety Trail to Sinsheimer Park. Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all - ability. Implement Phase 2 of Plan, which may include other amenities in Plan: • Adding new park amenities • Adding lighting at tennis courts • Adding lighting at Stockton Field • Remodeling restrooms Explore potential of land acquisition to relocate San Luis Coastal Unified School District bus depot Potentially, an indoor recreation/multi-generational community center Note: the question of how to address indoor recreation needs will be addressed by a separate planning process. See Ludwick Center summary. Despite being less than half an acre in size, the previous parks master plan designated Anholm park as a neighborhood park. Re -designate this park as a mini park based on its size, amenities, and use by the neighborhood. Near -term (0-5 Years), Mid-term (5-10 Years) 1 Long-term (10-20 Years) De Vaul Park Emerson Park French Park ay Hill Pa Johnson Park Laguna Hills Park M Good Maintain existing amenities. Long-term (10-20 Years) 3.3 Fair The Emerson Neighborhood Park Revitalization Project includes activation 3 Near -term (0-5 and enhancement of Emerson Park, based on public input through targeted Years), Long-term public outreach meetings surrounding the SPP grant opportunity. Key (10-20 Years) project amenities includes the construction of restrooms, resurfacing of the blacktop, expansion of the current basketball court to a multi -purpose court and adding a half court, expand and revitalize the current playground, creation of a fenced dog park, installation of an educational garden featuring drought tolerant landscaping, installation of compost bins, installation of shade structures, additional drought tolerant landscaping, update and relocate the bocce court, updated perimeter fencing, the installation of safety lighting along walking paths and on the multi -purpose court, installation of additional hydration stations, and installation of solar panels on the restrooms. Consider this an alternative location for a senior center. This site may also be suitable for a dog park. ............ .....................................: 10 € Good ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Repave parking lot, improve path connectivity to Islay Hill Park, expand ................................................................... 1 Long-term (10-20 pickleball courts. Years) ............ :................ ......................i.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................i................................................ 6 Good Reconfigure ball field diamonds for specific age sports, and implement the .................................................... 2 Long-term (10-20 planned playground renovation with added shade. Park may include dog Years) park or dog area if warranted (to be further evaluated.) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:...............................................:.................................................... 5 Fair Renovate restroom, regrade lawn area and reprogram based on further 2 Mid-term (5-10 evaluation. Replace natural turf with synthetic turf to extend daily and Years) seasonal use. This park may be an appropriate location for a dog park. ...................................... 3.2 Good ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Park may include dog park or dog area if warranted (to be further 1 Long-term (10-20 evaluated.) Years) Throop Park 3 Good Vista Lago Park 0.2 Fair Mini Parks Complete a comprehensive park master plan to identify new and expanded park amenities and programming that supports multi -generational activation and community gatherings. The plan should define physical improvements that encourage appropriate daily park use by seniors, neighbors and downtown residents. Convene a small-scale neighborhood discussion to explore concerns about security and how park programs might create a safer park for everyone. Launch a branded event series that features pop up programming to encourage neighbors and local residents to enjoy the park. Events and programming could include music, beer gardens, food trucks, coffees, night lighting, art shows, yoga and fitness classes, temporary street closures, movies in the park, and other similar community building activities. Construct pickleball courts for neighborhood use. Complete a comprehensive park Plan to identify new and expanded park amenities and programming that supports multi -generational activation and community gatherings. The plan should define physical improvements that encourage appropriate daily park use by seniors, neighbors and downtown residents. Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all - ability. Implement Mitchell Park/SLO Senior Center Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. . Baseball field enhancements including pedestrian bridge replacement; hydration stations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ No recommendations beyond maintenance of existing amenities. Near -term (0-5 Years), Mid-term (5-10 Years), Long-term (10-20 Years) 1 Long-term (10-20 Years) 1 Mid-term (5-10 Years) Buena Vista 0.5 € Fair Replace concrete and bench 1 Mid-term (5-10 Park Years) Ellsford Park Eto Park ................................... Las Praderas Park Poinsettia Creek Walk and Park Priolo-Martin Park ..................................... Rodriguez Adobe Park Stoneridge Park M Fair Explore design and features appropriate for a small pocket park adjacent to i a creek. Considerations include native demonstration pollinator garden, public art, climbing structure, tot lot, dog waste stations, interpretive signage, and seating. 0.201156 € Fair Replace plant materials. ............................ :...................................... i................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................. 0.4 € Fair Beautification and possible Zen garden, amenities to encourage passive uses (i.e. soft surface trail, seating, additional neighborhood planting, native demonstration pollinator garden, and maintenance of associated irrigation system. Add connection to Bob Jones Trail. ..................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Fair Enhance connectivity to French Park. 1 [ Fair Triangle Park 0.2 Good ................................................:...............................:................... Downtown Public Spaces Maintain existing amenities. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... Renovate lawn, enhance walking loop by adding exercise equipment. Potential reuse of Adobe for classes, gallery space, or other uses, pending cultural sensitivity evaluation. Enhance turf, add dog park or area, provide neighborhood park amenities such as parkour equipment, nature-themed adventure play for young children. Maintain existing amenities. 2 Mid-term (5-10 Years) .................................................. 1 Mid-term (5-10 Years) ....... ............................................ 2 Mid-term (5-10 Years) 1 Mid-term (5-10 Years) 1 Long-term (10-20 Years) ...... s......................................................... 2 Mid-term (5-10 Years) ......:......................................................... 2 Mid-term (5-10 Years) ......:......................................................... 1 Long-term (10-20 Years) Cheng Park 0.3 Poor Mission Plaza 3 Not evaluated Mission Plaza 0.427 Not Extension evaluated Recreation Centers Provide a spatial redesign that enhances safety, visibility and activation Integrate the park into downtown activation and programming Provide Improved cultural expression and educational opportunities Maintain cultural significance of original design Implement Mission Plaza Concept Plan. Ongoing programming and activation See Mission Plaza. Damon -Garcia 22 € Good Potential for artificial turf in upper field; reconfigure lighting to expand Sports Complex usability of lower field, consider future land acquisition for facility expansion, address parking demand and transportation demand management. ..... ............................................. :................................ Ludwick :............................................................................. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Poor Undertake Plan to accommodate indoor recreation needs and achieve 3 Community vision for multi -generational recreation/community center. Plan will consider Center complete replacement of building on -site, or relocation to alternative site, potentially at Laguna Lake Park or Meadow Park. Consider renovation for staff offices, or relocation of staff offices, and/or relocation of inclusive and accessible services and programs for the City's diverse senior population. Explore after -school childcare site at this location. Complete replacement of the program to create multi -generational community center Meadow Park 0.1 Poor Complete a full master plan to reimagine the building for new uses, Center improved safety and security, overall functionality, ease of maintenance, and activation. The restroom and snack bar should be specifically addressed. The master plan should reprogram and rebuild areas around the Meadow Park Center as part of that facility improvement planning such as outdoor shade structures for picnic rental, platforms for classes (i.e. Zumba, yoga), parking lot redesign to create shared space/mini plazas for special events, stormwater education. 3 Near -term (0-5 Years) 3 Near -term (0-5 Years) 3 Near -term (0-5 Years) 2 Long-term (10-20 Years) Near -term (0-5 Years), Mid-term (5-10 Years) 3 Near -term (5-10 Years), Long-term (10-20 Years) Poor Prepare a park Plan for Sinsheimer Park and its facilities (see Sinsheimer Park summary) Begin phased improvements, which may include replacing and upgrading current lighting conditions and updating the play surface to artificial turf (Phase 1) Multi -use playing field for year-round programming Complete renovation or demolition and new construction of the facility to support multi -use sports and community events. Continue phased Improvements, which may include replacing the current structure (Phase 2). Continue phased Improvements, which may include improving and expanding seating (Phase 3); and creating an auxiliary space (Phase 4). Potential for private funding. SLO Senior 0.1 :Fair Re -envision SLO Senior Center in the context of Mitchell Park through Center Planning process. Goals will include creating a strong linkage between the park and the center; and considering potential renovation or expansion or relocation of programs and services to achieve multi -generational use of the facility. The SLO Senior Center building is a historic property, and any improvements shall be consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Increase the City's financial and staff investment in the SLO Senior Center. Renovate consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and/or relocate services and programs to achieve multi -generational use and accommodate diverse programming. Consider creating an additional accessible center for seniors. Facility improvements should address multifunctionality, ease of maintenance, security, storage, food handling, ADA, outdoor spaces. With facility expansion, child and youth activities should be considered to augment senior activities, with emphasis on similar and compatible activities such as tutoring, music, crafts, and reading. Rentability should be considered as a way to augment operating budget. Near -term (0-5 Years), Mid-term (5-10 Years), Long-term (10-20 Years) 3 Mid-term (5-10 Years), Long-term (10-20 Years) SLO Swim Center Special Features Broad Street Community Gardens M Emerson Park NA Community Gardens ............................................................. Jack House Jack House Gardens Good 0.91 0.1 € Good Conduct Plan and SLO Swim Center redesign, in concert with Planning process for Sinsheimer Park Address parking needs (see Sinsheimer Park) Implement Phase 1 SLO Swim Center redesign/expansion, which may include: • Deck replacement • Upgrade to current ADA requirements including but not limited to restrooms, bathhouse area, path of travel, pool deck, and bleacher area. Implement Phase 2 SLO Swim Center redesign/expansion, which may include: • Shade structures • Lockers and bleachers • Expanded therapy pool • New pool • Expanded programming See Building Assessment Plan for preliminary concepts. Complete design and construct the North Broad Street Neighborhood Park (planned 2021), which will incorporate community gardens, a small playground, and passive use areas. Not evaluated. Enhance programming, make ADA upgrades. 0.8 Good Replace arbor 3 Near -term (0-5 Years), Mid-term (5-10 Years), Long-term (10-20 Years) 3 Near -term (0-5 Years) kin®am NA Long-term (10-20 Years) .................................................................... 1 Long-term (10-20 Years) Kiwanis NA Not evaluated. Centennial Garden Laguna Lake 27 Fair Enhance community events and uses of the property to support ongoing Golf Course course operation. Conduct golf operations study to assess the finances of the course as a City resource. Consider alternate uses for the property with value and cost documented. Alternate programming could include nature park with restored creek, trails and nature play; natural park with disc golf, foot golf, play, and other active and passive uses. Prepare and implement creek rehabilitation program restore aging safety netting. Create a Plan, addressing issues identified in facility condition assessment and implementation guidance on the rehab of irrigation, utilities, grounds, and clubhouse, and/or responding to potential change of program. Implement Plan. Laurel Lane 0.26 Not eva Community Gardens Railroad Safety 10 € Fair Complete design of improvements including addition of a bike/roller pump Trail track, park connections, railroad overcrossing bridge, railroad fencing. Phase 1 improvements, potentially including bike pump track, improved park connection. Add railroad fencing to address safety issues. Railroad overcrossing bridge, other trail connection improvements consistent with the Active Transportation Plan. ................................................ :................................ ....................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rotary NA Not evaluated. Community Garden at Meadow Park 3 Near -term (0-5 Years), Mid-term (5-10 Years), Long-term (10-20 Years) 3 Near -term (0-5 Years), Mid-term (5-10 Years) kIn®am SLO Skate Park NA Good 1 Long-term (10-20 Years) APPENDIX ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTS Table F-1: Rough Order -of -Magnitude Costs for Park Development and Operations NO. UNIT ITEM DESCRIPTION DIAMOND ATHLETIC FIELD (ADULT - 350' FOUL LINE, 90' BASE) 1 IRRIGATION SF ................................ 2 TURF (HYDROSEED) SF .............. :.................................................................................................................................................................... 3 INFIELD MIX .......... SF ... ........... :............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 FIELD SIGNAGE / SCOREBOARD LS ..............:............................................................................................................................................................................... 5 EQUIPMENT (BASES, PITCHERS MOUND) LS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 BACKSTOP, FOUL POLES, DUGOUTS & TEAM LS BENCHES QTY UNIT PRICE ...... ............................................ 86,000....... 86,000...;... 11,050...;... ............................: ... 1 ................................... 1 ............................................ 1 3.50 0.50 3.00 45,000.00 .......................... 25,000.00 ............................. 150,000.00 Grand Total DIAMOND ATHLETIC FIELD (YOUTH/ ADULT - 275' FOUL LINE, 60' BASE) 1 IRRIGATION SF 55,000 3.50 ...................................................................................................................................................................................:..........................:...................................:............................................ 2 TURF (HYDROSEED) SF 55,000 0.50 .............. :.................................................................................................................................................................... 3 INFIELD MIX :...................... ....:...................................:............................................ SF 5,400 2.00 ... ........... :.................................................................................................................................................................... 4 FIELD SIGNAGE / SCOREBOARD ..........................:............................................................................... LS 1 30,000.00 ... ........... :.................................................................................................................................................................... 4 .............. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... EQUIPMENT (BASES, PITCHERS MOUND) .................................................... LS ...................................................... 1 :............................................ 20,000.00 ROM Capital ROM Per -Unit Operating Improvement Costs Costs 301,000.00 ..................................: $ 43,000.00 ..................................: $ 33,150.00 ..................................: $ 45,000.00 .................................. : $ 25,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 90,000.00 ..................................: 450,000.00 $ 42,000.00 $ 1,179,150.00 $ 294,787.50 ............................................ € $ 294,787.50 $ 1,768,725.00 $ 192, 500.00 ...................................... € $ 27,500.00 ....................................... $ 10,800.00 ....................................... $ 30,000.00 ....................................... $ 20,000.00 $20,000425,000 $20,000-$25,000 DIAMOND ATHLETIC FIELDS (YOUTH - 200' FOUL LINE, 60' BASE) ................. 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... IRRIGATION ........................... :................................... SF ............................................................................................................................. 28,200 3.50 € €........................................................................... $ 98,700.00 ....................................... 2 ............................................................................................................................................... TURF (HYDROSEED) :.......................... :................................... SF :............................................... 28,200 €............................................................................€........................................................................... 0.50 [ $ 14,100.00 ................. 3 :.................................................................................................................................................................... INFIELD MIX :.......................... :................................... SF :............................................... 3,800 €............................................................................€........................................................................... 2.00 € $ 7,600.00 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 EQUIPMENT (BASES, PITCHERS MOUND) LS 1 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 ...... ........... 6 :.................................................................................................................................................................... BACKSTOP, FOUL POLES, DUGOUTS & TEAM ..........................:...................................................................... LS 1 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 BENCHES ........................ 7 .............................................................................................................................................................. SPECTATOR SEATING (FREESTANDING BLEACHERS) :.......................... :................................... LS .......................................................................................... 1 30,000.00 [ .............................................................................................................. $ 30,000.00 ................. 8 :.................................................................................................................................................................... LIGHTING :.......................... :................................... LS :............................................... 1 €............................................................................€........................................................................... 200,000.00 € $ 200,000.00 ...... ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 PERIMETER FENCING (6' CHAIN LINK) :.......................... :................................... LF :................................ 650 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35.00 $ 22,750.00 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Sub Total $ 398,150.00 ................. ................. .................................................................................................................................................... PERMITTING / CONSULTING ...........................:...................................i...............................................:........................................................................................................................................................ 35% $ 139,352.50 GENERAL SITE PREP / SUPERVISION ........................ ..:................................................................................................................................................................ 35% ........................................................................... $ 139,352.50 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................:...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Grand Total $ 676,855.00 $15,000420,000 RECTANGLE ATHLETIC FIELDS (NATURAL TURF) LF 35.00 Sub Total PERMITTING CONSULTING 30% GENERAL SITE PREP / SUPERVISION 30% Grand Total 1 IRRIGATION SF 81,000 2 TURF (SYNTHETIC WITH STRIPING; 8-YR LIFE SPAN) SF 81,000 5 PERIMETER FENCING (6- CHAIN LINK) LF 1,250 PERMITTING CONSULTING 10% GENERAL SITE PREP / SUPERVISION 10% DISC GOLF COURSE (18 HOLE) 1 DISC GOLF BASKETS 2 DISC GOLF TEE SIGNS 3 CONCRETE TEE PADS $28350O.0O _____ 1'134,00000 ------------ 1'86Y25000 _____ Grand Total 12,000418,000 PERMITTING /CONSULTING GENERAL SITE PREP /SUPERVISION Sub Total Grand Total PLAYGROUND AREA 300,000.00 3.00 3 CONCRETE CONTAINMENT CURB / RAMP LF 400 75.00 DOG -PARK / OFF -LEASH DOG AREA 1,200.00 4 HOSE BIB / DRY WELL 1 5 LIGHTING (SAFETY LIGHTING IN KEY AREAS ONLY) LS 1 50,000.00 Sub Total PERMITTING / CONSULTING 25% GENERAL SITE PREP / SUPERVISION Grand Total $2,500-$3'500 500 PER ACRE ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 FENCING / WINDSCREEN LF 360 110.00 $ 39,600.00 .............. :.................................................................................................................................................................... 1 GATES ..........................:................................................................................................................................................................ EA 2 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 .............. :.................................................................................................................................................................... 2 POST -TENSION SLAB / SURFACING / STRIPING ..........................:................................................................................................................................................................ SF 7,200 19.50 $ 140,400.00 .............. :.................................................................................................................................................................... 3 EQUIPMENT (NET, END POSTS, CENTER STRAP) :.......................... :................................... EA ............................................................................................................................. 1 3,500.00 [ $ 3,500.00 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 LIGHTING LS 1 150,000.00 [ $ 150,000.00 .............. :.................................................................................................................................................................... :.......................... ................................................................................... €............................................................................€ Sub Total $ 336,000.00 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................€ PERMITTING /CONSULTING 35% $ 117,600.00 ................................................. .................................................................................................................................. GENERAL SITE PREP / SUPERVISION :.......................... :................................................................................................................................................................ 35% € $ 117,600.00 .............. :.................................................................................................................................................................... :.......................... :................................... ................................................ . Grand Total € : $ 571,200.00 PICKLEBALL COURT (30' X 60') :................................................................................... ................. ................. .................................................................................................................................................... 1 FENCING /GATE / WINDSCREEN ........................... LF 180 ............................................................................. 110.00 ........................................................................... $ 19,800.00 ................. :....................................................................................................................................................................:.................... 2 POST -TENSION SLAB / SURFACING / STRIPING ...... :..................... SF ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,800 19.50 $ 35,100.00 3 EQUIPMENT (NET, END POSTS, CENTER STRAP) EA 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 4 LIGHTING ...................... ....:......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... LS 1 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................:.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Sub Total $ 157,000.00 ................. ................. .................................................................................................................................................... PERMITTING / CONSULTING ...........................:...................................i...............................................:........................................................................................................................................................ 35% $ 54,950.00 GENERAL SITE PREP /SUPERVISION .......................... :............................................................................................................................................... 35% .................:........................................................................... $ 54,950.00 ................. :............................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................... ................................................ ...................................... Grand Total ....................................... €........................................................................... $ 266,900.00 € $250-$750 OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COURT ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................€........................................................................... 1 FENCING /GATE (OPTIONAL) LF 300 75.00 [ $ 22,500.00 ................. :.................................................................................................................................................................... 2 POST -TENSION SLAB /SURFACING /STRIPING :................... .......:...................................:............................................... SF 5,040 €............................................................................€........................................................................... 19.50 [ $ 98,280.00 ................. :.................................................................................................................................................................... 3 EQUIPMENT (POST/HOOP) :.............................................................. LS :............................................... 1 €............................................................................€........................................................................... 10,000.00 [ $ 10,000.00 ................. .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 LIGHTING :.......................... ................................... LS :............................................... 1 :............................................................................ 100,000.00 € $ 100,000.00 Sub Total PERMITTING / CONSULTING 35��. GENERAL SITE PREP / SUPERVISION 35 Grand Total Grand Total Grand Total ROLLER HOCKEY COURTS $1,0O042,000 1 $1,000-$2,000 SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTS ................. ...................... ............................................................................................................................................... 1 SAND PLAY SURFACING (24" DEEP) ........................... :................................... LS ................................................ ............................................................................. 1 45,000.00 [ €........................................................................... $ 45,000.00 ......................................................................................................................................................................................:..........................:...................................:............................................... 2 EQUIPMENT (NET, POLES, FOOTINGS AND LIMIT LS €............................................................................€........................................................................... 1 40,000.00 [ $ 40,000.00 LINES) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................:...................................i............................................................................................................................[........................................................................... 3 CONCRETE CONTAINMENT CURB LS 1 10,000.00 [ $ 10,000.00 ................. :.................................................................................................................................................................... 4 LIGHTING :.............................................................................................................. LS €............................................................................€........................................................................... 1 100,000.00 € $ 100,000.00 ................. :.................................................................................................................................................................... :.......................... ................................... ............................................... €............................................................................€........................................................................... Sub Total $ 195,000.00 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................€........................................................................... PERMITTING /CONSULTING 35% $ 68,250.00 ............................................ .......................................................................................................................................... GENERAL SITE PREP /SUPERVISION :.......................... :................................................................................................................................................................ 35% €........................................................................... $ 68,250.00 ................. :.................................................................................................................................................................... :.......................... :..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Grand Total $ 331,500.00 $50041,000 ADDITIONAL NOTES: WALLACE GROUP MAKES NO WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, THAT ACTUAL COSTS WILL NOT VARY FROM THE AMOUNTS INDICATED AND ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR SUCH VARIANCES. Parks and Recreation Blueprint: Edits incorporated into document following the Public Review Draft (February 2021) Edits are indicated as follows: deletions with stFil(e through, and additions underlined. Page Plan Revisions Number Before TOC Add preamble (see end of this document) TOC "Figure 2-11: Pienie Tables and BBQ" 2 VISION The Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update will serve as a blueprint, guiding the City in priority setting and resource allocation to achieve the Parks and Recreation Department's mission. to inspife happiness by er-eatifig 2 Add a statement on the page below the vision statement: "The City owns and maintains approximately 4,050 acres of natural preserves and open space properties (2021). The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan sets programs and policies for the City's Open Space. 7 Under "Evaluate Recreation Programs and Services" sixth line "classes; aquatics; open space trail maintenance, and educational opportunities..." 9 Under "The Value of Parks": "At the time of adoption of this Blueprint (2021), San Luis Obispo's Parks and Recreation Department defines as its mission `to inspire happiness by creating community through people, parks, programs and open space.' The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan sets programs and policies for the City's Open Space, a notable change in the City's General Plan since the adoption of the 2001 Parks & Recreation Plan. An earlier version of the mission statement —from the 2001 Parks & Recreation Plan —touches on a few other important ideas: how parks contribute to the city's character and beauty, are good for the environment, and promote health." 13 Overarching Philosophy, first paragraph: "The Plan Update considers 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 Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan sets programs and policies for the City's Open Space. The Update should support and facilitate this....." 28 In paragraph under sub -heading "Neighborhood Parks "Basic elements typically include a turf playfield, playground equipment, and landscaped pieni£/ seating area." Page Plan Revisions Number 28 Put in bold font the last sentence of the first paragraph: "Finally, as o!2021., Luis Obispo owns and manages 13 Open Spaces and recreational trails covering nearly 4,050 acres. These Open Spaces are not the subiect of the Plan." 32 Sub -heading and paragraphs below: "Playgrounds and gieffie Gathering Areas The city has approximately 189 pienic—tables distributed among 16 parks. SLO's parks have nine group pig gathering_ areas, including two each at Laguna Lake and Santa Rosa parks and one each at French, Johnson, Meadow, and Sinsheimer parks and one at Laguna Lake Golf Course." 34 "Figure 2-11 Pienie Tables and BBQ" [also delete the word "Picnic" from the legend] 42 last paragraph, last sentence: "Existing and planned trail and bike networks are shown on Figures 2 16 and 2 17 2- 17 and 2-18." 46 Second paragraph under the sub -heading "Findings "Meanwhile, horseshoe pits, pie tables and drinking fountains were found to be in the worst condition: only 60 percent of drinking fountains, 66 percent of pie4e tables, and 25 percent of horseshoe pits were rated 3, with nearly two- thirds of horseshoe pits given a rating of 1." 46 Second bullet under the subheading "Findings "+ Park furnishings (benches, pig tables, trash cans, drinking fountains) are in need of replacement or repair in most parks, especially in Vista Lago Park, French Park and Johnson Park." 48 first paragraph under "Margarita Area Specific Plan": "Neighborhood Park, Greenway and Sports Fields: The Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) meets the City's park land standard by providing a 10- acre Neighborhood Park and a 16-acre improved sports field site. The Neighborhood Park will include trees, benches, pie tables and small cooking stands, children's play equipment, game courts, a restroom, and play fields. Greenways are primarily for cycling and walking paths within linear, landscaped open areas. The Sports Fields will accommodate active recreational use and will include onsite parking. No plans have been received to date for future development of this area of the MASP. Therefore, this Plan assumes there is an outstanding need for parkland in the MASP area." Page Plan Revisions Number Nk 50 Header: "Parks and Urban Opp Public Areas in the Downtown Concept Plan" 71 second paragraph under sub -heading "Events in Parks ": "Concerts and other ideas for music in parks were by far the most popular type of event based on workshop feedback. Other top event categories were food trucks and events, sports tournaments and events, movies, arts events and fairs, cultural festivals, and community pienies gatherings and barbeques, among others (see Table 5-3 Ideas for Events in Parks)." 74 Park Improvement Priorities Workshop, Your Neighborhood: "Participants were asked to state their priorities for park improvements in their neighborhood, from a list of options. Of these options, "safer access" was the highest priority, followed by walking paths, neighborhood events, and dog park. "Approximatelyparticipants provided responses at this workshop station, and the average ranking for each priority is identified in Figure M." 74 first paragraph under sub -heading "Community Parks": "For Laguna Lake Park, we asked participants to rank a list of 11 potential improvements. The most popular: a bike pump track, an adventure playground, a botanical garden, a walking path, an outdoor learning area, and additional p ate /sag areas. Approximately 100 participants provided responses at this workshop station, and the average ranking for each priority is identified in Figure 3-2."" 74 Figure 3-2: "Additional pienie gathering areas" 75 Park Improvement Priorities Workshop, Fields and Facilities: "Participants were asked to rank four potential improvements to the SLO Swim Center. Of these, extended hours for recreation swim and for lap swim were the highest ranked. Approximately 85 participants provided responses at this workshop station, and the average ranking for each priority is identified in Figure 3-5." 76 last paragraph fourth sentence: "The amenities that should be the City's highest priorities are: swimming pools, open space trails, park trails, passive enjoyment of open space conservation areas (where environmentally permissible", shaded play areas, dog parks, and nature park/botanical gardens. 84 Table 4-2 Park Amenity Standards: Replace "bike pump track" with "bike/roller pump track" Page Plan Revisions Number 84 Table 4-2 Park Amenity Standards: "Group Pienie Gathering Areas" 84 Table 4-2 Park Amenity Standards, do not identify a second golf course. 84 Update Table 4-2 Park Amenity Standards by deleting "Meets Standard/Needs Exist" column and replacing it with the number of additional amenities needed to serve the future daytime population. Edit footnote by identifying the future daytime population: "Assumes 2035 daytime population of 88,300" 86 Policy 1.6 Park Amenities Per Area Standard (see edits below): "The City shall seek to provide the six identified sub areas of San Luis s Obispo a common set of recreational amenities within accessible walking distance of neighborhoods located amongst the six identified sub -areas including: • Basketball Courts (Lighted/Non-Lighted) • Pickleball Courts (Lighted/Non-Lighted) • Tennis Court (Lighted/Non-Lighted) • Sand Volleyball Courts • Roller Sports Court or Facility • Turf Fields (Diamond, Rectangular, Lighted/Nonlighted) • Dog Parks • Outdoor Gathering and Pienie Areas for small and medium-sized rg_oups (Shaded/Unshaded), including neighborhood -based gathering areas (i.e. gazebo/stage) • Playgrounds (Shaded/Unshaded), inclusive of both natural and engineered shade Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all - ability. See Figure 4-2 for sub -areas." 86 1.6 Park Amenities Per Area Standard, eighth bullet: "Outdoor Gathering anal Areas for small and medium-sized groups (Shaded/ Unshaded), including neighborhood -based gathering areas (i.e., gazebo/stage)" Page Plan Revisions Number -10& 88 Policy 1.15: "1.15 Sustainable Transportation Access. Support implementation of the Active Transportation Plan and provision of sustainable access to parks and recreational facilities including, but not limited to Sinsheimer Park area, Laguna Lake Park, and Meadow Park, and interconnected paths citywide. Bicycle parking should be provided in parks, recreational facilities, and community centers, and include facilities for standard, electric, and cargo bicycles." 88 Policy 1.16 Shaded Play 4reas. "1.16 Shaded Play Areas. In addition to shading play areas —a high priority for the community —trees and shade structures can also contribute to distinctive identity and sustainability. Existing play areas will be assessed for need, and enhancements to both play equipment and shade will be scheduled. The City should stfive fe provide shaded play areas within a short walk (1/2-mile) of all residents: this should be a core feature of all parks, including mini -parks." 90 first paragraph under 2.1 Meeting Demand for Facilities and Amenities: "The City shall develop facilities and amenities to meet community needs. High priorities identified in the statistically -valid survey conducted for the Plan Update include swimming pools; park trails; shaded play areas; dog parks; and a nature parkibotanical garden. Medium priorities included adventure areas; outdoor exercise fitness areas; indoor exercise facility; splash pads; environmental education center; playgrounds; a community center; a sports complex; covered pig gathering areas and BBQ pits; and lighted tennis courts." 90 2.4 Laguna Lake Park: "2.4 Laguna Lake Park. Laguna Lake Park has untapped potential, and may be able to accommodate additional recreational facilities, events, and enhancements that support enjoyment of the water and the open s}aee natural preserve where environmentally permissible. These should be detailed through a Plan process. See Chapter 5 for more detail." Page Plan Revisions Number d 90/91 -A 2.6 Accessing and Evaluating the Golf Course: "Continue to manage the golf course for its primary use while exploring opportunities for broader community use, potentially including a fully immersed golfing experience including mini -golf, disc golf, and foot golf, a walking loop, community space, redevelopment of the pro -shop, as well as more revenue capture opportunities. Consider alternative programming such as community use of the golf course for gatherings and pienies for specified days and hours." 93 2.12 Inclusive and Accessible Parks, add bullet: > Encourage inclusion through posted rules and etiquette, and continue to emphasize these characteristics as requirements in all City -sponsored programs. 94 Policy 3.1 Access by Foot and Bike: "Policy 3.1 Access by Foot, and Bike, and Roll" New parks and facilities should be located centrally to their service population, integrated with their community context, and easily accessed on foot, and by bike, and roll...." 95/96 3.8 Tree Selection (edit as noted below): "Parks are places for grand trees that cast shade and provide long-term value. Many attributes are considered when selecting trees for parks, including habitat value, benefit to pollinators, and natural or native and cultural influences. The City shall prepare a tree inventory all of our parks to determine their population, species diversity, age, condition and maintenance needs. This information will inform future planting„ maintenance needs and budgets. The Cit.. shall a master tree list for future climate conditions, including drought tolerant, low allergen, high carbon sequestering trees with after life uses. Trees should also be selected for future climate conditions. and ear -bon se"estfmien-. Human allergies are another factor to consider, especially around special needs populations or in balance with other trees that may have higher biogenic emissions. Examples of low- and moderately -rated trees from a list of low - allergen trees developed by Cal Poly include Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), Paradox walnut (Juglans x paradox), Evergreen ash (Fraxinus uhdei), Camphor tree, Allee Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia `Allee'), and Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus subsp. Aspleniifolius). Page Plan Revisions L-IL Number Additional care must be taken to determine the appropriate tree for a particular park and planting condition." 97 4.3 Park Activation: "Parks and facilities should accommodate a variety of potential programming ideas. The Department will activate parks with food truck pods, community _ gatherings, fitness classes, yoga in the park, and other temporary features as a way to bring new energy to parks and ensure that parks feel welcoming to all." 103 Fourth paragraph: "Next, the chapter defines three types of park improvements, and documents potential ' opportunities at each park where "visionary" changes are needed. The chapter provides the flexibility to consider identified opportunities and determine the appropriate design and amenities of our Cites parks and recreational facilities through focused community outreach and the preparation of comprehensive park -specific plans. The community engagement process will include direct contact with community Rroups and organizations to further advance diversity, equity, and inclusion at all City parks and facilities." 104 Second paragraph: "Priority and location characteristics for each amenity are also outlined. All identified active recreation amenities would be located within urban areas, and sha4 would not be located within City Open Space...." Page Plan Revisions M M Number 111 Sub -heading and discussion: "Outdoor Gathering a„a� Areas Inventory Today, SLO has nine group pixie areas, including two each at Santa Rosa and Laguna Lake parks and one each at French, Johnson, Meadow, and Sinsheimer parks and one at Laguna Lake Golf Course. 27 BBQ facilities are present at parks or other facilities, including 12 at Laguna Lake Park, five each at Santa Rosa and Sinsheimer, one each at French, Johnson, Meadow, and Mitchell parks, and one at Jack House Gardens. One group pie area is planned for the Orcutt Area, while BBQ facilities are planned at future parks at Avila Ranch. There are nine informal/multiuse fields located in eight San Luis Obispo parks. Additional Need Six additional group pig gathering areas are needed to meet demand today, and eight would still be needed in 2035 in addition to those already planned. This Plan does not set specific standards for BBQ facilities or informal/multiuse fields. Access Gaps Areas 2 (Central) and 5 (Southwest) do not have group pienie areas, nor are any currently planned. Informal/multiuse fields are also missing in Area 5. Priority Consideration of amenities for families and small children and community - based park activation are considered near -term (0-5 year) priorities. Outdoor gathering and seating areas will be part of park development at all stages of plan implementation, with a priority for infrastructure to serve medium-sized rg oups. Unstructured, open areas for play, relaxation, and informal rg_oup sports should be incorporated into parks." 113 Figure 5-4, legend, Existing and Planned: "Group Psis Gathering Areas" Page Plan Revisions M Number -1 114 Golf Courses: "Additional Need San Luis Obispo would need one additional golf course by 2035 to meet standards; however, two golf courses to serve the City is not needed. Access Gaps Laguna Lake Golf Course is in Area 6 (West). Any f,«,,,.e eshould be in a di -eat part f the eity. Priority Providing be long tefm 20 an additional golf eour-se may eensider-ed a (10 yeaf) . ty,subjeet to land ,,.,.,.hail.*. An additional golf course is not a priority for the City.,, 114 Bike/Roller Pump Tracks: edit sub -heading and all references under "Inventory", "Additional Need", and "Priority" 114 "Bike/Roller Pump Tracks Priority A bike/roller pump track has been identified as a near -term (0-5 year) priority for the City. A second track may be considered a long-term (10-20 year) opportunity. Pump tracks should be located where they can be accessed via bicycle or roll, and along routes to schools." 120 Laguna Lake Park, fourth bullet: "+ Some amenities (barbecue, pienic-tables) are in need of repair" 121 Laguna Lake Park, under "Near -Term ", fourth bullet: Replace "bike pump track" with "bike/roller pump track" 121 Laguna Lake Park, Planned Improvements, Near -Term, first bullet: Near -Term (0 to 5 Years) "+ Complete a comprehensive update to the Laguna Lake Plan based on focused community outreach and input to determine the appropriate balance of active and passive uses within the park. Plan will revitalize the connection to the aquatic environment of the lake, identify enhancements to natural aquatic and upland functions; add explore the potential of adding_sports fields and other active and informal play uses; add amenities including fencing, shade, and ground treatment to the off -leash dog area; and include facilities to allow the park to better accommodate community events." Page Plan Revisions Number 121 Laguna Lake Park, Planned Improvements, Near -Term, add bullet: "+ Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all- abilit 122 Meadow Park and Meadow Park Center Change "Mid -Term (5 to 10 years)" to "Near -Term (0 to 5 years)" 122 Meadow Park and Meadow Park Center, Planned Improvements, first bullet: "+ Complete a comprehensive Plan. Plan should expand field use by extensive programming and/or installing synthetic turf (softball and soccer); reconfigure multiuse fields; improve walking paths and fitness equipment within Exposition Park (located adjacent to Meadow Park); expand the playground footprint and add an enclosed tot lot; incorporate a dog park; consider this site for a second aquatics/pool facility; reprogram and rebuild areas around the Meadow Park Center as part of that facility improvement planning such as outdoor shade structures and tables for p community rental, platforms for classes, parking lot redesign to create shared space/mini plazas for special events. Incorporate a teen, senior, or multi -generational center into the park. The park -specific Plan should also address use and long-term maintenance of the shared paths within the park." 122 Meadow Park and Meadow Park Center, Planned Improvements, second bullet: "+ Implement Phase 1 of comprehensive Plan. This should include reprogramming and rebuild areas around the Meadow Park Center. Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all -ability." 123 Sinsheimer Park, under "Near -Term ", first and second bullets: Replace "bike pump track" with "bike/roller pump track" 123 Sinsheimer Park, Planned Improvements, Near -Term (0 to S Years): Add bullet: "+ Address Sinsheimer Park area connectivity, including inclusive non -vehicular access both to the Sinsheimer Park area and through the park. Provide for an inclusive and accessible paved trail connecting the Railroad Safety Trail to Sinsheimer Park." 123 Sinsheimer Park, Planned Improvements, Near -Term, add bullet: "+ Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all- abilit Page Plan Revisions MM Number 125 Mitchell Park, Planned Improvements, Mid -Term, add bullet: "+ Amenities should be considered for multi -use, and be all-inclusive and all- abilit 126 Cheng Park, Planned Improvements Add the following two bullets: "+ Provide Improved cultural expression and educational opportunities + Maintain cultural significance of original design" 128 Ludwick Community Center, second bullet: "+ Consider renovation for staff offices, or relocation of staff offices, and/or relocation of the Senior Cente inclusive and accessible services and programs for the City's diverse senior population." 130 SLO Senior Center Mid -Term (S to 10 Years), first bullet: "+ Re -envision SLO Senior Center in the context of Mitchell Park through Planning process. Goals will include creating a strong linkage between the park and the center; and considering potential renovation or expansion or replaeemext of Senior- Genter relocation of programs and services to achieve multi -generational use of the facility. The SLO Senior Center building is a historic property, and any improvements shall be consistent with the Cites Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Increase the City's financial and staff investment in the SLO Senior Center." 130 SLO Senior Center, Planned Improvements, Long -Term (10 to 20 years) "Long -Term (10 to 20 Years) + Renovate consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and/or relocate or- r-eplaee services and programs to achieve multi -generational use of f4eility and accommodate diverse programming. Consider creating an additional accessible center for seniors." 136 Table 5-1, Meadow Park +Meadow Park Center: move "Park Plan" and "Phase I improvements, focused around Meadow Park Center" to the "Near -Term (0 -5 Years) column 136 Table 5-1, Railroad Safety Trail row: Replace "bike pump track" with "bike/roller pump track" 136 Table 5-1, Sinsheimer Park row: Replace "bike pump track" with "bike/roller pump track" Page Number Plan Revisions 137 Table 5-1, Railroad Safety Trail, under "Near -Term ", first and second bullet: Replace "bike pump track" with "bike/roller pump track" 142 Funding Strategy, second paragraph: "The City funding sources for parks and recreation include development impact fees, the general fund, grants, revenues from services provided, and pie atg hering area and facility rentals." PREAMBLE The Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) is an essential guide for the future of parks and recreation in the City of San Luis Obispo for the next twenty years. This Blueprint addresses the evolving recreational needs of our community, with a strong focus on advancing and nd supporting community building, sustainable transportation, carbon neutrality, resiliency in a changing climate, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. The Plan's Guiding Themes permeate through the goals, policies, and opportunities, and include: Key considerations for the enhancement and redevelopment of existingparksand the development of new parkland will be striking a balance between active and passive recreational use, maintaining neighborhood character, ensuring high quality design and maintenance, and optimizing resources and inclusion by providing multi -generational, multi -use, and multi -ability amenities and facilities. Incorporation of innovative universal design and continued conversations with our community will be critical to resolve and prevent any barriers to our community's safe enjoyment of City parks, recreation amenities, public art, and programs. This Blueprint also identifies the need for park activation and building community through site planning and provision of community gathering space and associated infrastructure; supporting and facilitating community events; incorporation of public art and cultural expression; and dynamic programming to address multi -generational and multi -ability needs of our community. This document is divided into five chapters and includes an Appendix with detailed background information and data supporting identified policies, recommendations, and opportunities. Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5 comprise the Parks and Recreation Plan and Chapter 4 consists of the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The Blueprint does not include uses, goals, or policies for Open Space; the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan includes goals, policies, and programspecific to the Cit Open Space. Chapter 1 introduces the planning process and overarching_ goals of the plan. Chapter 2 takes a deeper look at San Luis Obispo through demographic analysis and its parks and facilities through a detailed inventory. Chapter 3 provides a summary of the extensive community engagement conducted over three years duringdevelopment evelopment of the Plan. Chapter 4 provides the detailed policies that flow from five system -wide goals, which include: ❖ Build Community and Neighborhoods: City Parks and Recreational facilities should build and connect community through inclusive and diverse amenities and programming_ ❖ Meet the Changing Needs of the Community: Leverage regionalism and creatively increase the number of City parks, recreational facilities and amenities, to meet user needs. ❖ Sustainability: The City's Parks and Recreation facilities will be vibrant, resilient, and sustainable. ❖ Optimize Resources: Establish, maintain, and operate parks, facilities, and programs in a manner that is cost effective and manageable while engaging the community in a manner that optimizes involvement and support. ❖ Safety: Provide safe, accessible, inclusive, and well -maintained Cily parks, recreational facilities, and amenities. Chapter 5, Implementation, is intended to be aspirational and identifies a range of potential opportunities for each park and facility based on the wants and needs expressed by our community. The Implementation Chapter provides the flexibility to consider identified opportunities and determine the appropriate design and amenities of our Ci y's parks and recreational facilities through focused community outreach and the preparation of comprehensive park -specific plans. The community engagement process will include direct contact with community groups and organizations to further advance diversity, equity, and inclusion at all City parks and facilities. Fulfillment of this Blueprint will result in increased community connection within neighborhoods, the provision of equitable distribution of amenities throughout the City, the creation of safe, accessible, and inclusive public spaces for all people, and promote community investment in our public recreational spaces. Figure 4-2 SAN LUIS OBISPO SUB -AREAS AND PARK ACCESS GAPS \ N �% \ / Ji k 0 0.25 0.5 1 /! �I ' j r O/SkI/I ■■■ - - _ - eadow insh tmer — ,/ —Park — � Exposition Jo i / % Park hnson � Line Hills / / Vista Lago i / Park Park / Park tgnerf Park 1 6// � Laguna Lake / ram• y, ` / \ / \ 1l Course I \\San Lu`sR ocN& Cer/ral Neighborhood Pa y % ♦ _ / y' 1 Orcutt A SP De Vaull , , 1 I // ! Margarit�SP TI I \Neighbor dP I Park 1 San Luis PlRanch ?eidfI / I •I— • Lho6d ParkCc aS` / Orcutt Area i I \ Mprgaritp $'pecif\c (Damon-G \ I pecific Plan Area/ I i T Plan Area Sports Co \ \ I I;�a HY- ��— _ i A / / ♦ / _ Y / krFroom nch'': / / / i •� / %althea ark \ j Las Praderas — Park / / Rodrig Park i / — — _ \ — \ / Adope Po' Me .//� I rF •� Mila'11an SP I Neighborho Park— — - -,jI AV nch 0 mile IDe elopment I I ;an Area �• r ' City Boundary Parks and Recreation Facilities in San Luis Obispo --; Rail Lines Mini Creeks Neighborhood ! ! 9 _ _Specific Plans Boundary Water Community Planned Neighborhood Parks* Schools Recreation Centers & Special Features Open Spaces Service Area Population Density (people/ sq mile) 1/2 mile walkshed Subareas 1 mile walkshed 0 1,200 RESOLUTION NO. PC-1040-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PARKS AND RECREATION BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE: 2021-2041 (PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE) (GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021; CITYWIDE) WHEREAS, the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) will be an essential guide for parks and recreation in San Luis Obispo, while also serving as the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element; Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future comprise the Parks and Recreation Plan, and Chapter 4 is the Parks and Recreation General Plan Element; and WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a virtual public hearing in webinar format on March 18, 2021 on the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) (Plan Update), and recommended consideration of the Committee's comments and adoption of the Plan Update (7:0); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a virtual public hearing Study Session in webinar format on May 4, 2021 on the Plan Update and provided comments to staff, and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a virtual public hearing in webinar format on May 12, 2021 on the Plan Update, and recommended adoption of the Plan Update with noted clarifications, recognized the Plan Update is aspirational; the Commission considered City Council Study Session comments and recommended retainment of the 10 acres per 1,000 resident parkland standard, retainment of the sub -area delineations, and clarification regarding the use of the Access Gap/Amenities map, and supported additional City Council Study Session comments (7:0); and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the project. Resolution No. PC-1040-21 City -Wide, GENP-1942-2018 and EID-0150-2021 Page 2 1. The Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of persons living and working in the City by proving a blueprint for future parks, facilities, and programs, that will be inclusive, safe, and accessible to all people. 2. The Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) supports and advances many of the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the City's Active Transportation Plan, and Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery, because the development and enhancement of accessible parks and facilities in the City would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and related greenhouse gas emissions. Redevelopment of parks and facilities would facilitate carbon - neutrality and provide an opportunity to educate and showcase evolving technology. 3. The Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) is consistent with the City's General Plan, because implementation of the Plan Update would advance goals and policies of the Land Use Element, including neighborhood connectivity and enhancement (Policies 2.2.4 and 2.2.6); provision and enhancement of parks within neighborhoods (Policy 2.3.1); and increasing green space in the Downtown (Policy 4.11). SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission finds that the project's programmatic Initial Study/Negative Declaration adequately evaluates potential environmental impacts of the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and approve the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update). On motion by Commissioner Dandekar, seconded by Commissioner Wulkan, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Wulkan, Vice -Chair Quincey and Chair Jorgensen NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hopkins, Kahn, and Shoresman The foregoing resolution was adopted this 26th day of May 2021. Resolution No. PC-1040-21 City -Wide, GENP-1942-2018 and EID-0150-2021 Page 3 7� Tyler Corey, Secretary Planning Commission 7/16/2021 1 01vy 111 Cc - CITY COUNCIL Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update July 6, 2021 Recommendation Adopt,a resolution approving the Pxecre' i-o Blueprint for the Future_ -2,021 '. r s; creation Plan and Geniedal te) a,:a ad*t, Authorize Parks aneF Recreation Director to eve -and domMent a trative reams 2 7/16/2021 Scope of Update ❖ Chapters 1-3: Inventory, data, research, and community input ❖ Chapter 5: Implementation Plan ❖ Chapter 4: Goals and Policies COSE ELEMENT • Contains Policies for Open Space Uses • The Conservation and Open Space Element is a tool to protect and preserve these unique community resources. • Its overarching goal is to protect resources (such as air and water, wildlife habitat, scenic and agricultural lands, watershed and historic features) with a secondary goal of accommodating passive recreation where it will not harm the environment or interfere with agricultural operations (Page 6-8). The Parks and Recreation Element consists of plans for indoor and outdoor recreational facilities primarily for active recreational uses, such as parks, playfields and community centers. Does not include uses or policies for open space. 2 7/16/2021 ignificant changes from 2001 Addresses resident population (parkland standard) and daytime (service) population (amenity standard) "Ftention to be aspirational and visionary L �_ Achieve strong public buy -in through focuse par F and facilitv clans and communitv enaaaement ■ Not every potential park -specific amenity opportunity will be identified in subsequent park -specific plans ■ Provides flexibility to meet parkland and amenity needs Citywide Significant changes from 2001 Amenity Needs informed by: • Current inventory • Level of service standard • Community engagement • Recreational trends and consultant recommendations • Advisory body recommendations and direction Future locations of needed amenities will be guided by: • Use of sub -area map for equitable distribution • Population density within residential neighborhoods • Identification of access gaps (limited or lack of access via sustainable transportation, distance from neighborhoods) 9 7/16/2021 Significant changes from 2001 Addresses changing needs of the community (new sports, activities, interests) and goes beyond recreation with a focus on community building Intentional focus to advance and support: Sustainable Carbon transportation neutrality Evolving understanding of community's DEI need 10 Community Engagement Foundational stakeholder interviews (April 2018) 25+ Pop-up events (Spring and Summer 2018) Bright Ideas Public Workshop (September 2018) Needs Assessment Survey (August — October 2018) PRC Workshop Series (January -March 2019) Community Needs Assessment Workshop (June 2019) Park Improvement Priorities Workshop (September 2019) Public Draft Plan Update Public Workshop (March 2021) ( * CITY OF OBISPO 11 M 7/16/2021 Community Engagement - dvisory Body Communicatio Meetings with staff Social Media ommei Cards Interested — Open City Parties List Hall Neighborhood Meetings 12 arks and Recreation Plan Chapter 1: Introduction & Themes Introduces the planning process and overarching goals of the plan (starts on page 2 /Agenda Packet page 314) Guiding Themes, which permeate through the Plan's recommendations, goals, and policies: 13 Design stewardship and Excellence seetamahlilty Inclusion Building and Access Community Partnerships and Good Public Governance Engagement 2: 4: 3: SLO's What We Goals& People 8 Heard Policies Parks 0 7/16/2021 Parks and Recreation Plan Chapters 2 & 3: Community Needs Chapter 2: People and Parks. Demographics and inventory. This information was presented to the PRC and the public in the approved Community Needs Assessment Report. (Starts on page 16 / 328) 14 Chapter 3: What We Heard. Community Engagement Summary. This information was presented to the PRC and the public in the adopted Community Needs Assessment Report, and subsequent updates presented to the PRC. (Starts on page 60/372) „ e. 4: Goals & Policies General Plan Element (Page 80 / 392) Chapter 4 - Goals and Policies oil] ii1 • City Parks and Recreational facilities should build and connect community through inclusive and diverse amenities and programming. Meet the Changing Needs of i • Leverage regionalism and creatively increase the number of City parks, recreational facilities and amenities, to meet user needs. 15 1: Pa PP s8 3: Intro. 8 What We Themes Heard M 7/16/2021 Ge neral Plan Element (Page 80 / 392) hapter 4 -Goals and Policies The City's Parks and Recreation facilities will be vibrant, resilient, and sustainable. Establish, maintain, and operate parks, facilities, and programs in a manner that is cost effective and manageable while engaging the community in a manner that optimizes involvement and support. • Provide safe, accessible, inclusive, and well -maintained City parks, recreational facilities, and amenities. 2: 5: SLO's Intro. & What We ImplemeM- Themes P-ple & Heard aUon Parks 16 17 7 7/16/2021 Parks and Recreation Plan Chapter 5: Implementation Needs and priorities determined by: ■ Three years of community feedback ■ Use of recreation amenity standards to determine projected need for additional future amenities ■ Identification of access gaps and inequities (parkland, amenities, and facilities more than 10-minute walk from housing) ■ Direction and guidance from the PRC (Starts on page 102 / 414) W SL3: 4: 2: PeopleOs 8 What We Goals & Parks Heard Policies Parks and Recreation Plan Chapter 5: Implementation ■ Documents potential improvements at each park where "visionary" changes are needed ■ Links needed park amenities with park sites where those amenities would be best -suited to fit local needs ■ Identifies opportunities for additional future park sites within the City urban area ■ Identifies the costs of park improvements and funding strategy for capital improvements, programming, maintenance and operations •�, # ` ► 47 C "4 • i �! 1. X PPaP es&� 3:JG4: Intro 8 What Wels&ThemesHedPolicies 19 ME 7/16/2021 20 Parks and Recreation Plan Key Park Amenity Needs Inventory, Additional Need, Access Gaps, Priority (Starts on page 106 / 418) ■ Athletic fields (diamond, rectangle) ■ Sport Courts (basketball, tennis, pickleball, sand volleyball, roller sports) ■ Indoor Facilities ■ Dog Parks and Off -leash Dog Areas ■ Playgrounds, Outdoor Gathering and Seating Areas ■ Special Recreation Facilities (disc golf, swim centers, skate parks, bike/skate pump tracks) � 3: 4: I4_ 'SHR ' P' In�roB people8 Wha,We GoalsB ThemParks es Heard Policies 'M Parks and Recreation Plan Chapter 5: Implementation Park -by -Park Needs, Opportunities, and Priorities ■ Park and facility needs and priorities are grouped by park classification (i.e., neighborhood parks, community parks) and are then presented in alphabetical order ■ Project opportunity priorities are identified by phase (near -term, mid- term, and long-term) ■ Opportunities and priorities are also summarized in Table 5-1 (starts on page 136 / 448) Intrlo. 8 �P Par esB�What W eZGoals & Themes Heard Policies 21 a 7/16/2021 California Environmental Quality Act ■ Programmatic environmental document (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168) may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: ■ (1) Geographically, ■ (2) A logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, ■ (3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or ■ (4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. 22 California Environmental Quality Act ■ Use with Later Activities. Later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program environmental document to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. ■ For example, consideration of a comprehensive update to the Laguna Lake Plan would require tiered environmental analysis based on the specifics of the plan, such as area affected by grading and development, and identification of amenities and project details (i.e., lighting, irrigation demand) 23 10 7/16/2021 Council Study Session Mav 4, 2021 Comments Multiple edits incorporated to clarify focus on urban parks and recreation ORemoved 24 Council Study Session May 4, 2021 Comments OUpdated to include: • "Provide improved cultural expression and educational opportunities" • "Maintain cultural significance of original design" (page 126 / 438) 25 11 7/16/2021 Council Study Session Mav 4, 2021 Comments OMulti-generational center would not focus solely on cultural activities • 2021-2023 Major City Goal work program: feasibility study for multi -cultural center • Programming will support DEI goals 26 Council Study Session May 4, 2021 Comments OClarified to provide context and clear representation of workshop results (pages 74 & 75 / 386 & 387) OFuture consideration of park ambassadors to be identified based on specific amenities, operational and financial resources, and equity 27 12 7/16/2021 Council Study Session Mav 4, 2021 Comments OAdded clarification regarding future community engagement, to include direct contact with groups and organizations to further advance DEI at all City parks and facilities (page 103 / 415) m Council Study Session May 4, 2021 Comments O"Quick build" projects to be considered within the context of current CIP, Financial Plan, grant funding, community collaboration. 29 13 7/16/2021 Council Study Session Mav 4, 2021 Comments OMap amended to include population density, access gaps, and areas for future parkland within the City (page 85 / 397) 30 Figure 4.2 "age 85 / 397 Ik r7i.._ ° General Area 1. Foothill/Anholm 2. Downtown 3. Meadow / Sinsheimer 4. Righetti / Orcutt 5. Stoneridge / Margarita o r ' _- 6. Laguna Lake 31 14 7/16/2021 32 Council Study Session May 4, 2021 Comments ■ Further assess if use of resident or daytime population is appropriate for parkland aspirations (10 acres per 1,000 residents) and/or current and future amenity needs. 33 15 7/16/2021 Additional Changes ■ Updated Table 4-2 Park Amenity Standards to clearly identify additional amenity need (page 84 / 396) • Clarified language related to the SLO Senior Center (pages 128 & 130 / 440 & 442) Clearly noting historic property Renovation/expansion of building Expansion and/or relocation of programs and services (multi -generational use) 34 Parks and Recreation Commission May 12, 2021 Recommendations ■ Adoption of the Plan Update with noted clarifications by staff ■ Recognized the Plan Update is aspirational ■ Considered City Council Study Session comments and recommended retainment of the 10 acres per 1,000 resident parkland standard, retainment of the sub -area delineations, and clarification regarding the use of the Access Gap/Amenities map, and supported additional City Council Study Session comments 35 16 7/16/2021 Planning Commission Mav 26. 2021 Recommendations ■ Recommended approval of the Plan Update and adoption of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration 36 Staff Recommended Changes ■ Further clarify structure of Plan Update, add language on the cover and chapter pages to clarify Chapter 4: Parks and Recreation Element • Understanding the cost of parks Delete Open Space maintenance (page 141 / 453) ■ Mission Plaza (page 28 / 340): Downtown Public Space (not Community Park) ■ Table 5-1 Phasing of Tier 3 Park Improvements (caae 136 / 448): Clarify "Park Plan" = Comprehensive Park -specific Plan ■ Minor edits (i.e. correct table reference) 39 17 7/16/2021 Key Discussion Topics • Element parkland standard: Acres / resident population (cage 82 / 39 ) ■ Policy 1.2 Park Acreage Standards (10 acres/1,000 residents) ■ Table 4-1 Park Acreage and Access Standards • Element amenity standard: daytime (service) vs. resident population (page 84 / 39' ) ■ Policy 1.5 Park Amenity Standards ■ Table 4-2 Park Amenity Standards M Key Discussion Topics Figure 4-2 "Sub -area" delineation (page 85 / 39-) • Further modify based on current access barriers (i.e. UPRR) • Railroad Safety Trail bicycle/pedestrian grade -separated crossing (Active Transportation Plan) Safety Policy 5.2 Safe Access to Parks by Sustainable Transportation: "Create safe and clear bike and pedestrian connections to trailheads, promoting non -motorized access to the City's open spaces" (page 99 / 411) OBISPO 41 7/16/2021 Anticipated Administrative Revisions Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5 ■ Does not apply to Chapter 4, Parks and Recreation Element ■ Examples include: • Chapter 2: Updated U.S. Census Data (starts on page 17 / 329) • Chapter 2: Update Table 2-2 San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Facilities and inventory discussion (starts on page 28 / 340) ■ Chapter 5: Implementation Update Park Amenity Needs and graphics as amenities are funded and constructed (starts on page 106 / 418) 42 Recommendation y Adopt a resolution approving the P Recce _r rort;Blueprint for the Future.'02'� Par. s: creation Plan and Gerie�al e)-a Authorize Parks and Recreation Director to n%we-and doCMent a trative revision: 43 19 7/16/2021 Parkland Needs 10 acres/1,000 residents standard Current acreage New approved parkland 2035 total need (resident) 2035 additional need (resident) 44 45 Build -out NeedsHow to address needs: - Multi -use, multi -ability, multi -generational 205.6 acres - Equitable distribution of amenities 54 acres .. Conversion of land/structure to 567 acres parkland/facility - New parkland (land 307 acres acquisition) Need based on standard of 10 acres per 1,000 residents Parkland does not include joint use agreements with School District, County parks, Cal Poly parkland acreage, or Open Space Nexus Study and Fair Share ■ The City uses Quimby Fees and Capital Facilities Fees Tablel9 Maximum Parks development Impact Fees by Land Use (Development Impact Fees) to help fund the cost of new parkland acquisition and park tem improvements ■ Impact Fees were last updated Residential (per Unil) Single Family in 2018; these fees cannot be Mutfamiry (Condominiums) MUM— ly (Aparknents) used to make up for any Non -Residential (Per Sq. FL) existingdeficiencies in arkland p ° M RetaiV Serww Inswukonal Indust"' ■ The City Council chose not to Lodging )perroom) assess a parkland or park improvement fee on new commercial development due to feasibility concerns Parks oe,relopment Impact Fee Land 111 Improvements Total na $2,880 52.880 na $2,074 52,074 $1457 $2,074 53,530 $134 5191 $325 $0.73 $1.04 51.77 $0.54 $0.76 $130 $403 $573 $976 20 7/16/2021 Amenity Standard Davtime vs Resident Additional Need Diamond fields (Y) 3 new fields 1 new field Diamond fields (Y/A) 5 new fields 3 new fields Diamond fields (A) I Vew field Rectangle fields 6 new fields 2 new fields Outdoor basketball F new courts 2 new courts Tennis court 10 new courts 3 new courts Pickleball court 12 new courts 6 new courts M None 3 new fields 1 new field None jorne None None Amenity Standard Davtime vs Resident Additional Need Sand volleyball court courts Roff 2 new courts 2 new courts Roller sports court 2 new courts 1 new court 1 new court Dog park/dog area* Mqnew dog parks 7 new dog parks 7 4 new dog parks Playground/tot lot 18 new playgrounds 2 new playgrounds None Group gathering areas I 2 new areas 1 new area Disc golf None (maintain existing) None (maintain existing) None Golf course r-lone (maintain existing None (maintain existin W r�-- 47 21 7/16/2021 Amenity Standard Davtime vs Resident Additional Need Swim center WF additional facility+ Skate park 1 additional facility None Bike/roller pump track IF new facilities 'T 1 new facility Multi -generational center 43,000 square feet 11,000 square feet Senior -only center 3,000 square feet None None' None f1 new facility Parks and Recreation Plan 11,000 square feet None Parks and Recreation Plan Chapter 5: Park Amenity Needs (pages 104-114) Amenity Additional Need (update to reflect standard) 49 22 7/16/2021 Diamond Athletic Fields (Youth) Daytime Two new fields Population 50 One new field None AL Three new fields Two new fields Diamond Athletic Fields (Youth/Adult) Resident Two new fields Three new fields Three new fields Population = _ Daytime Four new fields Five new fields Five new fields Population 51 23 7/16/2021 Diamond Athletic Fields (Adult) Resident One field One field One field Population M. ami A Daytime Two new fields Three new fields Three new fields Population 52 Rectangle Athletic Fields Resident One new field Two new fields No new fields Population Daytime Three new fields Six new fields Two new fields Population 53 24 7/16/2021 Playgrounds / Tot Lots Resident Population Daytime Population 55 Ten new sites 18 new sites Six new sites Dog Parks Resident One (to seven) One (to seven) None (to four) new Population new sites new sites sites Daytime Two (to seven) Two (to seven) None (to four) new Population new sites new sites sites Notes: Consider size/adequate space for standard dog park (1/2 acre to 2 acres) Need increased based on public input 56 25 7/16/2021 Tennis Courts Resident One new court Three new courts No new courts Population L AL Daytime Seven new Ten new courts Five new courts Population courts 57 Pickleball Courts Resident Five new courts Six new courts No new courts Population Daytime Nine new courts 12 new courts Four new courts Population M 26 7/16/2021 59 Outdoor Basketball Courts Resident No new courts Two courts hEL o new courts Population Daytime Four new courts Eight new courts Three new courts Population Group Gathering/Eating Areas Resident No new areas Two new areas One new area Population Daytime Six new areas Nine new areas Eight new areas Population 27 7/16/2021 Swim Center Resident No new pool No new pool No new pool Population 11 Daytime No new pool One new pool One new pool Population 61 Skate Park Resident No new site No new site No new site Population Daytime No new site One new site No new site Population 62 RM 7/16/2021 Bike/Roller Pump Track Resident One new site One new site One new site Population A Daytime One new site Three new sites Three new sites Population 63 Roller Sports Court Resident No new court One new court One new court Population Daytime No new court Two new courts Two new courts Population .E 29 7/16/2021 Sand Volleyball Court Resident One new court Two new courts Two new courts Population Daytime Three new Five new courts Five new courts Population courts 65 Indoor Recreation / Multi -Generational Community Center Resident Population Daytime Population -- 67 Additional 5,692 square feet Additional 19,830 square feet Additional 111111111dditional 10,943 square feet 100,943 square feet Additional Additional 43,104 square feet 43,104 square feet 30 7/16/2021 Senior Center Resident No additional No additional No additional Population interior area interior area Jiterior area Daytime Additional Additional Additional Population 1,477 square 3,029 square feet 3,029 square feet feet Implementation Process Project Plans and Project Identification Project Project and Design &ecficat on Permits o Construction Cr =mpletion Budgeting Construct -Funding -Scope -Draft plans -Submit plans -Council -Pre- -Ribbon identified project meetings and to Building authorization construction cutting and -Gather public input Department of meeting -Notice of approved by information, -Advisory Body for review Advertiseme -Public completion Council public input, Review and -Address nt of project outreach project and conduct additional public Building -Advertise •Workdays- closeout site visits input Department project for varies by -initial Contact comments Public Bid project with property and resubmit -Award CIP owners, inform for building Construction and engage permit Contract public issuance •Environmental review z: 1 Inlm.B SLO's What We GoalsB u i LU / , i / People 8 ,,..� Themes parks Heard Policies T. 31 7/16/2021 Community Parks Diverse in character, unique features, & wide range of amenities which attract users from throughout the City The City has seven community parks totaling approximately 100 acres 70 Laguna Lake Park Pape 120 Comprehensive Phased Update to Laguna Lake Plan Visionary Proiects b dow Park SLO's ,�_ Intro.8 Themes PeoPle & Parks Consider trade-offs (uses to remain, uses to discontinue, new uses); mix of passive and active uses Opportunities: ■ Revitalize connection to aquatic environment ■ Continued community events ■ Dog area/dog park improvements ■ Multi -generational community center ■ Aquatics (swim) center ■ Active: fields and courts ■ Passive: botanical garden, nature center 1. z: Inlro. &11 SLO's Themes PeoPle & Parks 71 3: What We Heard 3: What We Heard 4: Goals 8 Policies 32 7/16/2021 Meadow Park and Meadow Park Center Including Exposition Park) (Page 122) Comprehensive Phased Plan Opportunities: • Increased programming and special events • Turf / field upgrades and reconfiguration • Multi -generational community center • Improved walking paths and fitness equipment • Playground expansion • Dog park • Increased shade �r 72 Ih- le's� Whatrd P.hCs Themes Heard Policies Sinsheimer Park, Stadium, and Swim Center (Pages 123, 129, and 131) Comprehensive Phased Plan Opportunities: ■ Increased programming ■ Improved access, connection to Railroad Safety Trail and future bridge ■ Dog park ■ Tennis and pickleball courts ■ Multi -generational community center • Stadium improvements/upgrades, future full renovation/new facility ■ Multi -use fields ■ SLO Swim Center redesign/expansion ■ Land acquisition 1. z: Intro. & SLO's Themes P-Ple & Parks 73 3: 4: 11 What We Goals& Heard Policies 33 7/16/2021 Neighborhood Parks Convenient and accessible active and passive recreation to residents within one-half to one -mile walking distance San Luis Obispo has 10 neighborhood parks totaling approximately 35 acres 74 Emerson Park Page 124) _ Opportunities: ■ Grant funding, implementation of Emerson Neighborhood Park Revitalization Project 75 Visionary Proiects r uierNull yarn M Mitchell Park 70 O It Themes 11 PParksBIt WHearde Poc es ■ Consider alternative location for multi -generational community center 2. 3: 4: SLO's What We Goals& People 8 Heard Policies Parks A 34 7/16/2021 76 Mitchell Park (Paae 125) Comprehensive Plan Opportunities: • Neighborhood discussion regarding safety • Special events • Expanded programming • Multi -generational activation through amenities and community gatherings Cheng Park (Pape 126) Opportunities: ■ Spatial redesign — safety, visibility, activation ■ Downtown activation and programming ■ Improved cultural expression and educational opportunities ■ Maintain cultural significance of original design 77 A ;. z: SLO's 3' People8 What Parks Heard a: Goals & Policies 1. Intro. 'IP-Pes&X le WeZGoals& Themes Heard Policies 35 7/16/2021 W Downtown Public Spaces Mission Plaza (Paae 127) Opportunities: ■ Ongoing programming and activation • Implement Mission Plaza Concept Plan Themes 1 PPar:11 WHearde Po ces Recreation Centers and Facilities Provide organized or programmed recreation Multi -generational community gathering and support 79 Visionary Projects Laguna Lake Golf Course LM6 �_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIm- 1. X P P.,es&� 3: d I Intro 8 What Goals& Themes Heard Policies 36 7/16/2021 Ludwick Community Center (Paae 128) Opportunities: ■ Renovation for indoor recreation, multi -generational community center ■ After -school childcare ■ Staff offices ■ Senior Center relocation ■ Replace within City at a new site (Laguna Lake, Meadow Park) now OF Smit LuIS OBISPO Gave. :1 SLO Senior Center (Page 130) Opportunities: ■ Multi -generational use ■ Diverse programming ■ Augment with child/youth activities ■ Consider rentability ■ Address functionality and maintenance ■ Provide greater connection with adjacent outdoor space 1. ZPPaP es&� 3: 4: Intro 8 What We Goals& Th.mes Heard Policies 37 7/16/2021 Laguna Lake Golf Course (Paae 133) 40 Opportunities: • Alternative programming ■ Community events ■ Source of financial contribution ■ Facility plan: maintenance, operation, and programming L�g 82 Railroad Safety Trail (Pape 134) Opportunities: ■ Bike/skate pump track • Improve park connections and railroad fencing • Railroad overcrossing consistent with Active Transportation Plan LW 83 M 2: 3: 4: SLO's What We 11 Goals& People 8 Heard Policies Parks It 23: 4: SLO's What We 11 Goals& People & Heard Policies Parks UM