Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/2000, 1 - APPEAL OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING MITCHELL PARK SENIOR CENTER council 9 19-00 j ac En as. REpont CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Paul LeSage,Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING MITCHELL PARK SENIOR CENTER CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Uphold the August 2, 2000, decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission, which denied the request for a parking lot in Mitchell Park,behind the Senior Center. 2. Direct the Parks and Recreation Department to bring the Mitchell Park Master Plan to the City Council for approval. DISCUSSION Background Senior Parkinj,at On August 2, 2000, the Parks and Recreation Commission considered a request from local residents to construct a 12 to 15-space parking lot in Mitchell Park, behind the Senior Citizens' Center building (Attachment 1). By a vote of 4 to 3, the Commission denied the request (Attachment 2). This vote was a reaffirmation of three previous actions by the Commission on the same matter. 1. In 1988, the Parks and Recreation Department proposed a 2,450 square foot addition to the Senior Citizens' Center that included a multi-purpose room, storage, and restrooms. Funding for the project was available through the 1986 Senior Center State Bond Act. After a review of the project by the Community Development Department, it was mutually agreed to by both Departments that the development proposal would be withdrawn because of'the parking needs created. Between 1/5 and 1/3 of the existing park would have been needed for parking. The Parks and Recreation Commission concurred with that action. The reasons given are as follows: • Loss of open park space in an area of town identified as being deficient in park acreage. Loss of an historical resource. Mitchell Park is the oldest park in the City and has been maintained through the years to retain its town square atmosphere. • Change in the neighborhood character. The Mitchell Park area is mostly single-family residential with the old town flavor that typically surrounds a town square park. The . .:project would have changed this character to one of a neighborhood surrounding a large parking lot. 1-1 Council Agenda Report—AfitcheD Park Page 2 2. In June of 1994, the Commission conducted public hearings to take input for the update of the Parks and Recreation Element/Master Plan. Representatives of the San Luis Obispo Senior Citizens' Club, a program of the Parks and Recreation Department, asked that off- street parking (12 to 15 spaces behind the center) and another meeting room be added to Mitchell Park The Commission was not supportive of this request, specifically objecting to turning green space into asphalt. While a policy was added to the Element supporting expanded opportunities for parking, it was viewed by the Commissioners as something that would happen off site (Attachment 3 — Program 2.26.6 of the Element). The Commission v ., • more supportive of creating alternate or satellite locations for program expansion. The C.c-mmission approved Program 2.26.7 to the Element (Attachment 3), which supported the development of an Adult Day Care Center at the Los Osos Valley Congregational Church. The Commission later endorsed the sale of a portion of the Laguna Lake Golf Course property to the Church to create a site where the center could be built. Part of that transaction was an agreement giving the City access to the facility for expanded senior activities, in effect,creating a satellite site for programs. 3. In 1995, the Commission reviewed a plan to upgrade and expand the playground at Mitchell Park. Commissioners expressed concern as to how the playground would relate to the park as a whole. With that in mind, a master plan study was begun. After several meetings that included input from park users and neighborhood residents, a Master Plan was approved on September 6, that did not include off-street parking(Attachment 1). The Commission decisions have been made with the idea of preserving existing green park space and not turning it into parking. The members of the Commission understand the problem that the lack of adequate parking poses at the Mitchell Park building. Even with the knowledge of the problems created by lack of parking, they still continue not to support requests for on-site parking. The Commission has never viewed Mitchell Park as the exclusive location in the city for senior programs. They have consistently recommended and supported alternate locations for these activities, such as the ADCare Center, the Santa Rosa Street Recreation Center, and senior residential facilities. Their decision on August 2 is a reaffirmation and consistent with previous decisions. While the latest decision was a split vote, all other votes have unanimously supported the Commission's action. The City Council also reviewed this issue in 1997 during the Council Goal Setting exercise. Senior representatives appeared at the public meetings asking that the 12 to 15-space parking lot be added behind the Mitchell Park Senior Center. Council did not support the request and directed staff to work with the seniors to improve parking in the area of the center. As a result of those meetings, some improvements, such as removing parking meters and extending the parking time.limits, were implemented. Others, such as providing shuttle service from an off-site parking lot,were not because of a lack of interest by potential users. Staff concurs with the previous decisions of both.the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council regarding the park. In addition to Mitchell Park being home to a recreation building, it is also a neighborhood park serving a very dense residential neighborhood. Even if 1-2 Council Agenda Report—Ngrtchefl Park Page 3 the area behind the building was never used, and it is certainly under used, staff could not support the conversion to parking. The mere fact that the area is green and not asphalt provides a benefit to the neighborhood. On previous occasions,neighborhood residents have stated their objections to adding a parking lot to the site. Staff does understand the emotional attachment that many seniors have to Mitchell Park. For over 25 years, that facility has been home to the programs of the San Luis Obispo Senior Citizens' Club. There is a reluctance to leave. Even with the upcoming conversion of the Santa Rosa Street Recreation Center to accommodate new senior programs,existing activities will have the option of remaining at Mitchell Park if they so choose. Does this mean, as one senior recently asked in a letter to the City Council (Attachment 5),that more than one facility would be available to accommodate seniors and their activities. Yes,that is exactly what that means. Mitchell Park Mngter Plan As was previously noted, a Mitchell Park Master Plan was approved by the Parks and Recreafion Commission in September of 1995. That plan did not come to the Council for review at that time although it should have. Based on fiscal considerations, it was going to be many years before the plan could be implemented. The neighborhood was, and is, in transition to an area of young families. That transition can affect the plan of the park based upon neighborhood needs. Since there is now a compelling need to review and adopt a plan, staff proposes that the Parks and Recreation Commission hold another public meeting to review the plan with park users and neighborhood residents. The decisions of the City Council relative to the parking issue will also be placed in the plan. Staff would then bring the matter to the City Council for approval. ALTERNATIVES Authorize the construction of a parking lot at Mitchell Park along with the remodel of the building's kitchen. The kitchen remodel was also requested, but no action on this issue was taken by the Parks and Recreation Commission on August 2. Assuming that there were no serious neighborhood objections, a 12 to 15-space parking lot could be constructed behind the Senior Center by removing the shuffleboard court, a turfed area, and several trees. Depending on the design, portions of a patio and picnic area might also have to be partially removed. The shuffleboard court is not ever used, while the picnic area receives a moderate amount of use. Staff has considered making the picnic area available for rent by the public. It is currently only used as part of events in the building. There is a need in the community for more group picnic areas. The kitchen could be expanded to make it more accessible. If its functionality could be improved m is a atter of conjecture(Attachment 5). Staff is proposing a major expansion of senior programs to meet the needs of this underserved population. The City Council recently authorized funding to hire a part-time staff member to increase the number of these programs. According to a letter received by the City Council only 1-3 Couna'1 Agenda Report—Mitchell Park Page 4 100-150 people are regular users of the Mitchell Park building (Attachment 4). Since that number fills the building, staff's reluctance to recommend the small projects such as adding the parking lot and expanding the kitchen can be understood. Staff anticipates a major expansion of senior programs. In programs with high levels of senior attendance, such as golf, swimming, and the Senior.Club, there are perhaps 800 seniors who are regular users of recreation programs out of a total senior population in the community of over 8,000. Among other programs in the City, 1 in 4 residents is a regular participant. This is why a goal of 2,000 participants was established. This is why the larger Santa Rosa Street Recreation Center building was recommended for a remodel to handle the program expansion,and this is why the need for a new Community Center has been approved by the City Council. FISCAL]MPACT There is no fiscal impact to upholding the decision of the Parks and Recreation Commission. No action takes place as a result of that decision. Construction of a parking lot at Mitchell Park will cost $40,000 — $60,000, depending on its eventual size and design. It is difficult to estimate the cost of a kitchen remodel without actual plans. A"ball park"figure is$50,000- $100,000. ATTACHMENT 1. Mitchell Park Master Plan 2. Minutes of August 2,2000,Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting 3. Parks and Recreation Element Section Pertaining to Senior Facilities 4. Letter From Milton G. Turney 5. Plan of Senior Center/Kitchen Area 6. Appeal from Agatha Reardon 1-4 syp> I Z. o � > _ � < j5 JS �'c110111 i ° •x vies r3 Iva a - O Zw a m CL W m € � as � Qo °C W coth Mel rera09 OR ul u; • tl !1 �j � t.! 140 o Irim WHOM 1-5 _ _ _. ATTACHMENT F PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY,AUGUST 2,2000 CITY-COUNTY LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Chair Neville called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chair Jim Neville, Commissioners Debbie Black, Gary Clay, Pete Dunan, Teresa Larson, Bonnie Marzio, and Ron Regan ABSENT• None STAFF: Paul LeSage, Larry Tolson, Linda Fitzgerald, and Carolyn Goossens PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES The Minutes of June 7,2000 were unanimously approved as presented. ITEM#1: VOLUNTEER OF MONTH Mike Walker was recognized as the volunteer of the month for his outstanding work and generous efforts in the Parks&Recreation Department. ITEM#2: COMMENDATION TO PAT CUSACK FOR THE DONATION OF THE EMERSON PARK BASKETBALL COURT Paul LeSage presented a resolution acknowledging the donation by Pat Cusak of the Emerson Park basketball court Moved by Commissioners Dunan/Regan to adopt the resolution;motion passed unanimously. ITEM#3: MITCHELL SENIOR CENTER PARKING REQUEST Paul LeSage reviewed the history of a request for off-site parking lot for the Senior Center at Mitchell Park and the Commission's past determinations. On three occasions the Commission has reviewed and denied specific requests. Paul discussed the approved renovations for the Recreation Center which will house many existing and new senior programs, and currently has ample parking a:that facility. Though programs will still remain at the existing Senior Center, staff recommended not supporting the elimination of park space for additional parking spaces. Agatha Reardon, SLO resident, spoke in support of not replacing turf with asphalt for parking;however, she requested staff consider the dormant area immediately behind the 1-6 ATTACHMENT 2 Parks &Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 August 2,2000—7:OOpm Senior Center building (old shuffleboard area)which could accommodate 12 parking spaces. Bill Storm, SLO resident and representative for Senior Center seniors,spoke in support of creating a Senior Center to honor the seniors of this community and develop additional parking area. The Commission discussed the existing Master Plan for Mitchell Park,the existing memorial for Veterans located in the park,planned improvements,potential uses,and new programs at the Recreation Center, accommodating the needs of the neighborhood and seniors who attend the Center,developing off-site parking spaces in the shuffleboard area not going further into park area, supporting alternative ways of transportation to Senior Centers,maintaining theme for the park as determined in the Master Plan, and ensuring parking area would be for senior center and not general public. Moved by Commissioners MarzioBlack to recommend City Council consider development of parling within the shuffleboard area;motion failed 3-4(Commissioners Clay,Neville,Dunan, and Regan voting no). Moved by Commissioners Dunan/Regan to reaffirm the Commission's previous action to deny the parking request and adhere to the Master Plan for Mitchell Paris;motion passed 4-3 (Commissioners Marzio,Black, and Larson voting no). ITEM#4: DIRECTOR'S REPORT Progress on the Element Revisions Paul LeSage indicated the element is being revised and will be presented at the September meeting for consideration by the Commission. Damon-Garcia Sports Fields Paul LeSage indicated staff is currently applying for required permits. Staff has developed a plan for multi purpose fields necessary for the permit application process. Upon question,Paul reviewed the breakdown of the total 24 acres as follows: • 4 acres for alignment of Prado Road • 4 acres accessing street corridor • 1 acre for parking • 1 acre for corridor and wetland at Orcutt Creek • 12 acres for 3 fields (4 acres each) 2 acres of irregular area(possible batting cages,maintenance building, etc.) 1-7 expanding joint use of existing facilities and, second, by leasing or buying commercial space. 2.26.6 Progmm - The existing Senior Citizens Center shall be modified if practical to meet the parking and storage needs of seniors. 2.26.7 Proms" - Future senior service needs that exceed the capacity of the existing center will be facilitated by developing a cooperative agreement for the use of the AdCare Center at the Congregational Church located on Los Osos Valley Road. 2.26.8 Program- The City shall pursue the acquisition of the San Luis Obispo Veterans Memorial Building to meet the increased recreational space demands of the community by adding recreation facilities. 1-8 ATTACHMENT 3 ' y Milton G. Turney 1750 Prefumo Canyon Rd, #32 San Luis Obispo, C4 93405 August 14, 2000 TO: Ar. Allen Settle, Mayor Ms. Jan H. )1arx, Couacillady 11r. John Ewan, Council:-Lan Mr. Kenneth Schwartz, Counci3man Mr. Dave Romero, Councilman For 241 years my wife and ' have been active members of the San suis Obisp•--Senior Citizens Club. Seems we are now presented with the "opportunity" to be relocated to the "Rec Hall". At a meeting on August 10, attended by aboutomo tubers, some facts and figures were presented to the group. Unfortunately, no member of the City Council was present. I do not know whether you were invited or even informed of this meeting. However, a "straw vote" was taken and three (3) members voted in favor of moving the Senior Center to the "Rec hall" and sixteen (16) voted to remain at t?.e present Mitchell ?ark location. Some ten (10) members did not vote at all. In the coatiruimg discussion, sone Senior asked if there are plans to make other uses of the 14itchell Park facilities. .'e were informed that BOTH locations would be available to Seniors for their activities. Frankly, many of us heard this with a high degree of skepticism, and a feeling the City would not maintain T:TO Senior Centers. Were we misinformed? _ A projection of 2,000 membersof Senior Citizens was also presenteJ.. a7e11, during the last 24 years our membership has consistently run about 400 to 500 paid members. Of that number, only abort 100 to 150 really participate, and only about half of those with any degree.lf regularity or frequency. You may check the "sign-in-sheet" in the lobby on any average day. In fairness, some non-member groups do use the facility - such as A.A.i1.P., the Stamp Club and- a group of handicapped persons. The projected number of 2,000, however, seems to be grossly ridiculous. I am confident most of my fellow Seniors wish to cooperate with the City Council members. The figure of $300,000 was :mentioned, one-half from the State of Ulifornia as a Grant, with matching funds from the City, as being available for modifications or improvements in the so-called "Rec Center." Well, for a tiny fraction of $300,000 we could improve the kitchen facilities at the Nitcnell Park site.. and develop - street parking for some 15 to 18 automobiles, and remain in a far less congested traffic area - which already has public bus transportation on site. Please remember, the Seniorsvoted 16 to 3 to remain at the present Senior facility. There is a City sponsored luncheon at our Senior Center at P1OONT, 4re;DNZ5DAY, AUT ST 16. Please attend if your schedules permit. To my knowledge, no meeting or discussion of the above issue is scheduled at the luncheon - unless you of the City 3ouncil choose to address the subject. Respectfully, V RECEIVED AUJ 94 2000 ATTACHMENT 4 SLO CITY COUNCIL i AC IVITY R OM 7 �I- A A I I l I II (o r - I I io I 0 MECHANICALS ORAGE i a `?J 7 8 107 qj I I g A n I — D 1#19 I' CU-TODIAN I 4 C - -EE 412- L -- --e--� b 7 -10 ATT CENENT 5 .Y 01; ISN oty of S ,An ifti's WEIFEN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Codendersigned hereby appeals from the decision of r s Q � Cotnyniss�a vl rendered on Aug uk o�n J , e7l 7 which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) g�ly tzru�rX.J The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: on 140 s t Name/D artme t (Date) 1S�0 Appellant: /2767 Ma.tt7dt IiA4 Nain4rnfie Mailing Address (& Zip Code)Home Phone Work Phone Represehtative: Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for C26 Date & Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy o the fol wing department(s): RECEIVED AUG 1 1 2000 Original in City Clerk's Office SLO CITY CLEF 11 ATTACHMENT 6-1 . .,XEIVED AUG 1: 1 2000 SLO CITY CLERK August 11, 2000 Subject: Appeal from the Parks and Recreation Commission Decision of"Agenda Item#i, Mitchell Park Senior Center The several hundred Seniors who use the Senior Center at Mitchell Park have been assured by the Parks and Recreation Director that they will not have to move to the temporary location at the Mill Street Recreation Building, and that the activities they wish to have a Mitchell Park will be available to them at that site. In my July 11th letter to Paul LeSage, Director Parks and Recreation , I asked that he look into some possibilities at the current site. On August 2nd, I received materials which he was presenting to the Parks and Recreation Commission. (Agenda Rem#3-Mitchell Park Senior Center). In his Memorandum to the Commission, Mr. LeSage recommended that no off-street parking be allowed behind the Senior Center at Mitchell Park, and turned down additional suggestions for any changes to be made to the Center. He did not present any alternatives for the Mitchell Park site. On August 10th he invited the Senior Center Board and some members of AARP to attend a meeting. He talked about the Commission's decision. At the end of that meeting, most of the seniors were not satisfied with his responses to the questions. The main issue is the request for better parking. One area in question is behind the existing building. It is surrounded by a fence which makes R separate from the park. One third of the area is already cemented,with partial driveways, a shuffle board court which is never used, and a cemented area next to the bar-b-cue which is rarely used. This area can accommodate at least twelve and possibly more cars. R has trees which would not need to be cut down,the bushes behind and next to the building can remain, some of the existing landscaping can also remain, and the bar-b-cue which is need of repair can be moved. Additional landscaping could be worked around the area This would maintain a park-like atmosphere and serve some of the parking needs as well. An existing ramp makes easy access to the building. As far as a parking district being created for a portion of street area adjacent to the Mitchell Park Senior Center. R was stated that "R could probably face serious objection from the residents' . How can we know that unless it is tried? Some questions of what might be done inside the building for maximum utilization still exist, but they are not crucial. The parking issues are. The seniors who continue to use the center are in dire need of additional parking, especially those who use walkers,canes or carry oxygen tanks. The area in question is not used, and it separated from the park by a fence. Other neighborhood parks have off street, paved parking areas which are quite visible. Why not here where R's visibility is partially blocked,where trees and foliage can be preserved, and where it is needed the most? Respectfully submitted by: Agatha Reardon 1-12 Attachment 6-2 Y AGrNDA memomnaum DATE "i9 ITEM # pKoJNCIL QoCtr)Din September 11, 2000 1iXA0 ❑Fi , L., C el= ❑r-._ .:::_, TO: John Dunn effiORNEY ❑F•' :l v ^LERKIORIG ❑F:.:.: U .:.1T iEA6! 1 DI^ FROM: Dave Romero D�� "A& ❑UTIL MR , �/�la►)pl� ❑PERS DIR SUBJECT: Senior Center ✓ Pederson Information I have received from conversations with a number of seniors is that they would be relatively happy, at least for the near future, if the City would take certain actions at the existing Senior Center to make the facility more suitable for their purpose. They would like the kitchen facility expanded, and some off-street parking available on-site. Kitchen Expansion: I have conducted a minor preliminary study showing the kitchen could be expanded with a minimum of cost. This is shown on Attachment A. It involves extending the roof of the rear entrance and reworking that entry so as to provide additional space and requires only minor construction. This would call for the existing janitor room to be used for kitchen expansion with the janitor room relocated on the other side of the entry. All work could be conducted quickly and at minimum cost. Off-Street Parking I have conducted a minor study by means of which 16 parking spaces and two handicapped spaces could be constructed at the rear of the Senior Center in an area that is within the fenced boundary and is actually used very little at this time. Please see Attachment B. The work could be conducted quickly at a minimum of cost with no loss of trees, no encroachment into Mitchell Park and only minor loss of amenities existing in that area. Seniors often cannot locate convenient parking and many have great difficulty walking to the Center. This would provide substantial relief immediately adjacent to the entry to the Senior Center. DR:ss c: City Council RECEIVED SEP 1 3 2000 SLO CITY CLERK 1 I F pu • aY �..MA�� • :Y. -a? REDWOOD ' J.•}� t .;f�'}�'�7�41-f��TJCr':F.�.d..;.,�iy.i.}::p�.yl1'�.'-i�t1}�C*• ` �i.%J a�� t+^t./hlt,j�..r y , fi:-.'„ Y�r..y:li�l+�%�... •yF � , ./ _J �y'xI3r�. •ly•it(`.i•• •: %:+i•'e �•[1.�.•' lJJ:it:.} 3 , � �;L}'yap. i'.•::�`.'.�i„1A... :...: • . ALIa; JI us ce •iZtZtlZlll7lZ2J7I77 S ~� "a �?`•1i: bN4- r' f�FfFff�ffFffffff��f I TIONS: NEI RHOOD VEGETABLE GARDEN B z 1 XERI PE DEMO RATION dARDEN �.. . 1 NEW PLAYGROUND- Z j . �w SENIOR CENTER VA cl lu ZON _ i.!+.:�`: .•� __".,C:���,`•..:..:-.yv+y.,.k• _^_:.^. r.>�:+.y_. y....: �.� L� _�;S..w-.`��F•..(_- �r..nJ...df•Y:'.c. ..?•.: .e..:. .. _.. -'�. . . nr: �. ..• � V •� � g`.-�a�r v`1-.S��:i:�.�'4{M:V.r'•ry.'e�-::: IE" ZONE -SIE- UNLOADING -+ SUS STOP SHELTER BUS PULL-OUT SANTA ROSH TREET_ SCALE 36' TINAGENDA DATE ITEM #� From: Bob Wolf<rswolf @ calpoly.edu> • To: "Settle, Allen" <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "Marx, Jan" <jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "Ewan, John" <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "Romero, Dave" <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "Schwartz, Ken" <kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "Stendahl, Sherry"<sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> Date: 9/17/00 10:19AM Subject: Mitchell Park GYCOUNCIL O C]DIR-- 0 Dear Council Members: Grd FICAO 0 FICKTTORNEY 0 FPlease, please, do not cover part of Mitchell Park with parking! L+}fLERKIORIG O PThe city has rather little park space already, especially in the ❑MGMT TEAM M41 downtown area, and Mitchell Park is only one square block. It's a � 15 ❑UTpleasant park that certainly should not be made any smaller! O PE Thanks for your consideration. Bob Wolf, Ph.D. 546-8080 FRECEIVED SEP 1 8 2000 O CITY COUNCIL MEL..AG AGENDA DATE 2-1 -00 ITEM # From: <markjohnson@pacbell.neb To: <sstendahl @ slocity.org> Date: 9/19/00 9:32AM Subject: [Fwd: Please Save Mitchell Park!] Hi Sherry, Apparently your email address on the website, given as °sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo-ca.us", is not valid. am forwarding this email to you, and "guessing" at your correct email. Thanks, Mark [EWCAO O CDD DIR 0 FIN DIR Original Message-------- O FIRE CHIEF X-Mozilla-Status: 9001 O PW DIR X-MOZIIIa-StatllS2:00000000 e ❑POLICE CHF Message-ID: <39C7828F.C4A36171 @pacbell.neb EC DIR Date:Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:13:19-0700 1 O PERS DIR Ia From: markjohnson@pacbell.net X-Mailer. Mozilla 4.73[en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: asettle@slocity.org, dromero@slocity.org, jewan®slocity.org,jmarx @ slocity.org, kschwartz@slocity.org,sstendahl@ci.san-luis-obispo-ca.us Subject: Please Save Mitchell Park! Content-Type:text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To the City Council of San Luis Obispo: Please prevent rare downtown green space from being paved over! Mitchell Park should be first and foremost a resource for the local neighborhood.We must not make concessions to a contingent of out-of- neighborhood drivers that obviously do not respect the quality of fife afforded to the families and children living within walking distance of Mitchell Park. By building another eyesore of a parking lot,you, the City Council members,will be once again broadcasting, load and clear, "Kids don't matter in San Luis Obispo." Kids are smart. You can't hide behind an excuse of saying "It's only fifteen parking spaces." My two sons will see right through that. If you vote to pave, the physical loss of parkland will be real, yet your thoughtless disregard for neighborhood RECEIVED children will have more painful and permanent consequences. SEP 1 9 2000 SLO Cjl'Y CLERK Please, preserve Mitchell Park for the neighborhood families and children. Sincerely, Mark S.Johnson 1208 Pismo Street RECEwED�/ SEP 1'9 1000 September 19, 2000 8LO CITY CLERK To: Mayor Allen Settle,Vice Mayor, Ken Schwartz and Council Members,John Ewan,Jan Howell Mane,and Dave Romero Subject: Appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission Decision of August 2,2000. (The vote was 4 to 3 to deny parking at the Mitchell Park Senior Center) I filed the subject appeal and appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today. I believe that the historic background presented by Staff of the 1988, and 1994 proposals, and the vote of the Parks and Recreation Commissions at that time is informative, but it is not relevant to what we are requesting. We are not requesting a huge expansion of the facility that would require encroachment into the main park area to provide parking. We are also not proposing large program expansions which would require use of off site facilities to accommodate them. What we are requesting is a parking area behind the building inside the fenced area that separates the Senior Center from the large expanse of Mitchell Park. That area in question is not all green. It does include large cemented areas. One of the cemented areas includes two shuffle board courts. A parking area will require removing one of the two cemented shuffle board courts, neither of which, I have been told, has ever been used. It also requires removing another cemented area which may be used once a year. It does not require the removal of the large trees behind the center, nor does it require removal of most of the bushes. It will require the removal of one of the grassy areas. However, if it is an either /or situation, there is the opportunity to remove another unused,cement shuffle board court and replant the grass into that area. Even if that is not done, there are bushes,trees, a horse shoe pit, another large grassy area which can accommodate a picnic table, and room to add other foliage and anything else to beautify the area So we can still preserve a park-like atmosphere, and accommodate a much needed parking area.The back of the building already has stairs and a ramp to provide building access to everyone. I made some phone calls to talk to contractors. One of the contractors looked at the proposed parking site. He estimated a ball park figure that was$10,000.00 less than the lowest price quoted in the fiscal impact statement. I would have looked into this aspect of the issue more thoroughly, but I ran out of time. Personally, I do not know what a realistic figure would be. As shown in the March 2000 survey, seniors drive, car pool, ride the bus,walk and a few ride bikes. Seniors who drive combine their visits to the center with other errands, such as banking, shopping and doctor's appointments, so lack of parking is still an issue. Because we are of an older age group, we have a disproportionate number of regular users of this facility who are considered disabled.They use walkers,canes and carry oxygen tanks.They do not give up, sit at home, and gradually deteriorate. These seniors come to participate in intellectual pursuits,to establish relationships,to exchange stories every morning while they have their coffee, and to take part in a variety of activities which keeps them mentally alert and contributes to the quality of their lives. Because they are mentally alert,they can and do contribute many hours of community service. Subject: Appeal of the Parks and Recreation Commission Decision on August 2,2000 Page 2 of 2 (The vote was 4 to 3 to deny parking at the Mitchell Park Senior Center) I know that Paul LeSage has a difficult job trying to get the most he can out of limited funds, but we can add huge improvements to this center for a small expenditure. It can be done by making small improvements to the kitchen, and by adding a parking area behind the facility. I do not believe it will change the character of the neighborhood, but it will redirect some of the parking off the surrounding neighborhood streets. Since a new community center may be several years away, seniors who currently use the Mitchell Park Senior Center have been assured that they do not have to move to another temporary facility. They also know that Paul is planning new senior activities at other locations for our fast growing senior population. The Parks and Recreation Bement/Master Plan includes a section (Section 2.26.6)which states ...."The existing Senior Citizens Center shall be modified if practical to meet the parking and storage needs of Seniors." The Mill Street Recreational Center may provide additional activities, not only for seniors, but for all age groups, but the Mitchell Park Senior Center is a valuable resource that will continue to provide seniors not only with activities, but also with a familiar °second home', and a"comfort zone". The number of seniors who will continue to use this facility, and most important, the disproportionate number who are disabled justifies the addition of a parking area I appeal to you to include a parking area, in your approval of the Master Plan. If the Master Plan requires specifics of the inside of the building, I also request inclusion of some kitchen improvements. I thank each one of you for your compassion and understanding,for your time and attention, and for your consideration of this appeal. Agatha Lombardo Reardon 1275 Manzanita Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 c: Paul LeSage, Director of Parks and Recreation Department Dewey Greil, President, Mitchell Park Senior Citizens Center Ef71 7 yo ,rod ■■an ■ �iNMI ■■■■1. i ' " :1:::