Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/1991, 6 - INITIAL REVIEW OF THE DRAFT PLANNING PRINCIPLES FOR THE LAGUNA LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN MEETING DATE: '�h�►�►�� �i�!liiliii� ill's city Of SAn WIS OBISPO WftZe �t COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT REM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director �e By: Jeanette Di Leo, Long Range Planner SUBJECT: . Initial review of the draft planning principles for the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan CAO RECOMMENDATION: By minute action approve the draft planning principles for Laguna Lake Park as forwarded to the Council by the City's Park and Recreation Commission, including the comment forwarded to the Council by the County of San Luis Obispo. DISCUSSION: The attached planning principles for Laguna Lake Park (Exhibit C) are being brought before the City Council for initial review. The principles are policy statements which represent community and environmental information compiled from completion of Task I of the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan study. Task I provided for a telephone survey, an onsite survey, and workshops to obtain public opinions regarding present and future park uses, and a constraints analysis to determine development limitations onsite. Once conceptual approval of the planning principles occur the consultant will prepare three alternative park designs based on these principles, i.e. , start Task 2. The conceptual approval of the planning principles will simply provide the consultant with a framework for developing physical park designs. The alternative designs will be reviewed by City staff, the public, various commissions (Park and Recreation, Planning Commission, ARC) , and the Council. Changes or clarification in the wording of the principles will likely occur in the future as a result of public as well as city comments regarding the alternative physical park designs. In addition to reviewing the draft planning principles, this hearing will also allow the Council to comment on the constraints analysis and/or other data compiled under Task 1. This meeting will also allow the Council a chance to hear initial public comments regarding Laguna Lake Park. BACKGROUND: In October, 1990, Crawford Multari and Starr, SEDES, and Leisure Visions (the consultants) started work on the �u'�� iW�IiIIIIIIP°�u���Gl city of San WIS OBISPO 1MUG& COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 -- Laguna Lake Park Planning Principles Laguna Lake Park Master Plan. At a public hearing on January 16, 1991, the Park and Recreation Commission heard public testimony, reviewed the data provided by the consultant, and made recommended changes to the draft planning principles. The Park and Recreation Commissions recommended changes as well as a comment received from the County of San Luis Obispo are provided in Exhibit A. Public comments at the January 16, 1991 Park and Recreation Commission meeting primarily focused on dredging and future sedimentation of the lake. Other concerns were also expressed, including handicap access and habitat issues associated with dredging. Approximately 15 persons from the public attended this meeting. Letters that have been received throughout the preparation of the master plan are attached as Exhibit B. FISCAL IMPACT: The draft planning principles are an initial phase in the preparation of the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan. The planning principles and conceptual design phase of the project are supported by a contract already approved by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: Other options are available to the council in addition to the recommended action: A. The Council could support other or additional changes to the draft planning principles beyond what the City's Park and Recreation Commission recommended. B. The Council could support additional studies of Laguna Park and/or surrounding property. Such an action would likely result in alterations to the consultant contract. Attachments: Exhibit A - Park and Recreation Commission Recommended Changes & County Comment Exhibit B - Public Letters Exhibit C - Laguna Lake Park Master Plan Initial Analyses and Draft Planning Principles ATTACHMENT A PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMENT The principles listed below are those that the Park and.Recreation Commission had comments or concerns about. In addition, on the final page of this exhibit is a comment by the County of San Luis Obispo. Each principle discussed below is referenced by the page number the principle is located on and its item number. For clarification, the original principle is provided in italics. Corrections or proposed rewording is underlined, deletions are cross-hatched. page 20, item 5 Existing wording: The City should investigate expanding the park in the following priority: 0 protection of the portions of the lake and wetlands in private ownership. comment: The reference to private ownership is not clear. As presently written there was concern that it could mean easements or acquisition of the single family lots located south of the lake. The intent was to expand the park to include a northern portion of the lake presently located on private property. new wording: The City should investigate expanding the park in the following priority: • protection of the privately held portions of the lake and wetlands along the northern most region of Laguna Lake (the intent is not to include the yards of single family dwellings located along the southern shoreline of Laguna Lake) . page 21, item 5 Existing Wording: • easements restricting development on open areas outside the park. Cv'3 comment: It was noted by the public and the consultant that the eucalyptus grove across Madonna Road should be considered as an addition to the park due to its habitat value. new wording: • easements restricting development on open areas outside the park, including the eucalyptus grove south of Madonna Road Easements or acquisition of the eucalyptus grove could occur as a result of adoption of the Dalidio specific plan page 241 item 30 The southern lake shore should be evaluated in detail for opportunities to provide passive recreation, access and view points for the public. comment: It was thought that this principle should be clarified to indicate these would be viewing points on city owned _= land along the southern lake shore, e.g. , not viewing points on private property in this area. new wording: The southern lake shore should be evaluated in detail for opportunities to provide passive recreation, access and view points for the public on publicly owned land. page 24, item 31 Vehicular access should be limited; in general, new roads should not be planned for the park. However, if after more detailed analysis a new park road is deemed necessary, it must be carefully sited and designed to ensure it will not significantly impact habitat, aesthetic or recreational values. comment: It was noted that this principle should reference that the park should be orientated to pedestrian and bike traffic. new- wording: The park should be oriented to pedestrian and bike traffic Vehicular access should be limited; in general, new roads should not be planned for the park. However, if after more detailed analysis a new park road is deemed necessary, it must be carefully sited and designed to ensure it will not significantly impact habitat, aesthetic or recreational values. page 24, item 34 A trail system should be developed with the following features: 2 CP access around the lake, access to the ridge and saddle, integration of park paths with a comprehensive trail system which links the park with the Los Osos Valley Road and the neighborhood around junior high school, Foothill Boulevard and downtown. Another potential ,linkage, provided habitat values can be adequately protected, would be along Perfumo Creek corridor (upstream and downstream) . comment: The first portion of this principle references a trail system "around the lake." The intent of the statement was that a trail would be located on the north side of Laguna Lake (from Madonna Road) and extend to Los Osos Valley Road and to Foothill Boulevard. It was never intended that the trail would circle the lake. new wording: A trail system should be developed with the following features: aeeess around the ' -'--; access to the ridge and saddle; integration of park paths with a comprehensive trail system which links the park with t*e Los Osos Valley Road, Foothill Boulevard, and the downtown. Another potential linkage, provided habitat values can be adequately protected, would be along Perfumo Creek corridor (upstream and downstream) . In addition. a trail link to existing Laguna Lake neighborhoods should be explored. page 25, add 38 a comment: In general it was mentioned that an additional planning principle or revision of a planning principle should occur such that handicap access is encouraged within the park and adjacent to the lake. new principle: Handicap access should be provided within the park and adiacent to Laguna Lake. page 26, add 49 a comment: It was recommended that once grazing was removed the park plan should include methods to control potential fire hazards, e.g. , planned, irrigated green vegetation serving as fire breaks, areas mowed, or scraped, or other methods. new principle: To protect any developed areas and structures within the park from wildland fires. the park's design should include planned irrigated green vegetation serving as fire breaks. mowed areas, and/or other similar preventive measures. 3 page 26, item 50 The park should be better maintained. comment: This principle was generated at a workshop meeting. The intent of the principle was that more litter control should occur, bathroom facilities should be maintained more often, and that landscaping should be managed and enhanced. new wording: The park should be better maintained, areas of concern include litter control, better upkeep of bathrooms and other facilities and management and enhancement of landscaping. page 26, add 52 a (County Comment) comment: The County of San Luis Obispo Parks Department provided comments on February 4, 1991. As noted in the planning principles, the city may be interested in acquiring land or obtaining easements within the county's jurisdiction. Since such easements and/or acquisitions would be on county land, the county should review and comment on proposed easements and/or acquisitions. new principle: Facilities, acquisitions, and/or easements proposed outside the city's boundary should be reviewed and coordinated with the County of San Luis Obispo Parks Department and the County Planning Department. 4 - EXHIBIT B . PUBLIC LETTERS 1309 Vega Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 541-5833 November 8 , 1990 Crawford, .�Iultari, and Starr Planners , Laguna Lake Park San Luis Obispo, CA Dear People, Thank you for scheduling open meetings about Laguna Lake. 1 attended the one on Nov. 3 and heard from friends who attended the one on Nov. I . There seems to be some conflict in vision about theark' s future, but not as much as I expected. Most residents seem to agree with me that it is a unique park/lake that must be preserved rather differently--i.e. , with more concern for its important ecological values--from the other city parks. Also, I felt Mr. Multari and other planners were truly listening to all our concerns. I have" a few more concerns I did not mention Nov. 3, and am not sure others mentioned these--at least not at length. Please add them to your "file". ' i 1) Photos I took one year ago of u Lake show a b_!! drop in water levelenownd lower parts tof o the earnest a couple of months ago. One speaker, Judy Holzhauer,� • thought the cause was the drilling of water wells just south of the lower end of the lake. I.f true, this connection should be looked into. I realize one more year of below-average rainfall can cause some of this discrepancy. But surely not the drastic loss of water. Birds etc. are being affected by lower--and therefore more polluted--water levels. s Our $roup toured the ark, and noticed the overflow from a spring (_via a stock tank on the mountainside. While much of 'a flow, could it be piped down to the lake? this is not the water just seeps into the rocky hillside. As it is, 3) Someone mentioned dogs running loose in the park. I agree that they should not be allowed to. I have seen them chasing birds, splashing in the lake--and of course fouling the grounds. At the very least, owners should be required to keep them on leash and to pick up messes . This situation becomes more threatening as available water shrinks and vegetation (reeds , bushes) thin out because of the drought. I 'm enclosing a couple of photos from last winter, before rains had done much to lake or greenery. Thanks again-- n,.� ""^ 1 c .oz, . I St'^ncereIy, G.�. G • �lt��c s Anne G. Phillips � +� i RECEIVED JAN - 9 1991 Laguna Lake Park Plan - Update January 4, 1991 To: Laguna Lake Workshop Participants and Other Interested Parties From: Michael Multari, for the Planning Team Subject: Status Report and Draft Planning Principles First of all, thank you again for your interest in the Master Plan for Laguna Lake Park. For those of you who attended a workshop and/or wrote us a letter, your input has been quite helpful in our thinking about the park plan. In October and November, we held two public workshops; conducted two public opinion surveys (one in the park, one by telephone city-wide); did a biological assessment of the habitat areas in the park and surrounding vicinity; developed a constraint map based on factors such as slopes, sensitive habitats, soils conditions, flooding, noise and visual qualities; reviewed existing documents and related information about the park; and met with City staff and an advisory committee. (A summary of the workshops, surveys, and constraint analysis is available at City Hall in the Community Development Department.) Based on all of this information and advice, we developed 011ft "planning principles". When finalized, these will be the guidelines for preparing the Park Master Plan. f�Yhe draft principles are now going to be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation i ,Commission, other City advisory bodies, and then the City Council. The principles are presented in draft form, and can be modified based on public input and the comments of the City commissions and City Council. We are also interested in your comments about the draft principles. A copy of s them is enclosed. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to write me at ?�li }`' 641 Higuera Street, Suite 200, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 or call 541-3848. You can also drop off comments at the Community Development Department in �� City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by February 1. a'1T-fie first meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission on this topic is ni „t ' scheduled for Wednesday, January 16, at 7:00 p.m. in the the City Council �G City tilparticipate public ill attend.There Hearing illl be other pportunies tolatertoo and we invited try to keep you posted about when those meetings will be. Thank you again. sedes Crawford :Multari & Starr Leisure Visions �9 N V STEVE EABRY 1786 Oceanaire San Luis Obispo. CA 9340 (805) 544-1096 A Jan 91 Michael Multari Crawford, Multari F, Starr 641 Higuera #200 SLO 93410 Hi Mike, _. Thanks for sending your draft planning principles for the Laguna Lake Park. They look good. I only have a few thoughts. Item 5 - I agree with the items listed and their priorities. _ I suggest an .addition: - acquisition of the eucalyptus grove and riparian habitats along Perfumo Creek east of the park and connecting with San Luis Creek. Item 6 - I recommend that you add "quality of life, ie," between "of" F, "aestheitics" in the 2nd line. Item 50 - This is a negative statement. Perhaps change to: "The maintenance plan should be revised, implemented and monitored regularly." Two items of concern to me have not been addressed here: 1- Water rights. I have been told that Alex Madonna F; Southern Pacific have some hold on water. This should be investip_ated. If correct, the rights should be acquired by the city. 2- Increased ground water removal east of the park by the city has dropped levels and taken water from the lake. This needs to be investigated and the extent of the connection determined. IF it is as direct as it appears, water removal must be evaluated in terms of its affects on the lake level, vegetation in the park, new plantings and the eucalyptus grove east of the park. / L cc: Jan Dileo, Judy ;:euhauser, Mike Hanson 1-22-91 To: Michael Multari , for the Laguna Lake Planning Team From: Anne G. Phillips, SLO homeowner Dear Mr. Multari , Thank you for your Jan. 4 update on the Laguna Lake Park Plan. As you know, I have a deep interest in the welfare of the Laguna wetlands. I regret being unable to attend the Jan. 16 meeting, but plan to be present at future meetings. I visit the Park nearly every day--to walk, watch the use of the Park, bring "scratch" for the ducks and geese on coldest days, pick up trash, etc. My general comments right now are these: 1 ) Dog owners continue to let their dogs run loose in the Park, often to chase birds, swim in the (remaining) water, etc. One evening we saw 2 dogs (no owners visible) chasing deer on the pasture side of the fence. Do we have a leash law for the park or not? If we do, what is the penalty for non-compliance? (A faint sign about dogs-on-leash has disappeared from the Park. ) 2) As everyone knows, the water level continues to drop. Since the level was quite high last spring, in the 4th year of the drought, many of us conclude that water-well pumping is causing this sorry state as much as the drought. 3 ) A second fire within 8 months "of suspicious origin" has occurred in the wild area--reeds, shrubs, grasses. The 15 acres burned are part of the prime bird nesting habitat . The fire dept . seemed to let the fire burn for several hours. Maybe they had a good reason for this. But with almost no rainfall , we can expect the blackened area to be lost to wildlife for another year. Is there any way to prevent future arson in the Park? I think that 1 ) dogs should be on leash and penalties should be clear. (The best laws are meaningless if everyone violates them. ) I agree with #19: dogs should be barred from the "sensitive" end of the wetlands. Any dog can slip its lead occasionally. Perhaps an area near the playground could be fenced and designated "dog run, " as we see in the better roadside rests. 2) We should find out if the city wells southeast of Madonna Rd. really are having no impact. on lake water. Most Lake-watchers testify they saw a dramatic drop that coincided with increased pumping. Yes, SLO residents need water. But at what cost to our scenery?? 3) • Police need to continue patrols through the Park--I do see them and think they have a good effect. Additionally, perhaps lakeshore residents, many of whom own binoculars/ telescopes, could be alerted to watch for arsonists. Also, in times. of "high fire hazard" the sensitive habitat area of the Park could be temporarily posted and closed to `orests and many other areas dr. +.h is routinely . Then if anyone is seen fooling around in the reeds, the police hcu)d bace a reason to invest inate . I realize all this sounds very restrictive and punitive. But a 5-year-drought is not a normal occurrence (we hope) . On top of it all , human use of the Park increases yearly. Now before our eyes the water level, the wildlife, and the plant life are all shrinking. A Nov. 15, 1990, TT=T article headlined, "Is Laguna Lake Doomed':" If the degradation continues, you--and we--may have nothing much to preserve or write plans for! That would be a tragedy for city and county alike. Now for my comments on the draft principles: I am happy to see that many of the suggestions and concerns voiced by myself and others at the 1990 meetings have been addressed. If indeed your planners and the city taxpayers can support the recommendations, much of the lake's character should be preserved. In the developed area, people already appreciate the improved playground and parking. 1 . -Trails, paths, "linkages" through the nature preserve-- this preserve is, as we can see, very small and fragile. The- "barriers" you mention (x/17) will be necessary, but judging by the wooden rails now in the park, they don't do much good. I 'm especially concerned about trails that would cross the entire park, as from Madonna Rd. to Foothill ; these would encourage a lot of through traffic. At present, the nature area is slightly buffered by the fact one cannot easily use it as a through route. I am a hiker myself and love trails; but let's "think like a wild critter. " Would we set up housekeeping in open OF areas crisscrossed by hikers, bikers and (probably) dogs?? Mountain hikes, grading of trails, just people--all eventually cause more erosion and more use off trail . I urge you to keep all trails to a minimum. 2 . (x/28 ) Fishing, even in high-water times, should be questioned. Small boats. disturb water birds. And the pelicans, Canada geese etc. need the fish more than we do. Agin we must ask: Is this a nature preserve? Or a recreational park? Some officials think both can coexist in the very same spot. I don't think so. 3 _ I am glad you are cautious about adding new roads. I dr ;.ve 15 mph in the park because the sign tells me to. Most drivers are doing 25 mph. How about speed bumps? And why encourage more driving at all, when the park is so small that most people can easily walk from the various parking sites to a scenic spot? Of all impacts, cars and pavement probably create the worst. One last note: Councilman Roalman suggested (T-T, 11 -15-90 ) that residents create a special assessment district to help with costs of properly caring for the wetlands. I am a retired teacher--my taxes are quite high enough at present. But I would support such a program and urge others to do the same. Thanks for your attention. r ,V.k Am r G- Phi4s 1309 Vega Way San Luis O&spa, CA 93405 ' RECEIVED Nov November 14. 1990 Mr. Michael Multari Crawford Multari & Starr 641 Higuera Street , Suite 302 San Luis Obispo. California 93401 Re: Master Plan for the Development of Laguna Lake Park Dear Mr . Multari : I wanted to thank you for involving the citizens of San Luis Obispo in the process of the development of Laguna Lake Park . My presence at the Saturday afternoon session was specifically to give Input from the American Youth Soccer Organization Region 599 as to their needs for the youth of San Luis Obispo. During the course of the afternoon . it became apparent to me that many of the participants at that session were from an older generation and were mostly opposed to anv development of the Park . Certainly . no one wants to see Laguna Lake Park developed to the extent that It destrovs it's rural 4 character . However. the creation of up to four soccer fields at the southeastern end of the Park . where development has already occured. would seem to create minimal impact on the undeveloped and very rural northwestern end of the Park. This park should be developed so that it serves a maximum number of uses. yet leaves the greatest number of acres In a natural state . One of the comments which caused me the most concern stated the philosophy that the children should use the school facilities and leave the park alone. It seems to me that the City of San Luis Obispo needs to develop their own facilities and maintain them. as opposed to letting the youth of our community use the school fields which the School District is unable to maintain because of budgetary constraints. American Youth Soccer Organization Region 599. on which I serve as a Director . has over 650 children enrolled in it's program. This program has grown tremendously . resultina in three or four teams practicing on every school field in San Luis Obispo available to it . Scheduling of actual games on Saturdav utilizes four fields from 9:00 a .m. until late In the afternoon . If' this Program is to grow to meet future needs of our children . the Ci tv must assume It's responsibility to make facilities available . it is Amer c an Youth Soccer Organization Region 599' s hope that your recommendations to the City of Sar. Luis ObisDc for the development of Lacuna Lake Park will Include our recommendation of up to four appropriately designed soccer fieids. which would be real evidence of the Citv's willingness to Invest In the children of our community. something which has been regrettably lacking until now. By the way. our program serves both boys and girls from six to sixteen years of age. It Is broken out into five divisions with a total of about 44 teams. The American Youth Soccer Organization Region 599 has no difficulty with these fields being developed so as to serve the needs of Youth Football and Youth Baseball as well . Sincerelv. Michael B. Dwiggins AYSO Region 599 Board of Directors 38 Chuparrosa San Luis Obispo. California 93401 a owl 7 1-26-91 Dear Mr. Multari , I really like this clipping from the T-T. Even close to a big city , with all the pressures to develop, people saved a. local "nature area. " I know Laguna Lake is not exactly the same as Huntley Meadows Park. The total area is much sma (1261 acres of undeveloped land at Huntley) . Alsc they obviously have a lot more water than we do , especially now! But the principle is the same: save a piece of wild land for the future. And it ' s even more valu,, when it ' s near developed cities/towns/suburbs . Note too that "people come from" all over to enjo; it . This is no doubt true of SLO and its natural beauty, too. -� Contrast the lack of recreational stuff at Huntle3 with Laguna Lake. Also note the boardwalk for viewing--one of the citizen ideas in your workshol I think that a network of through trails (from Madonna Rd. to Foothill) will destroy most of the habitat at Laguna. People cannot , will not stay on a trail. It will become a busy shortcut. Thank you. Sincerely, Anne G. PhillipsAm 1 G 1309 Vega w,;• ,San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 yp1 pp � g J W 9 O C C �a bb. J4 935i e°N ����� ° a. .� $O3dca C �y..w. g,em ae=6� m .' CEo,$ wcLa cm o'Cmm Eem Lew i S p P r e m E3 �r i •••��� m m ° 3 'O A o ,y a.. •' . s a ,�#'� ���$ � 8g CA 841- ff/w� m � oL`y� a •.r/ a X0559 C 5 and Ow • e gmg�vm y = � r m Lo o•d e .: 69 MON a 0 4;r: .0 WS RA-CijZ E Y E o a s co $ a to rip. Will I Lk; d �rgg''a' vo� � Za + sd��a6bac� $ EV 1 $` is x91°9 p /L� e � 0-�F'g�`m �� mE'$m•. °�5 je-E'$g2Vc �=�2S � E •V ORE 0� E ��3aa 9O p' //L16y 9 m L� `• .6 a`7.9 � G 5$j�` $ 3.�`�iQ?11 1 MI-1 (pp1 �3 0 ffi 14 0, 3 T J b yy YYYGGGiii m S pp 6 p �(_ 7 d W r, L BE R rJggg' m yy m �• O•.� O 00.... tl1 .Q � u NF Wm$Y4. NrmpLEL� 5t.�0e.50U rCVp+ u Sr gam ' SFsS smaE &�V € &- Date Z 5 -moo Af 197f f To �� MCI- TA�2( Ftom L,�f l�lJ.�f;cTf QLi�lJ..lr7t ��,� 1200- 7A�L- z ff 2 A 1-! Lr 13 r= /Aok f/IADr A !•A17 fir' l C�1 D.10 1 G.L� !�Al7 /•S Aj yc v /—�r /Z %/fir' CElrnc�p i RECEIVEC 30V - 710 STEVE EABRY 1786 Oceanaire San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-1096 6 Nov 90 Crawford, Multari $ Starr 641 Higuera SLO 93401 Paul & Mike, I wanted to emphasize an important point that was only indirectly made at the Laguna Lake workshop To best plan & manage Laguna Lake and park, it must be considered as part of two very important corridors running thru the city. These are the Perfumo Canyon Creek riparian corridor connecting to San Luis Creek and the Cuesta, O'Connor, Foothill, Madonna, San Luis Creek cir- culation corridors. A problem often mentioned was the silting and filling of the lake. While a natural process, this has been accelerated by moving Perfumo Creek to the lake in the early 60's and by land use practices in the creek corridor. Resolution involves important activities in the creek corridor as well as in the lake. Similarly, many of the stated benefits of the park depend on a relatively natural riparian corridor above P, below the lake. An extremely important area is the eucalyptus grove below the lake. Perfumo Canyon Creek from the Irish Hills to San Luis Creek, especially the eucalyptus grove is a rare jewel . It is a unique opportunity to have such habitat available within a city. This grove supports nesting and roosting great blue heron, roosting turkey buzzards, nesting $ roosting raptors, deer, raccoon, opossum, many species of song birds, and wintering monarch butterflies. Park planning should include additions to the park, including the _ eucalyptus grove and extensions to the area of O'connor $ Foothill Roads. The eucalyptus grove is an integral part of the habitat and fauna of the park - its loss would greatly reduce the parks ability to function as it does now. The grove would be an ideal location for an environmental center for school and public education. A corridor to Foothill would provide a much needed bike and nedestrian connection. Also, in the near future, a motor vehicle access to the park from this area will be necessary. The bike/pedestrian trail should continue across Madonna at Dalidio and continue on the east side of the eucalyptus grove to San Luis Creek. I 'd be happy to enlarge on theseideas. The most knowledgeable person on the Perfumo Canyon Creek corridor is Judy Neuhauser. I suggest {� you contact her if you haven't already. �I Thanks for your workshops and your special apnroach to this project. i San Luis Obispo County YMCA November 6, 1990 Mike Multari Cravford, Multari, and Starr 641 Higuera Suite 302 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Multari, Recently I received notice of a workshop concerning the future plan of Laguna Lake. . Though I could not attend this important meeting, the YMCA is very interested in being involved in the process. The YMCA Board of Directors are at the beginning stages of a County-wide Facility Development Plan. These long range plans are sure to include additions to our current site and/or relocation of our facility to better serve our Cor.►munity. The YMCA would ask for a space in the Park on which to develop a facility with private funding. The Laguna Lake area harp been discussed informally with the YMCA Board of Directors and with City staff. Acceptance of the idea(s) bring me to ,the conclusion that the •Y" is very interested in having an opportunity to be a part of the New Master Plan. for Laguna L.ake Park. Please keep me notified of subsequent events in regards to this matter. Sincerely, Z� Mike Mogeneen CEO San Luis Obispo 1020 Southwood Dr. • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • (805) 543-8235 South County • 340 Pomeroy St. • Pismo Beach, CA 93449 • (805) 773-4182 Camp Ocean Pines • Cambria • (805) 543-8235 �� I �Zt 141 city of San WIS OBISPO 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 January 16, 1991 MEMORANDUM TO: Jan DiLeo, Long Range Planner FROM: Lane Wilson, Parks & Buildings Manager SUBJECT.: Laguna Lake Park Plan - Comments on Update Draft Planning Principles In general, I agree with these principles. I also have a few questions and thoughts. I see this park as a major community resource which could serve as a center for a byway system for walkers and cyclists using green belts and creekways which link all other city facilities. The additional properites should be acquired. The lake should be dredged and marsh areas should be protected. Interpretive trails in both marsh areas and on the hillside should be established, as should observation towers. Sports and games should not be scheduled as part of the recreation program for this park; play fields should be for drop- in play. Materials for construction of park facilities should be durable, low maintenance type, such as steel, concrete and plastic. These should be finished in color and texture to give the natural character referred to. The weather (cold, wind, dampness and ocean influence) is very hard on wood and painted material. Wood should be used at a minimum where contact by users is minimal. If grazing is discontinued, a policy needs to be set up to deal with the fire hazard that will be created. An overhead crossing to the shopping center should be considered. If the park becomes a hub for byways and a community center location, many children will come to the park. The shopping center is an attractive place that will draw them. How should the park be better maintained? What were the comments? Thanks, Jan, for giving me a chance to ramble. lagplan.0 p/1w#8 J�nu�rY 16, 1771 A N o t e F r o m _ D at Ne e 0 1 s o n Farkas and Recreation Commission City of San Luis Obispo A conflict with the tonights meeting has come up and I will not be able to attend. My notes on the Rec. and Open Space survey and the Laguna Lake Study are listed below. Please accept my apology for missing this meeting. Parks and Rec Survey: 1 . I feel we should see a list of the specific survey objec- tives and how the information is to be used. Without this information , it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of the questions. . I should like to see more emphasis on identifying commu- nity interest in and understanding of open space. This seems to me to be an area which need specific attention. Laguna Lake Study: 1 . I endorse the direct of the Draft Planning Principles. 2. I feel we should inquire into the siltation problem. Will dredging be necessary even if we are successful in the silta- tion contrals^ 3. I am interested in what is meant by the comment on page 26 that the park: should be better maintained. %A IDA RECO FEB 19190}0 Nipomo Street P.O. Box 15602 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 805/544-KIDS am COUNCIL I SAN LUIS Q9IJ$M CA February 15, 1991 CDPMTO: W; RO CDD Dtit Members of the City Council ❑ M•mR City of San Luis Obispo 1_��n�t�l�Z 11 FIN DDL PO Box 8100 0 a.�uc% ❑ paLiaCK San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 rffir-DR El DF7LE [❑ DIR ❑ Lr r�J�"',E L E SUBJECT: Relocation of San Luis Obispo Children's Museum Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: As you know, The San Luis Obispo Children's Museum currently occupies a 2,000 square foot city-owned building at 1010 Nipomo Street and is seeking an appropriate site for its future permanent facilities. If the Little Theatre maintains its fundraising and building program on schedule, we may be moving sometime in 1992. We're preparing now for that move so we can keep our doors open continuously and without hindering Little Theatre's building progress. Aft.'r:i'. o::at::fasl -udy and _orsiderztion...of.a number. of notential sites where we could develop a 4,000 to 6,000 square foot facility, the Museum Board of Directors unanimously agrees that a downtown site would be ideal. We believe there is a mutually beneficial relationship between the museum and downtown; the museum draws people who remain in town to shop and shoppers also visit the museum. Since the museum currently attracts an average of 600 visitors each weekend (up to 1200 some weekends) and has involved numerous volunteers (who have contributed over 2,000 hours since September), we feel the museum offers a significant contribution to the vitality of downtown. While the Board strongly favors relocating downtown, it also recognizes that suitable sites are scarce and costly. We don't have the funds to purchase property and again request the City's help. We ask that the Council consider allowing the museum to use one of its smaller downtown parking lots in exchange for payment to the Parking Fund of in-lieu fees for removal of parking spaces. Our Board favors either of two lots which are not likely to be developed into larger parking facilities because of their size or site constraints and seem appropriate for downtown commercial uses. They are: * the permit lot across from the Art Center (20 parking spaces) and * the Monterey Street frontage of Lot 14 which runs between Monterey and Palm Streets (15 spaces). If the Council does not support either of these options, we hope that it will consider allowing thb museum to relocate at Laguna Lake. Although we hate to give up the relationship which accompanies the museum in a downtown spot, a Laguna Lake Park location offers room for expansion, space for outdoor activities, ample parking, and possibly regional draw from adjacent shopping centers. Of course, we welcome the opportunity to be grouped with other related recreational and educational facilities and share spaces for play, parking, meetings and offices. We recognize that the Council has not had the benefit of staff analysis prior to reviewing our request and may wish to discuss this matter at a future meeting. However, for the purposes of the current review of the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan, we hope the Council seriously consider us as a potential tenant and include us in the planning process if it deems appropriate. Please feel free to call us if you have any questions or need more information to respond to this request. Thank you for your consideration. Sin c ely, Rob Strong Candace Havens Chairman, Site lection Committee President, SLO Children's Museum 5434560 544-3656 c: John Dunn Arnold Jonas Jim Stockton Mike Multari SLOCM Board of Directors