HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1993, 6 - STATUS UPDATE ON AND POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY/SENIOR CENTER RECREATION STUDY CONTRACT. IIIN^`�III�IIIII^III�II�I�I MEETING DATE:
III II h�uil cityof san suis oBispo nft
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBE
a
FROM: Arnold Jonas, ommunity Development Director; By: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Status update on and possible changes to the Community/Senior Center Recreation
Study contract.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: By motion, 1. Amend the contract with Jay Farbstein and
Associates to suspend contract work for up to 18 months; 2. Maintain the current workscope and
schedule in the amended contract for remaining work; 3. Authorize the City Administrative
Office to execute the amended contract.
SITUATION
The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff have been discussing the status of the
Community/Senior Center Recreation Study. After meeting with the consultant and the
Commission, staff agrees with the Commission's recommendation that the City would be best
served by postponing any further work on the study to a future date to more closely coincide
with preparation of the Parks and Recreation Element update.
Under this approach, the City would pay the consultant (Jay Farbstein and Associates) for work
done since the last billing, estimated at about $7,000 ($25,175 (53%) of the $47,595 contract
has been paid to the consultant to date). The Council would then amend the contract schedule
to postpone completion of the study to coincide more closely with the Parks and Recreation
Element update expected to start in approximately 18 months.
On May 5, 1993 the Parks and Recreation Commission received a presentation from the
consultant, summarizing the study's analysis and key findings to date (report attached). As a
follow-up, Parks and Recreation and Community Development staff reviewed the report and
submitted questions to the consultant on June 9th. The staff letter and consultant's response are
attached.
ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
On October 6th the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council
postpone work on the Community/Senior Center Study for up to 18 months. Commissioners
emphasized the need to complete the study and the Parks and Recreation Element update in the
near future, but recognized that given other General Plan work, it could be 1995 before the
Parks and Recreation Element update could start. They felt the study would be more useful if
completed at about the time work on the Parks and Recreation Element began (minutes attached).
DISCUSSION
Reasons for the recommended course of action include:
�►�h�i�i►��IIII(�IIP ��U�U city of San tins OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
1. Timing. The initial phases of the study produced some useful information regarding
recreation needs and space requirements. The study's next phase is more time and
market-dependent. It would evaluate and recommend specific sites for facilities and
provide cost estimates -- detailed information that could become outdated quickly. It
would be more useful to complete the remaining tasks within about six months of starting
the Parks and Recreation Element.
2. Age of Study. Study results are to be used by the Recreation Department for its
Recreation Master Plan and in the Parks and Recreation Element. Preparation of the
Parks and Recreation Element Update is expected to begin in 1995. By that time, much
of the study would be over four years old, and the study may then need to be updated
at additional cost to provide useful input for the Parks and Recreation Element.
3. Study Results. Given the study's long-range importance to the City, it is appropriate
to suspend or terminate the work at this time and utilize that information (eg. needs
assessments, analysis of existing facilities) which has been generated to date and meets
City needs, and to defer further work for about 18 months -- timed to precede
preparation of the Parks and Recreation Element by about six months.
The recommended action has several advantages: 1) work products will be timely and will be
based on the most current information available, including the updated Land Use Element; 2)
the City will avoid the time-consuming process of selecting a new consultant for the study in 18
months; and 3) it will maintain continuity in the consultant team. Disadvantages of this
approach may include: reduced consultant enthusiasm and/or commitment due to the prolonged
study period; and lost opportunity to gain new perspective or problem-solving techniques offered
by hiring a different consultant to complete the contract work at a later date.
Contract Provisions
Section 6 of the City's contract with the consultant allows the City to suspend the contract
wholly or in part, for such period as determined necessary due to unfavorable conditions. If this
happens, the consultant is to be paid for work satisfactorily completed up to the date of contract
suspension. As noted above, the consultant has submitted a claim for about $7,000 for work
completed to date.
Contract Changes
If the Council suspends contract work, only the contract schedule would need to be changed.
Remaining consultant work would follow the contract (A-147-90-CC) in all other respects,
including workscope, consultant fees and agreement terms. However, the consultant proposes
to modify the workscope and add two months to the time required to complete the study. Under
the proposed changes, the consultant would:
����n���►►►�IIIIIIIIIP° IIIIIN city of San LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report i
Page 3
1. Provide additional discussion of senior's needs;
2. Present study changes to the Steering Committee before finalizing Site Selection Criteria.
3. Identify potential sites only for one type of facility, eg. larger facility for centralized use.
Proposed workscope items 1 and 2 flow logically from the original workscope, and are not
significant changes in terms of services provided or time required. Item 3 would reduce the
consultant services originally agreed to and is not appropriate. The study should evaluate
potential sites for all types of facilities identified as recreational needs, including large or small
facilities.
If the City Council suspends the current contract for up to 18 months, it should be done with
the understanding that the original contract timeframe and workscope would be adhered to. The
study would resume with completion of Task 2.5, "Develop and Evaluate Alternative Scenarios",
and it would be completed in 90 days, per the original contract (84 days for completion of Draft
Site Evaluation Criteria, Preliminary Recommendations, and Phase III Final Report and
recommendations.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding in the amount of $24,825 is available for completion of the contract and should be
encumbered for that purpose.
■ Contract Cost (per A-48-90-CCN) $47,595
Fees already paid for work completed [25,175]
Balance of Contract Cost $229420
■ Remaining funds budgeted for study
(400-9005-530-551)
Total Funds Remaining $249825
ALTERNATIVES
1. Terminate the contract. Section 7 of the contract allows the City to terminate the
agreement for any reason by notifying the consultant in writing seven days prior to
termination and by paying the compensation due and payable up to the date of
termination. The City would then request consultant proposals in late 1994 for
completion of the contract work. The current consultant, as well as other consultants,
could then submit proposals for Council evaluation and selection.
b'3
"����il�lllllpll gni►I����N city of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
Advantages of this approach are that the Commission and City Council could take afresh
look at study products and needs, allowing greater program flexibility. It would also
allow the new Parks and Recreation Director to take an active role in defining the study
workscope, schedule, and products; and it could provide additional insights on recreation
needs by allowing a different consultant perspective. The chief disadvantage is that it
could result in increased costs and delay from a new consultant selection process in the
future.
2. Proceed with the contract as is. The consultant's July 9th letter describes remaining
tasks to be completed, methods to. be used, and an approximate timeframe. The City.
Council may opt to proceed with the contract at this time if it is satisfied with the study's
progress to date, feels the study's timing is appropriate, and is comfortable with the study
direction as outlined by the consultant. In this case, staff and the consultant would
continue work on the study, and keep the Council informed as to the study's progress.
Advantages of this approach are that it maintains momentum for completion of the study
with many of the same commissioners, councilmembers, consultant and city staff`'that
participated in the earlier study phases; and it would minimize staff time required to
amend the contract or to select a new consultant. The chief disadvantage is that study
results, particularly with regard to site suitability and feasibility, may not be timely for
use in the Parks and Recreation Element update.
Attachments:
■ Letter from Jay Farbstein and Associates
■ June 9, 1993 staff letter to consultant
■ April 28, 1993 Parks and Recreation Presentation report
■ Draft Parks and Recreation Commission minutes, October 6, 1993
Council Reading File includes a copy of the current contract.
r
Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.
Needs Assessment Studies
Facility Programming
Design Evaluation — -- -- — — ——
July 9, 1993
Jeff Hook RECEIVE,
Community Development Department
P.O.Box 8100 jUL , 91993
San'Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 OMiDFSAN LUIS O@ISpo
DEVELOPIgt,
Re: Community/Senior Center Study
Our Ref. #9006
Dear Jeff:
As we discussed at our meeting of June 29, 1 am writing to respond to your comments of June 9 and give
our proposed work plan to complete the project.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OF JUNE 9
1... As we discussed the size of the sample relative to the size of the entire population it represents is
statistically irrelevant. I have read an excellent discussion debunking the myth that a sample needs
to be a specified percentage of a population, but it is not in any of the statistics texts in our office. I
suspect it was from Nunnally,Jim C., Psychometric Theory, 1978, which I have also used before. I
have enclosed a photocopy of a discussion of determining sample size for parametric data
(measurements Ike test scores)from Blalock, Social Statistics, 1979. You will note it never
mentions the size of the population or percentage of it, but instead bases needed sample size on the
desired confidence interval and standard deviation. For nonparametric data (cross-comparison of
categories), sample size is based upon the desired confidence interval, the number of cells_ in the
comparison, and the magnitude of the deviation between cells.
The 350 responses were 17.450/0 of the 2,000 surveys mailed. This is not unreasonable for a mail
survey.
Alan Hopkins developed a stratified random sample of city residents from the city's land use
Inventory, which includes all mailable city addresses. The data base was sorted by traffic zone, and
cases were drawn at random from each zone in proportionate numbers to the population in each
zone. Thus, the sample was designed (stratified) to be representative of the distribution of
population throughout the city. Because cases were selected at random from stratified groups
(traffic zones),we have a stratified random sample rather than a true random sample. The sample
was developed by city staff using a method used and considered acceptable for previous studies
conducted both internally and by outside consultants.
The primary threat to the validity of the sample is that the population we drew our cases from were
households and not persons. We had no control over who in each household responded to the
questionnaire. As we had no economically viable alternative, the limitations of this were discussed
and accepted by city staff, including Jan DiLeo, Alan Hopkins, and Terry Sanville (meeting notes
4,8/91 and 4,122/91).
6-�
1411 Marsh Succt, Suite 204, San Luis Obispo, California 93401.2921 • Telephone: 805 541 4940 9 Fax : 805 541 b612
Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.
Jeff Hook
July 9, 1993
Page 2
2. To evaluate the over representation of childless respondents we recomputed the preferred
participation rates using the original data weighted to be consistent with the proportion of
respondents with children that would be expected based upon 1990 Census data. This was done
for responses for five activities most engaged in by youth. The results for the weighted cases were
not significantly different from the results from the base data, so it was agreed to use the results
from the base data.
3. No non-residents participating in programs offered by other city recreation programs were surveyed.
We surveyed San Luis Obispo residents participating in programs offered by other cities, and non-
residents participating in programs offered by San Luis Obispo.
4. A discussion of nationwide recreation standards was presented at the Steering Committee meeting
of 1/9/91. Please contact me for a copy of the briefing paper distributed at that meeting if it is not
included in your records.
5. A discussion of the use of existing facilities can be found on page 4 of the Parks and Recreation
Commission Presentation dated 5/5/93. Please let me know if I can further clarify the material
presented there.
6. The connection to what is needed and why is discussed in Recreation Standards Draft dated May
20, 1992. In brief,we calculated the needed facilities from survey respondents' expressed monthly
participation rates for a number of activities and assumptions regarding the daily turnover rate for
each space, the number of participants in each activity, and a percentage of the total demand to be
provided by the city. For example, we assumed one third of the needed meeting space would be
provided by the city, with the balance provided by other entities such as the county, Cal Poly, and
private vendors.
7. A copy of our briefing on Senior Recreation Issues was delivered to Jan DiLeo on November 21,
1991. Let me know if you need a copy.
8. The unfeasibility of expanding the Senior Citizen's Center is based upon the CAO Special Report
dated 4/88. 1 will enclose a copy, since Linda Fitzgerald's transmittal did not indicate she sent a
copy to you.
9. The basis for the alternative scenarios is discussed in Recreation Facility Needs (Draft) dated March
22, 1993. To summarize, Scenario One is based upon the distances respondents to the survey
were willing to travel for certain activities and the group sizes needed for other activities. The other
scenarios are all the general alternatives we could find to Scenario One. For assumptions
concerning needs see the following:
• Recreation Standards Draft dated May 29, 1992
• Recreation Facilities Needs Draft dated March 22, 1993.
For assumptions regarding private recreation facility availability see:
• Recreation Standards Draft dated May 29, 1992
• Policy Interviews (no date, presented at meeting April 4, 1993)
6-k
1411 Marsh Street, Suite 204, San Luis Obispo,California 93401-2921 • Telephone: 805 541 4940 • Fax: 805 S41 0612
i
)ay Farbst_ein & A..ssociates, Iric.
Jeff Hook .
July:9, 1993- -
ra
Page 3. .;. _
Demographics were considered in terms of participants age and their related ability to trave_I
Independently for activities. Youth are limited to bicycles and bus routes to independently access
activities. Marry seniors are limited to walking and bus routes, and 80% of the users o_f the current
Senior Citizens' Center live within a 3/4 mile radius of the facility. Part of the intent of includ-
,neighborhood facilities in Scenario One was to provide independent access to activities for these
two:demographic groups.
1.0. Tasks 2.7 and 2.8 will address alternative sites. Task 2.9 will address construction costs. It i;not in' =
our contract to evaluate potential funding mechanisms, but we are willing to negotiate a scope to
0.0
so. Shared use potential is discussed in Policy Interviews (no date, presented at meeting Apri 4.
-1993),
.11'. 'What is described as "integrated facility use"could be developed for any of the scenarios except
.Scenario Four. We will further develop Scenario One along the lines described.
12., -A plan and schedule for remaining work will follow these itemized responses.
13. City facilities are inadequate to meet demand because
existing facilities are completely scheduled with activities for normal use hours
'activities for which there is demand are not scheduled due to a lack of space
the survey results indicated a preferred rate of participation that far outstrips the current
capacity of existing city and not-city recreation resources
'interviews with other recreation providers including Cal Poly, Cuesta, YMCA, and private
vendors reinforce the view that there is currently inadequate indoorrecreatib,n space to meet
demand.
1'4::. Vetefdws Hall is an existing resource. To shift management-from the county to the city wouldshift,
the priority of use to city programs, but would not increase the capacity to meet total demand. The
status of the Emerson School site has changed since Jay's evaluation of May 31, 1,991,: 1 will
instruct Karl Mohr to consider the site as part of Task 2.7.
'115., Drop-in and easily reservable activities would be consistent of the intent of neighborhood facilitiesiin.
Scenario One. We will indicate the potential in our preliminary recommendations (Task 2.10),.
16 We agree. Scenario One seems to best respond to the information obtained from our survey and
interviews:,
17. The options to meet seniors' needs were discussed in our briefing on Senior Recreation Issues
delivered on November 21, 1991, We will cover the issue more thoroughly in the remainder of our
work... Our remaining work plan indicates what we will spedifically.do to cover'senior recreation
;needs in our recommendations.
l
_ V r
1141:1 Marsh Street Suite:204,San Luis Obispo, California 93401.2921 • Telephone: 805 541 4940 a Fix: 805,541 061,2
Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.
Jeff Hook
July 9, 1993
Page 4
REMAINING WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE
The remaining work plan is based upon the assumption that we are about 2/3 complete with Task 2.5. In
general, our remaining work will follow the original scope. The only deviation is that we will elaborate
upon seniors' needs in the completion of Task 2.5.
Task 2.5 Develop and Evaluate Alternative Scenarios
To complete this task, we will integrate seniors' needs by calculating the specific amount of space
required for seniors activities using the same process used for determining overall recreation space
needs. We will revise Scenario One to:
• include a specific strategy to provide space for seniors
• decrease the overall quantity of space in the larger facilities
• indicate minimum and optimum site sizes for subsequent identification of sites
• develop a phasing plan that includes an initial project that can used as a focus for a first step in
overall implementation.
Deliverable: Revision of Recreation Facility Needs Week of July 26
Task 2.6 Develop Site Selection and Evaluation Criteria
This task will be performed per the original scope with one exception: we will present and discuss our
revisions of Task 2.5 at the steering committee meeting before the discussion of site criteria. Except for
meeting notes, results of work will be delivered as part of Task 2.10.
Meeting Week of August 2
Deliverable: Meeting notes Week of August 9
Task 2.7 Identify Potential Sites
The only change from the original scope is that we assume we will be identifying sites only for one type of
facility, probably the larger facility for centralized use. Results will be reported with Task 2.10.
Task 2.8 Evaluate Sites
Work per original scope, results delivered with Task 2.10.
Task 2.9 Preliminary Cost Estimates
Work per original scope without qualification regarding the number and type of facilities. Results
delivered with Task 2.10.
1411 Marsh Street, Suite 204, San Luis Obispo, California 93401-2921 • Telephone: 805 541 4940 • Fax: 805 541 0612
_ .
a:
31
IJay.Farbstein & Associates, fnc.
Jeff'Hook.. �, P
Page 5 " $ ;
Task 210_ Develop Preliminary Recommendations
Work,iperoriginal.scope,
Deliverable:Administrative draft (covering September 10
Tasks 2 6,through 2.10 only)
City Deliverable: Staff Comments September 20
Deliverable Revised_administrative draft Week of September 27 ry, ;
_
Steeeing;;Committee Meeting Week of October 11 ti
Task 3A Refine Recommendations
Work penorigfnalsc_ope,
11 eliverable:Revised administrative draft Week of October 18
City.Deliverable Staff Comments Week of November 1
•'i
Task'3:2, Final"Report
Workrpec;original scope: r' .
Deliverable: Draft final report Week of November b5
Public Meeting Week of November 29
Deliverable: Final Report December 17
t-
PROJECT TERMINATION
You'requested me to report what would be required to terminate the contract, The fol-lowing is a
su.mmary•of costs to close-out the project before completion-
Jay Farbstein
ompletion_JayFarbstein& Associates
-Bill&es since last pay point $5,1;98
". Close out files:
Principal 2 hours @ $90 180 '
Sr: Prof: 12 hours @ $60 720 '.
rALeisure visions 900
.CFawfdrd; Multari & Starr 0
Total- — $5,998
14;1.1 Marsh`Street,suite 204, San Luis Obispo California 93401-293:1 • Tc'Icp'honc:.805'541 49:1() r. Fix. (ltil:? '
Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.
Jeff Hook
July 9, 1993
Page o
I believe the above covers all the information you requested. Let me know if there is anything I can add
or clarify.
Sincerely,
Jay Farbstein &Associates, Inc.
Greg Allen Barker, AL
IA :
c. without enclosure Lynn Jamieson
Karl Mohr
Jim Stockton
1411 Marsh Street, Suite 204,San Luis Obispo,California 93401-2921 • Telephone: 805 541 4940 • Fax: 805 541 0612
city of sAn lues oBispo
-- = 990 Palm Street"Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 934.03.8100
June 9, 1993
Jay Farbstein and Associates
1411 Marsh Street, Suite 204
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2921
Attn: Mr. Greg Barber
Subject: May 5, 1993 Community/Senior Center Draft Study
Dear Greg:
Following are comments from Planning and Parks and Recreation staff on your May 5th
presentation to the Parks and Recreation Commission. As I explained earlier, it is an
appropriate time to evaluate the study — its findings to date as well as the expected products
from the remaining tasks -- before any further work is done. A meeting with Planning and
Recreation staff would be timely to discuss this and the other comments and issues listed below.
Planning Comments
1. P. 2, 2nd paragraph. The survey results provide a very limited view of community
recreation needs -- only 350 responses out of a total population served of about 42,000
persons -- or less than 1 percent. To call this a 17.45% response and "slightly lower
than typical" seems misleading. Were respondents selected to provide a representative
sample of all City residents? If not, what are the limitations of relying on this data for
space needs?
P. 2, 2nd paragraph. How was overrepresentation of respondents in some areas and a
disproportionate number of childless respondents "considered when survey results were
analyzed" as stated in the paper?
P. 3, 3rd paragraph. How many non-residents participating in programs offered by other
city recreation programs were surveyed?
4. P. 3, 4th paragraph. The original scope of work (Task 2.3) was to include nationwide
recreation standards as a basis for analyzing need. This study seems to discount national
standards and use previous City standards. Why?
—.._ .�.... _� �...i �.J��- . w� :1�.�:Uu �0 ifl��J.�.0 :..e �..ia:i�CJ .;1 ani ail .fi >e; %les, V:uyf.fi end n,i,% 1.es
\wC•�l TelecoMmU'n.Ca11ons Dea•Ice-for the•Deaf (805) 781.7410.
Community/Senior Center Study
Page 2
5. Under the various alternatives, especially scenario #2 involving "total decentralization",
what happens to existing indoor recreation facilities? It's not clear from the study
whether these are retained or retired as new facilities are built.
6. P. 3, bottom. This list of space needs appears to overstate facility needs. There is no
clear link between what's needed and why. Please explain why the City needs need more
assembly rooms in addition to the private and public facilities which already exist in the
City?
7: P. 49 4th paragraph. Task 2.5 of the consultant's workscope was to discuss the
feasibility of shared community/senior facilities. I see little discussion of that here. Just
stating that "Planning should take into account coordination and the potential for
cooperative projects..." doesn't meet the intent.
8. P. 4, paragraph 7. Please explain why it is not feasible to expand the Recreation Center
or the Senior Citizen's Center.
9. P. 4, bottom. How were the alternatives devised? What assumptions were used about
needs, private recreation facility availability, and demographics?
10. The economic feasibility of building two 30-50,000 sq. ft. and seven 5,000 sq. ft.
facilities should be addressed. This should include cost estimates, potential funding
mechanisms, alternative sites, and shared use potential.
11. Kev focus: I would like to see an additional alternative explored -- "Integrated Facility
Use" which optimizes use of existing facilities, perhaps with some minor expansions or
modifications, and long-term phased development of additional facilities tied to some
measurable standard or "trigger" which helps the City anticipate need.
cz
12. Before additional work is done, you should submit a detailed schedule of remaining
research or analysis to be done, work products to be completed and timeframe for
completion of these tasks. A meeting with staff to go over this schedule should happen
in the next couple of weeks.
13. P. 8, bottom. Under scenario #4, "No New Facilities," the draft states that "City
facilities already have inadequate capacity to meet current demand." Based on what
criteria? Does this statement assume that recreation service levels remain constant even
when City budget constraints increase?
14. The County Veteran's Hall and Emerson School were sites identified by the City Council
as a potential recreation centers; yet these facilities are not addressed in your summary.
Please update me on your work on this task.
Com iiu6 ty/Senior Center Study
Page 3._ ...
Parks-and Recreation Coninwnts
-1-5.... The study should indicate accessible facilities to the community for drop-in or for easily.
reservable activities.
16.. . Parks and Recreation staff preferences would lie toward "scenario #1", with a mixture
of I 'large centrally located recreation facility designed for community wide usage with: . ,,.,
several satellite (neighborhood) facilities.
17.1..- We have some concerns that there has not been more of an effort to identify senior
citizens' needs, as this was a major focus of the study in the first place, it. to determine
if a senior citizens' center could be compatible with a multi.-faceted community center.
From the reports presented thus far, this issue has not been specifically addressed.
Lei's:tentaiively plan on meeting during the week of June 21st. Please call me at 781-7176 to
set a'time that works for you. Thanks,
'n
J.. .._ _CP
s lanner
cc. Linda Fiizeerald, Parks and Recreation; John Mandeville, Commmunity, Development..
Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.
Needs Assessment Studies
Facility Programming
Design Evaluation
April 28, 1993
Linda Fitzgerald. R E C E I V E LA
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks and Recreation Department Nl AY 1593
860 Pack St.
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBtSPO
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 COMMUNITY DEVEL aMErr-
Re: Parks and Recreation Commission Presentation V,r���p
(Our Ref.#9006)
Dear Linda:
Please find enclosed one un-bound copy of the 'Parks and Recreation Commission'presentation for our
upcomming meeting.
Sincerely,
Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.
Greg Allen Barker, AIA
/Sri
Enclosure
pc/enclosure: Karl Mohr
,/Jeff Hooks
Lynn Jamieson
1411 Marsh Street, Suite 204, San Luis Obispo, California 93401-2921 • Telephone: 805 541 4940 • Fax: 805 541 0612
Jay Farbstein&Associates, ..._.with Leisure Visions and Crawford, Multari, S._ . Page 1
City of San Luis Obispo:Community/Senior Center Study
Parks and Recreation Commission Presentation; May 5, 1993
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PRESENTATION
Introductlon
The City of San Luis Obispo's General Plan includes a Parks and Recreation Element providing a master
plan forthe city's park system through the year 2020. The focus of the document is on parks, with very little
detail on recreation programs or the indoor facilities needed to support those programs. The cityis
undertaking a revision of the Parks and Recreation Element, and wishes to include indoor recreation
facilities in the updated document.
The city commissioned this study to provide the following information in support of its revision of the Parks
and Recreation Element:
• an assessment of indoor recreation program needs;
• an evaluation of possible strategies for locating and distributing (or centralizing) recreation facilities;
• the feasibility of using the same facilities to provide for the needs of general community and senior's
recreation programs;
• necessary coordination with other planning studies, including the Open Space Element and Laguna
Lake Park Master Plan;
• identification and evaluation of alternative sites for recreation facilities.
Methods
The study has commenced under the guidance of a Steering Committee made up of representatives of the
Recreation Department, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Community Development Department.
The following process is being used to address the issues identified above:
• a review of existing studies,planning documents, and recreation standards used nationwide;
• tours of existing facilities;
• interviews with persons directly involved in recreation services throughout the community;
• surveys of the recreation patterns and preferences of city residents, non-residents participating in
city programs, and users of programs in other cities in San Luis Obispo County;
• development of recreation program and facility standards;
• projection of facility needs;
• development of alternative scenarios for providing needed facilities;
• identification and evaluation of aftemative sites;
• development of preliminary cost estimates for proposed facilities.
--�_he study is currently at the stage of projecting facility needs and developing alternative scenarios. It is
now apparent that developing a strategy for locating services within the city is necessary before developing
detailed projections of the types, sizes,quantities, and configurations of facilities needed to meet the city's
recreation needs.The Steering Committee decided that the project should be presented to the Parks and
Recreation Commission for guidance before performing further work on describing facility needs. The
following material summarizes the results from earlier stages of the project in order to provide the
background needed to evaluate the issues currently facing the project team.
INDOOR RECREATION SURVEYS
-Three surveys were conducted to assess the recreation preferences of city residents and other potential
users of recreation facilities. The main survey was mailed to a random sample of 2,000 city residents.
(0-15
Jay Farbstein & Associates, Ir,�.with Leisure Visions and Crawford, Multari, Sia.. Page 2
City of San Luis Obispo:Community.!Senior Center Study
Parks and Recreation Commission Presentation; May 5, 1993
Shorter, supplemental surveys were administered to non-resident participants in city recreation programs
and participants in programs offered by other recreation departments in the county.
r
Almost 350 residents responded to the main survey, slightly lower than typical for similar surveys. There
was a slightly higher percentage of households with no children responding to the survey than actually
make up the community. There was a possible over representation of respondents from Planning Areas 1
and 3,while Planning Area 2 appeared to be underrepresented. These differences were considered when
survey results were analyzed.
The survey sought information on the following topics:
• current and preferred rates of participation in recreation activities;
• use of existing public and private facilities in the area;
• typical monthly recreation expenditures;
• willingness to travel for recreation activities;
• convenient times to participate in recreation activities;
• current barriers to participation in recreation activities;
• preferences of seniors.
The following were the preferred Indoor activities of survey respondents:
• movies
meetings
i�• use of exercise equipment
• special events
• fitness classes.
Some of the major findings from the survey include:
• The facilities used most frequently by respondents were Cal Poly,the City/County Library,theaters,
and coffeehouses. The facilities available through the San Luis Obispo Recreation_Department
were used by a sma perceritage of respondents.
• Most respondent's monthly recreational expenses range between $1 and $40. People appear to
spend more on dining and cultural activities than in social, sport or outdoor activities.
• Respondents preferred facilities that provide programs equally for all age groups.
• Residents stated a preference for locating facilities in various neighborhoods, but at the same time
were willing to travel for most activities. People tended to be willing to travel out of town for cultural
and sports events and educational classes. They preferred locations closer to home for table
games, arts/crafts, swimming, and court teams. Most other activities could be located anywhere
within the city.
• The most convenient times for recreation programs are evening and weekends, but there also
appears to be a steady group of respondents who would access recreational opportunities kall
times of the day and week. Surprisingly,weekday lunch times were considered less convenient
than weekdays during typical working hours.
• The most significant barriers to recreational activities were lack of the following:time, facilities,
information, and money. —
• Respondents indicated a surprising lack of awareness of existing city programs and facilities.
Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.with Leisure Visions and Crawford, Multari, Starr Page 3
City of San Luis Obispo:Community/Senior Center Study
Parks-and Recreation Commission Presentation; May 5, 1993
• Seniors indicated that they would like more daytime programs, trips, crafts classes, dancing, bridge,
clubs, bingo (in the daytime), and physical fitness and similar classes.
• The majority of senior respondents were interested in a facility that is near public transportation,
within walking distance, and includes an extensive variety of programs.
A supplementary survey of non-residents participating in programs offered by other city recreation
departments produced results consistent with those of the resident survey. This survey was additionally
able to address the reasons for participating in programs outside of the respondent's city of residence. The
major reason was that the activity was not offered in their hometown,with convenient location being a major
second ranked reason.
RECREATION STANDARDS
Recreation programming standards were developed based on data from the San Luis Obispo recreation
survey. Additional input was derived from interviews with public and non-public providers of indoor
recreation.services within the city limits of San Luis Obispo as well as a review of the 1982 city standards
and currently offered city programs.
The need for activity areas to support the recreation demands of city residents was calculated based upon
survey respondents'preferred rate of participation rate in each type of activity. These rates were translated
into the needed number of activity areas using the following factors:
• The number of days per month a participant is likely to engage in an activity, or that the activity is
likely to be available.
• The dally turnover expected for an activity area taking into account school,work, and sleep
patterns.
• Current and projected city population based upon 1%growth per year.
• The needed capacity for each activity based upon likely group size.
• The percentage of total demand met by city facilities, assuming some portion of the need will be
met by other agencies and the private sector.
Activities that could utilize similar types of spaces were grouped together into ten types of activity areas.
The following table shows the number of areas of each type the the City of San Luis Obispo will need to
provide by 2010 in addition to those provided by other agencies and the private sector.
Type Description Number
1 Large Assembly Area (301 to 1,000 occupants) 3
2 Medium Assembly Area(51 to 300 occupants) 3
3 Small Assembly Area(12 to 50 occupants) 3
4 Exercise Equipment Room 3
5 Dance/Exercise Room 10
6 Table Games Area(including pool & billiards) 7
7 Child Care Area (for 25 children each) 90
Continues next page.
t?
Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.with Leisure Visions and Crawford, Multari, Starr Page 4
City of San Luis Obispo:Community/Senior Center Study
Parks and Recreation Commission Presentation; May 5, 1993
Type Description Number
8 Multipurpose Court Game Area (basketball, etc.) 4
9 Craft Room 5
10 Racquetball Court 35
The analysis shows that for each use category there is a considerable demand for indoor recreation. The
survey results and interviews with other public and private providers further indicate that the following
issues need to be addressed in planning for indoor recreation needs:
• It is likely that there are many more residents who would participate in recreation activities if they
were more aware of the programs and services. There appears to be great latent demand that
would be likely to surface if new facilities were available and a different marketing strategy were
utilized.
• Planning should take into account coordination and the potential for cooperative projects with the
public and private sectors. There are opportunities to design facilities that would enable combined
program offerings of the City of San Luis Obispo with those of Cuesta College, YMCA, County of
San Luis Obispo, and Cal Poly.
• Private business entrepreneurs running dance,fitness, yoga and weight lifting classes suggested
that the city not compete with already thriving business but cooperate by providing facilities and/or
offering such programs to populations not currently served by these enterprises.
EXISTING FACILITIES
The city currently operates three recreation facilities:the Santa Rosa Street Recreation Center,the Mitchell
Park Senior Citizens'Center, and the Meadow Park Community Center. Substantial commitment was has
been made to the Recreation Center in the form of a recent renovation. All scenarios assume that existing
facilities will continue to be used for recreation programs. We assume the Recreation Center on Santa
Rosa will continue to be used for sports and crafts for the entire city as well as small meetings,child care,
and fitness programs for the Downtown Neighborhood Park Service Area (PSA). Meadow Park's building
would continue to be utilized for activities such as small meetings,child care, fitness, dance, yoga, and so
on. The Senior Citizens'Center would continue to be used as the hub of seniors' activities.
The potential for expanding existing facilities has been examined prior to this study. These evaluations
have concluded that it is not feasible to expand the Recreation Center or Senior Citizens' Center. Meadow
Park Community Center has some potential for expansion, either in the form of added to the existing
building or detached facilities at the same site.
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS
The consultant team identified four alternative scenarios for meeting the city's current and future recreation
needs:
Scenario One: Develop a Mix of Large and Small Facilities. Provide one or two large facilities for
activities requiring specialized space or large numbers of participants plus about
seven smaller facilities to serve their surrounding neighborhoods.
b -/8
Jay Farbstein 8 Associates, Wc.with Leisure Visions and Crawford, Multari, SLO,r Page 5
City of San Luis Obispo:Community/Senior Center Study
Parks and Recreation Commission Presentation;t)1ay 5, 1993
Scenario Two: Develop Decentralized Facilities. Build about six 20,000 square foot facilities
located throughout the community with highly similar, muftiple use space.
Scenario Three: Develop One Large Central Facility. Provide all additional needed activity areas at
one building that would contain as much as 85,000 square feet.
Scenario Four: No New Facilities. The city would meet its recreation needs as best it can with
existing facilities.
Scenario One: Develop a Mix of Large and Small Facilities
Activfties requiring specialized space and large capacities could be accommodated in one or two buildings
providing central access to city residents. Activities involving smaller group sizes, those that can more
easily be conducted in multipurpose space, and those that residents prefer to be convenient to home or
work would be provided in existing facilities and about seven new, relatively small buildings.
The larger recreation centers would emphasize cultural, craft, and fitness activities. The size of these
facilities would be in the range of 30,000 to 50,000 square feet. Activity areas would include an assembly
area for up to 900 people,subdividable for separate, smaller activities;a smaller assembly area for groups
up to 30;exercise equipment room;dance/exercise rooms,game room,child care area, craft rooms;
multipurpose court area, and racquetball courts. Ancillary areas would include a lobby, offices, locker
rooms, and a catering kitchen. Outdoor use areas would include multipurpose courts,tennis courts,
horseshoes,community garden,patio, and play areas. These activity areas could be grouped into one
large facility, or two:one emphasizing cultural,craft, and performing arts and the other focussing on sports.
Approximately seven new 5,000 square foot neighborhood facilities would provide convenient space for
small meetings,dance and exercise,child care, and programs for older youth. Each could provide an
assembly room for about 30 people, a dance/exercise room,game room, child care area, office and small
kitchen. Outdoor activity areas would be similar to those of the larger recreation centers. Detailed building
programs for each center should be developed with the participation of neighborhood residents.
Each recreation facility, including existing ones,would be located in a separate neighborhood park service
area as identified in the Parks and Recreation Element. The large center(s)would meet the local needs of
nearby residents as well as city-wide needs. Neighborhood facilities would also provide seniors with
convenient access to satellite programs near their homes. Most neighborhood PSA's would have either an
existing facility, a new recreation center, or a new neighborhood facility. The map on the following page
shows the location of existing facilities and illustrates one concept of how new facilities could be distributed
throughout the city (locations are not meant to be precise).
The proper mix of projects could benefit from most of the advantages of central or decentralized scenarios
while avoiding most of the downfalls:
• Facilities could be specialized and/or conveniently located where appropriate.
• The smaller, neighborhood facilities would be able to respond to the unique needs of the
neighborhoods they serve. They would provide excellent opportunities for local residents to
participate in the planning process, helping to shape the programs and facilities to best match the
needs of the surrounding community.
• This strategy would facilitate participation by youth and seniors by optimizing independent access to
programs for people without automobiles.
Jay Farbstein 8 Associates, with Leisure Visions and Crawford, Multari, S. Page 6
City of San Luis Obispo:Community/Senior Center Study
Parks and Recreation Commission Presentation:May 5, 1993
• Much cross-town movement of users could be avoided by providing more frequently used programs
at neighborhood facilities, contributing less to pollution and congestion.
• Development could be phased to keep pace with growth in demand and the city's ability to take on
such projects.
• Projects could be structured to optimize potential joint development and operating agreements with
other entities.
• Sites for smaller projects would be easier to obtain.
Depending upon the resources available,this approach could require a different management approach
from highly centralized facilities. For example, it might make sense to decentralize Recreation Department
staff with more responsibilities for facility and program administration. Another alternative would be to rely
upon program staff to supervise buildings while on site.
A variation on this scenario would be to provide a certain number of centralized facilities for activities
involving large groups, but to limit the specialized features of those facilities. This would respond to the
need for large group size, but not specialization. It would provide more flexibility in the assignment of
activities to spaces, but some activities would not be accommodated as well, such as community theater
productions. Some of the costs of specialized space and equipment would be eliminated by this approach
at some hindrance to certain activities.
Scenario Two: Develop Decentralized Facilities
The city could build about six 20,000 square foot facilities located throughout the community. The facilities
would provide highly similar, multiple use space, enabling specific activities to be scheduled at any one of
them. They would include such primary activity areas as an assembly room for 900, small assembly area
for 30, exercise equipment room,game room,child care area,craft room, and racquetball court. There
would also be support space such as an office, public lobby and counter, locker rooms, and a small kitchen.
Typical outdoor activity areas would also be desirable. As with Scenario One, the goal would be to provide
most Neighborhood PSA's with one existing or new facility.
Total decentralization of recreation facilities would have the following advantages:
• It would best enable facilities to be tailored to the unique needs of the neighborhoods they serve.
Like Scenario One, local residents could help determine the programs and facilities best matched to
their needs through participation in the planning process.
• The ability to participate in recreation activities would be enhanced for youth and seniors by
optimizing the ability to independently access programs without automobiles.
• More activity areas would be located close to residents'work and homes.
• Less cross-town movement would be required of users, contributing less to pollution or congestion.
• This approach provides the maximum flexibility to develop projects over time. The city could re-
evaluate demand after completing each project before undertaking the next.
• Decentralization would lend itself to joint operations with other agencies such as the school district.
Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.with Leisure Visions and . . .:
City of San Luis Obispo:
Parks and Recreation Commission Presentation; May 5, ..
Scenario • Proposed
Santa
u
Rosa Center
Mitchell Park
Senior Citizen's
Center
New Center
Laguna Lake Park Meadow Park
Community
Center
New
-,�■�•I i'
����,•��'iIJ'���1
3 ��i�rrr�s►.� 1�"f 1
Neighboorhood
Facilities
i
Jay Farbstein 8 Associates, Inc.with Leisure Visions and Crawford, Multari, Starr Page 8
City of San Luis Obispo:Community/Senior Center Study
Parks and Recreation Commission Presentation; May 5, 1993
The primary disadvantage of this approach is that highly specialized spaces would be more difficult to
provide or would be located in certain neighborhoods.
Scenario Three: Develop One Large Central Facility
The city could add all additional needed facilities at one location. The scope of the cfty's recreation needs
are such that a very large and diversified building would be needed. As for other scenarios, primary use
areas would include large and small assembly areas, exercise equipment rooms, dance/exercise rooms,
game rooms,child care areas, multipurpose courts,craft rooms, and racquetball courts. Support spaces
such as lobby, offices, locker rooms, and a catering kitchen would be needed as well. The building would
have to have a few or several of most use areas in order to meet the projected recreation needs. It would.
be unusually large, requiring over 85,000 square feet of building and a site with about 8 acres.
Our survey results suggest that city residents would be willing to travel to a centralized recreation building
for most of their recreation needs. However, because the scope of the city's recreation needs would require
such a large facility,there seems to be little to recommend the approach:
• Table games, a staple of youth programs, and child care would not be best served by a single,
central location.
• It would force most users to travel across town for most activities, contributing to pollution and
congestion.
• It may be difficult to find a site with the size and location appropriate for such a building (however,
only one site would need to be obtained).
• It would require a substantial financial commitment to develop such a large facility unless
development could be phased in a logical manner.
Scenario Four: No New Facilities
The city could choose not to build any new facilities and meet recreation needs as best lt can with existing
facilities. This strategy avoids setting the stage for future expenditures at a time of budget constraints.
Problems with this approach include:
• City facilities already have inadequate capacity to meet current demand. Assuming the demand for
recreation programs will increase with population,the gap between supply and demand can be
expected to increase.
• The lack of a plan to provide for the city's recreation needs would place the burden of meeting future
needs upon other agencies and the private sector. At this point in time, other public agencies do not
appear better able to provide additional recreation services than the city. However, many private
vendors would benefit from effectively reduced competition with city programs.
• The provision of recreation programs could be uneven if the city does not expand its role, depending
upon who responds to which needs. The private sector is likely to respond in cases where activities
are readily marketable, such as dance and fitness. Other activities, such as league play, are likely
to suffer even more. And, as the current tack of child care illustrates, even high market demand
does not assure the adequate provision of services by the private sector.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 6, 1993, 7:00 P.M.
RECREATION CENTER, 864 SANTA ROSA ST.
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Orton, Vice Chair Macedo, Kourakis, Picquet,
Pyper, Regan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Hagmaier
STAFF: Cox, Koop, Maramonte
GUESTS: Greg Barker representative from Jay Farbstein and Assoc.
Mike Alamo, students representing Cal Poly Recreation
class 324
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 2, 1993: (M/S/C: Approved as submitted.)
PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment was submitted.
ITEM #1 . INTRODUCTION OF PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
Interim Parks and Recreation Director, Michael Maramonte, provided an overview of
his experience in the parks and recreation profession. Commissioners were
encouraged to join staff in educating community members, administration and other
departments as to what the Parks and Recreation Department does, increasing the
department's visibility and becoming more proactive about the importance of this.
valuable service which tends to be taken for granted.
Mr. Maramonte listed three specific targets which will receive major focus during his
interim status with San Luis Obispo which included increasing communication among
staff and team building, evaluation of department structure and organization and
clarification of the Joint Use Agreement and relationship with San Luis Coastal Unified
School and to improve the communication between the two agencies.
ITEM #2. COMMUNITY CENTER/SENIOR CENTER STUDY
The Commission reviewed staff report from Associate Planner Jeff Hook regarding the
Community/Senior Center Recreation Study. Staff indicated that due to the delays
in developing the general plan, review of the Parks and Recreation portion of this
element is 18-24 months away. Greg Barker, representative from consulting firm, Jay
Farbstein and Associates reviewed the areas of the Community Center/Senior Center
Study that would be outdated if the study were to be completed now but not used
b-�43
until the preparation of the Park and Recreation Element. These areas included
recreation trends, cost estimating for facilities and park development and site
selection.
Commission members felt there is significant importance in having a comprehensive
study completed and available to staff when the preparation of the Parks and
Recreation segment of the element begins. The study as presently depicted is too
general and should receive more attention to detail as it pertains to numbers of people
surveyed for the collection of data. Additional concerns centered around timing of
element preparation and moving the Parks and Recreation Element up to be addressed
earlier by the Community Development Department on the element review time line.
(M/S/C: Regan/Pyper:) To approve alternative number 1 of the staff report with the
substitute in wording from "about 18 months" to for up to 18 months.
As approved Alternative Number 1 should read: Amend the contract. Amend the
contract with Jay Farbstein and Associates to postpone work for up to 18 months,
and to extend the time for the study's completion to more closely coincide with
preparation of the Parks and Recreation Element.
ITEM #3. A PARK FOR THE ME460WS AREA OF SLO
The Commission reviewe the letter received from Jan Vidalin. The letter requested
review of the vacant la on the east side of the creek in the Meadows area for the
feasibility of locating a mall play structure and benches.
Concerns yielding from the mmissions discussion centered around the City policy
regarding pocket parks, liability p by the steep creek bank and reaction of owners
of adjacent residential lots. Mr. Maramo suggested that the commission refer the
item to staff for evaluation and return to co mission with findings.
(M/S/C: Regan/Pyper:) Refer to staff o research the request from Jan Vidalin
regarding possible use of the east side the creek in the Meadows area for a play
structure and benches.
ITEM #4. MAYOR'S QUAR RLY MEETING
Chairman Orton reported that a would attend the Mayor's Quarterly Meeting and the
report of the Commission had be forwarded to Council Secretary for inclusion into
the packet of information for the Oct r 14 meeting.
ITEM #5. PROJECT UPDATES
Dennis Cox distributed a project sched a to the Commission and reviewed the status
of each project.
Yr �, A U V •y.1'M1. IM.I f Ai t ! a rK z J r�,,--
NGS p AGENDA M
S-0(
A
may,.
r 4
_ NCIL El COD DIR a
r : �f ♦`at, M1 �, +11 C y n: ❑ FIN DIR
Novembert15,. 1993f>.. ''r' o. CHIEF r;
r z 1 �y
Illp
C1:ERK�ORIa gPNCE
�a h1WT TEA
U M rl O M 0 REC DIR
M E"lGI OAR A N 'D ,, --_ r
nr ,
04PRIAD
it L O PERS DIR
TO Councrl"Colleagues n 5 fi --
'. fIN
_ -
FROM Dave Romero: ;
G:c
Ik ` IA4 F S _•I"`„ \ lA...' ,w..eA .,xl ,.ya t.�1 1. e1 T je r' ik3 Jt r �1 f. .I
SUBJECT „.BICYCLE LANES.AT_JOHNSON-UNDERPASS
Dunng�our deliberations regarding the nstallationJof bic}+cle Manes;we made w num T.of
decisions which reflected compromise or differences of opinion, Most of us can hv}e
reasonably well with the final outcome whether decided in our favor- r not, however; oiie
{ py 4 1
decision'has'cdhtmued to ibother_me' ,° 4 w rry9 p M�t� gp� ,a A;5"r+r r ar ti
'Cr�r'�41,
i ':. 2 v y 4. '�. y ,e.+r sa14 d.,.. � +;,.f�f� t aY ..e �e •r>'.'�ues �*',p. I4 .j Yy `' t.4 � 1 }
I amJex`tremely'uncomfortable with'the decision to reduced+the northbound traffic lanes,at' ' s
Johnson jUnderpass from two 1'anesrfo-one in.order'to add-
'a.
bike lane: If this action?
J.
camed'out;L believe'a will con e'3back to Haunt us:I am wrrting'this note in ttie hope that
one of the Council ma�onty who aptiproved this action Wi11Flbe willl ng`tb lave t reconsidey ed?`y
y�s^�
I habearave seditliis route an,average ofasix'times a day for ove 30'years'(over 65;000 trips)
in addition°tq hWfig the traffic engineer'ing_•responsibility for the.City,'A over 807, ears 4I
have also made many trips through the underpass on a iliicycle
T
1 �
The 'consultant study, which served :asA background. for" ;the Bicycle Committee
recommendation, .considered peak hour Ftraffic as-being at 5.0:0 PM; which is.;the normal
peak.jhou`r for most lbea'tions.. Because of,its proximity o the high°school, the peak here
occurs at8 OO.AM and tssignificantly greater than t_he 500`PM peak. Under current tfaffic;
conditions;traffic often backs up.one block 16 Week,'and on occasionaw6 blocks t Lizzie
Street: I }am',certain that if the two:northbound lanes at the and pass are reduced to one,
that traffic will often back up,through the°il�re,S_treet intersection ,
t-
m . rJ.
. ��/ n.�'r .ib _�
Perhaps''the;increased congestion could be;,tolerated if we1were malting.the route safer ford` d
the'Ibircycle rider,, however, I believe the proposed change will make i't.more, Hazardous'
Currently a bicycle rider can easily traverse"the steep down,grade.:through the underpass
=r -.
25 mph,the posted speed limit. kknowledg`eahl_e:rider°will occupy the'center. of the
lane.(,which`is approximately 11 feet vWide)f and not:cause any,significani.delay for following r ".
motorists oil hazard for'himself by�a vehicl'e passing,close by. °The proposed restnping,,,__, ,. � zf
nano .,ittus. e'to approximately 6 feet wide Currently, because of:the left-and through
movement;at:Pismo; most `motorists choose 'thei'r,lanes prior:, to., reaching tlie: signal
Johnson andSan Luis Drive, and stay m lidselanes(q d as they travels through the tinderpass 5l r
,y
.- D rr j YID n atN 17 f u i,
y. 'h
7P�
yy i� y r� ✓, V r �, k �yt fd eY f ,�, .i 5
1krnE T r Li f P4.16
,J, f
y�.,
4'P!�•7%"Z' pt �Gt�IV NV �S py Lr f' .�
1r-.tri YY. >S
_ ...... u'"'fix" .,. - ,� .� li a.:1`. aJAi :pY F. .._._1l•ry �''.._:,r.,L;;.
+'�1y'ti
' .�'c L 1q�.+•'i I' t� .rC ✓f ^ T�4'
to
y„6 �� s .,• t t .roomf°'km s.. ' t''{ � rJ[�� � •{' T�ru,. '.
t, '
yam,.I
i .m}ta<•a.d` n-1y,aY'1»� A; �+a "i',.^'%w'�.Lrt•' !-^}.�N .i � a��'� 'e7.�A,,Y I � rs ....I
'J ANESYON'JOHNSONlAYENUE Page 2
BICYCLE
R r. M{fI Fx xb
i r r"�a1:5 s p � ,�I v I r � '• d 1,�'.�j. Y
S �36 jy' fix
I r,`rii�rTT ° a�4iL3 Y n 1-9�j r ✓' f ,r Y' .! 1 Ji yv�7xl�e'f°^ ..c1 -'d.�L , -^
1; Si,
r
With only one nortfibound lane through the:underpass, I behevetmany motor> is will tend,
to cut the cu a by drivingithrougli the,6 foo bike lane ,r L r r
b 2-�;c�e-v n a I�,3 r= �wt����>�.} �.� �n,j��r �,.y.�lsy'S IfK,�' \ pt51,•6�.,,y u, y,Stl �I',({l t..�.', 3 !.
,47,'J�
Duruig the�commit hearings;no[iceTwas�given to property owners onl the affected"streets,,?7
thus gig Yth_em a eliance to be lieaid There is viifually no'immediate neighboTtiood at�;-
JohnsonUiderpass,however; thiseservesYas the primary access route'io town fo_r awl larger
area of the C<ty- I ani sure there are thousands of people m the Johnson Avenue area whro`
are not completely aware of what the=City is:`proposing to 'do hese Their awareness
come`afte they'City rhas re-WiPdd the "street I would expect a significant;protest at`tha �
♦.... L[�� R �� p m v,w,� Fy�elgf n 1-n'1'
time �. 5 ; �J>M
f
f��r aS. .a"A tt•Y�' .'.{ �wb tw i tib) ` 4 TG tJ , '%^Si^E%-X'' ��i J 3't dr{�,b
j)i
I believe the City,us,betteryserved}by a,separaie Council hearing on this issue!afters givin
general notice to,the Johnson Avenue residents Since my vote was in the nunontyj�I cannon \ �
place the-di ter back on the Council agenda, therefore, I am requesting that e�o Ay';
s
who votedm 106F of the dction,tiplace the item on al fiitui=e agenda
i"od ?•3372'. 5.. tll);,91�d•a3ra:1F,yh''f"�c`.`r
$1 106&50 t
� Z l p wL T
DR Cm i4 r d� rro1l CId F� rhR�S 7 °�� y �fJRJ y Ly> 3
CPyi�r°h�a
v yl.NIly7�, •Jci`�`�uu•t' 1i> t�,1�..{{i r�'ly. 'y} 1N`J .�.'�' v
J- �-cl•+ .y; Tl'�L hCLY lj G�, a t fb. T1'Mi, +,>b ! I'l a� ` FL. h L7 v S i-}i
c: John Dunn" ),^�.,% % " � `1m
M v! 'nGw '3r zl, •r'tlK. �xl" {} .
„rla + Cs��{'YS �74Y 1 \� Vv
-4$ + �Sr•�r3� j11Fy, y�� r� t'�°'
J tir4•N'L' yl'a* `,��, .� TwI'r" t a" F`�''i+ X h j C R
," uF r +C�`44111IL f�� & ) T,{ + �u+J u• "L -ti' .5,�( ''``�� f7` �t I r
u�.0
741.
"t�rnrt,'�tty i74�pxyLr�t*A P -r+-'4•�1 .t61��. 'tt�,,, .'R',0.' r� �d�. y� rr l it s.�ly�� ) 41 '
1G. {�I"�ScrrT' Y. , 1
> I 1 x�:{- '�I`ry r *♦"`3��15tyT �`rY.l»,3, .5Ma-. F ljlS 'I'•n4ZTJ�r' � ``_3 fc~rrr� VY";1 r ✓ , .
. _ y'l w�-ly .�'�y Ir V r•f F� , II h['1 3-O'3' 7 i ' 1 aJ xrw�i+,�•"��f//�a1 aS t
\I� ����T�iS` 4 Q„>I -),✓+ZI{ Y ae{!{ a.� fi"Sa YI.P i. '��h br>�Y.)1AY(L�y}�'^p 1 7�
; Y 1'Fr in,.
Y' I� r )\
T kx'�'AT (. I `�rt wMi `Sk �,:1.:.}�+{ 51'Abb� � ~.rJ�JIl ^.
� tlh?CT3''•p 44 >.Jt T'rrgd�'N9�i'S,.f.�i� TT`,T•N"1�
��r „�v �' it r"yam r r' r"' 1 rr''L � '{r'.1t.e'qi n rJil� �.•}. " ,
4� ..L .y\ I .�' f �� 7F •"`��-�7r' �1{Iy7`.+}k,�"w•aJi"�3�F+�'iy�'�4,�,�..'�tr`C"}=4L r+ 4 ^ca �`. I
rv. - , !. 'N� rt It Il., +" � aic L%FYi'^„rty:�"'�a >✓ +. ArL -�.`yr;,J'� �M"5
")ORE
'L'tl'C yy��m� F 1. I { a„{14 •+X <�'t'�r � Sa"+9r� r*�`'•��.n'F,�
- F
' .x �c?qry°! fir: Z 4
Ty' Y p s
r 7.T � ^.,'q�°''T'S,;gn ���'>}n z 1 J �1 yr �,�,�� ! �rF •, a h cN�^\I�a,�J&rpt �y s �r I
"v�`�� if r ('u, ��''O 4 '+ �F,� r P r Ih 'S 'd6�'yT t� - � yd .�•rr. 1:
�A- p4.z�+y,,Y.,.$ �p�tL
' t,kc. TL L xf�,� t^1 z{4't �l, J� i 4fv 1 T .�yr����' r ,,•5V.1`r `(XP.4Jyy
1 �y IJ1i-{Y!I'y li-I'r1' -l1I�:l�1Si(J F�Zri Yn1{�kl�y7,��r�)kFJ 1 N�^T.F:i•}-J.M Ilil hH N1 r�rlF^${ T;!'.f�'Y[�q'2 .>"li-1�iS. I�w^Y,')I•'�fp�^�11�2yI-��.y�{'>bbb r'��7E�µL'�'gy[4"v�.°l9'y
R4AYyy
� L1•�' -,
9;a rC^ c`,F-vG�-^r< +J'r"Nnw i i ��v{ 3 •u .lam .r +�
! nl
•� y Y L➢/ i+[� Q 1 4`4'E �,}f� ['
1 y R 'r•'�fwhe 7f t -SIL y, r TP� r�,�'�Vp-^JL fiI'iy 1)'Crx'C'xhc�
It'Y `-0 �{""�W°`r Gr 4 ✓]. Fa
< r 7 j t 'y5'-1 rn�L� •"..4 nti ti:. [4 r4,.n r _ T 's M
}. ,� 11 ` �✓•ri § ' 'y.. e°-)h rl v s y ,sti � ti YL"l l Y r � T.:
-> wr C S 'J S am L !•- t( >fiev a[ a'dSp' srv,�i„ a
5e.t. Ir'r 1 rfb�. ty' ,rx 1 °un
e''siz -rl4.r` 'Y� rl r..r�`• -.Nx Jy�' 1� ly'' r "+ C.»1'
1 '
♦ 5,yr v,�l,�r °! S�'13
. 1'wLr rr` > •Kyy4 F, r dF?I.I.SI" fi , �F\-:IxFfk. T' v,�•
f )
�x'L+, A. L �Cn;✓15 'I,.tri4
a
^4r3 •`* .,h 'y, 'n t cA'i. w L t,r t9G �
1� r
j,�C
T(� a''� y'i < 'L f.3r•Illj .r}t MY•� 1L" \.
�e 'j I �+�i I' i~7,9 II'c� r•,r}Y L �,1•.�� �,r r4r tyi��.��'.t �Yf`` :d 1 r - r t 7;
ty M1S1� G�"4 J g
}Ix 4
%W
'(5 lr�r•{z`ry?,.N"�I �•I v'JF , I"'r'i
'( LS `aqa' "4tiw 'i''"r� .•.x i. t i'- ,�'q{{:
.rl..
°�pw.e
' t J1�,ia �f t,� r ��Nrr CtlJ^. t• c y ,.I '?O >a` '` .L�:•�9L'(•`e i� �,i}'�, iy vd^� ��,°i'
"}vtY9 ♦@r S'.9/'i "t�{�;'.. V � 7Z '1�yjF „ �yc�, ,�s,'� �'+(>`yl+I 1.,'k{�hXT'a's)ch�1T'1`h`Y Evt fe- I,
Ew r ".Js '•1'Ir I 4' 1 "' �'8sr i �Ioo,,T�}"� � y,X>�Pa �`"" p 'z•§ y ',hPz', ,., -
t + Yti"gi C.'...,T,r sp'h�M .'it•i.�,1r» dtih! ,SRN 6_ 7 > .>k Yi„{e 4y•.yn_,Y, r r rta t, c,o' LI
V
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
No. dv# 1-4423-0-9
City of SLO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ss.
County of San Luis Obispo
CITY of
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the san Luis osrspo
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not On Tuesday,November is,
17893, the Sen Luis Obispo
City Council will hold public
interested in the above-entitled Matter haarings beginning at 7;00
P.M.In the Council Chambers
Of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
I am now, and at all times embraced on the items listed below.
The reports will be available
,for review In the City Clerk's
in the publication herein mention was, the da before
he the wadnea-
p principal clerk day before She meeting. For
'more Information, pisase call
781.7103.
of the printers and publishers of the SAN LUIS OBISPO The Council may also dis-
cuss other hearings or busi-
ISees Items before or after
COUNTY TELEGRAM-TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general `;hose listed..If you challenge
'any one of the proposed
actions described below in
circulation, printed and published daily, Sundays ex- 190urt,you may be limited to
raising only those Issues you
j or someone else raised at the
cepted, at the City of San Luis Obispo in the above public hearing described In
jthla notice, or In written
correspondence delivered to
named county and state; that Notice the
C unciing' orpriorto,
CDBG/CHAS - to consider
review of the Urban Counties
Comprehensive Housing Af.
fordabillty Strategy.(30.min.)
SANTA ROSA STREET BI-
CYCLE LANES-to reconsider
bicycle lanes on Sante Rosa
at which the annexed clipping is a true printed copy, was between Marsh and Pismo
Streets to Identify this seg.
published in the above-named newspaper and not in any ment as an eras for further
study as pert of the Bicycle
supplement thereof — on the following dates, to-wit: Transportation Plan.(30 min.)
Diane R.Gladweil,
City Clerk
11/6 Nov.6.1993 6"23
that said newspaper was duly and regularly ascertained
and established a newspaper of general circulation by
Decree entered in the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo
County, State of California, on June 9, 1952, Case #19139
under the provisions of Chapter 1, Division 7, Title of the
Government Code of the State of California.
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
(Signature of Principal Clerk)
Date 11/6 19 93