HomeMy WebLinkAbout807_05_21...lettertothecouncilTo: San Luis Obispo City Council, Greg Avakian, P&R
Director & Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
Re: July 6, 2021 Public Hearing Item 6A: Approval Of The
Parks And Recreation Blueprint For The Future:
2021-2041 (Parks And Recreation Plan And General
Plan Element Update)
From: Allan Cooper, et. al., San Luis Obispo CA
Date: July 5, 2021
Honorable Mayor Harmon and Council Members -
We applaud the City’s effort to ensure that this document 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.
We also endorse proposing to create a new park at the City-
owned parking lot at Higuera and Nipomo streets. Finally, we
support the City’s effort to prepare a master tree list for future
climate conditions, including drought tolerant, low allergen,
high carbon sequestering trees.
An overriding principle in this document is that 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. Nevertheless conflicts with neighbors could easily 1
arise from the City’s efforts to integrate creekside trails into the
City’s park system and through creating bike and pedestrian
connections to trailheads thereby promoting non-motorized
access to the City’s open spaces.
San Luis Obispo has an extensive network of multi-use trails
which many of us believe contributes to the degradation of our
natural habitat. These trails attract non-traditional/off-road
triathlons, trail running and mountain bike triathlons including
the “Tri-Tip Challenge”. The ETC Institute surveyed households
to determine the ranked importance placed on recreational
amenities. “Open space trails” came out on top and was
prioritized over “park trails”. From this we might deduce that
those taking this survey were thinking of the “Open Space”
located just outside our City limits in addition to the “open
public spaces/places” located within our urban center (such as
the Irish Hills, Cerro San Luis, South Hills and Islay Hill
Natural Reserves). This confusion is further reinforced by
Figure 2-17 on page 355 showing extensive multi-use trails
located outside our City limits including the Reservoir Canyon,
Johnson Ranch, Waddell Ranch and Bishop Peak Natural
Reserves. Whether we want to further encourage the use of these
trails or not, this decision should fall squarely within the City’s
Open Space Access - Passive enjoyment of open space is a clear priority for San Luis Obispo 1
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.
Open Space Plan, not here. The same applies to a “Carbon
Farm Plan” for the City’s Johnson Ranch Open Space and Calle
Joaquin Agricultural Reserve (“City Farm”) in 2021 to
strategically implement compost application while also
addressing natural resource preservation.
There was an acknowledgement that the Parks and Recreation 2
Department is not adequately managing its cultural facilities
and this should include our City-owned adobes. The only
solution put forth was that "cultural organizations" should
collaborate "more deeply" with the Parks and Recreation
Department in addressing this problem. The La Loma de la
Nopalera Adobe and the Rosa Butron de Canet de Simmler
Adobe all desperately need the same attention that is presently
being directed to the Rodriguez and the Pierre Hypolite 3
Dallidet adobes.
Other neglected and underutilized city-owned cultural assets
include the Jack House, Cheng Park and the Heyd Adobe.
Managing Cultural Resources - Some felt that the Parks and Recreation Department is not 2
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.
Renovate lawn, enhance walking loop by adding exercise equipment. Potential reuse of 3
Adobe for classes, gallery space, or other uses, pending cultural sensitivity evaluation.
All of this improved maintenance requires money - the kind of
money that I presume the City is expecting to receive from
various “cultural organizations”. The City has an actual annual
cost per acre for the maintenance of the parks and grounds
system of $13,172. However, the high end of Best Practice Cost
per Acre as defined by numerous costs of service projects that
PROS Consulting in California has performed is $15,000 per
acre. Why can’t we raise the bar to $15,000 or even $20,000 per
acre? Why do all of our cultural resources have to generate
their own revenue in order to survive? It should be incumbent on
us to ante up more City funds to better preserve and protect
these important cultural and historical assets. Thank you.