HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/2008, PH6 - MITCHELL PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT j
council M 5-06-08
j agenda Report I�N (�
CITY OF SAN LU IS OBISPO
FROM: Betsy Kiser, Parks and Recreation Director
Jay Walter, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: MITCHELL PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), the Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC) and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), do not amend the Mitchell
Park Master Plan to designate the area immediately behind the Senior Center for a parking lot,
and instead retain a specialty garden as a future use at that location.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
To implement the senior parking component of the City Council's 2007-09 Major City Goal for
Senior Citizen Facilities, the Council must amend the Mitchell Park Master Plan by adopting a
resolution changing the proposed use behind the Center to allow for a parking lot of
approximately 14 spaces.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
In response to a City Council established Major City Goal to improve senior citizen's facilities,
the 2007-09 Financial Plan included funding for the construction of a parking lot behind the
Senior Center in Mitchell Park. To proceed with the project, the Mitchell Park Master Plan must
be amended to reflect a change of use for the project site from specialty garden to parking lot.
The proposed amendment was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Cultural
Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission, and recommended for denial by
each. The amendment is now being presented to Council for final action. In addition to the
discussions held by the Advisory Bodies, the report provides a number of options for Council
consideration, ranging from on-street parking alternatives to transportation alternatives.
The interest in constructing a new Senior Center in another location is already being pursued
through the Council's adopted 2007-09 Major City Goal work program. A Request for Proposals
to hire a feasibility consultant has been drafted, and the study is anticipated to begin this summer.
DISCUSSION
Situation
As part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, the City Council established a Major City Goal to enhance
senior citizen facilities through improvements to the current senior center and the pursuit of plans
for a future senior center. The work program that resulted includes renovations to the Senior/
_1
Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 2
Center kitchen, replacement of windows and chairs, construction of a parking lot in the area
behind the facility and a needs study for anew senior center.
To proceed with construction of the parking lot behind the Senior Center, the Mitchell Park
Master Plan, which guides the development of the Park, must first be amended to reflect a
change of use for the project site from specialty garden to parking lot.
History of Mitchell Park (detailed history in Council Reading File)
Mitchell Park is 133,000 square feet of urban parkland located in the Old Town Historic District
and includes the city block bounded by Santa Rosa, Buchon, Osos and Pismo Streets. The Senior
Center, located in the Park, is a former kindergarten school and is located on the Master List of
Historic Resources (see Attachment 1 for Vicinity Map.)
The site was originally part of the Dallidet Adobe vineyards and was acquired by the San Luis
Coastal Unified School District in 1913 from local resident, Mary E. Mitchell, wife of Frank
Mitchell. For many years, the School District used the residence building at the comer of
Buchon and Santa Rosa Streets for a kindergarten. The site also served as a community park and
included a ball field and gazebo.
In 1948, the City leased the site from the School District. The two agencies agreed to an
extensive renovation of the park, which was completed in 1953. At the time of the current
Master Plan's development in 1995, the park's configuration was essentially the same as it was
in 1953. In 1961, Mitchell Park was quitclaimed to the City by the School District in exchange
for property in the Laguna Park area.
Over the following years, the former kindergarten building was renovated (1974) and became
home to the Senior Citizen Center organization that exists and operates at the facility today. In
1978, an agreement was entered into between the City and the Senior Center Board of Directors
whereby, in exchange for the Senior Center facility, phone service, office supplies and funds for
mailing the newsletter, the senior citizens who use the facility agreed to operate a senior citizen
program under the direction of the Parks and Recreation Department at no personnel cost to the
City.
Since 1988, the concern over parking for the seniors who use the facility has been addressed on a
number of occasions. In recent years, two formal requests for an off-street parking lot have been
reviewed and denied by both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Council. The denial
of a parking lot request in 2000 resulted in the four-hour on-street parking zones that currently
surround the park. In April 2007, the City Council approved a new Major City Goal work
program for enhancing senior citizen services that included constructing the parking lot,
following an amendment of the Mitchell Park Master Plan to allow the use.
Mitchell Park Master Plan
The Mitchell Park Master Plan was adopted by the Council via Resolution No. 9235 on October
2, 2001, after review and recommendations of support from the PRC, the CHC, and the ARC
TACouncil Agenda Reports\Parks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4..0A nR dog
i
Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 3
(see .Attachment 2 for the Master Plan document). The plan called for a number of
improvements to the park, including:
1. Pavilion similar to one that existed in the park for over thirty years.
2. Landscaping and fencing on the perimeter of the site.
3. Relocation of a flagpole from the center of the park to a small plaza on the corner of Pismo
and Osos Streets that contains an arbor/trellis structure with benching.
4. Renovation of the playground.
5. Addition of public art.
6. Replacement of the shuffleboard and horseshoe courts behind the Senior Center with a
specialty garden (neighborhood vegetable garden, xeriscape demonstration garden or
botanical garden).
Thus far, the playground has been renovated, public art installed and a bandstand/pavilion
constructed by Rotary Club of San Luis Obispo. The flagpole was returned to its original
location upon completion of the bandstand/pavilion.
The area located immediately behind the Senior Center, which currently contains an underused
shuffleboard and horseshoe court, is designated for a specialty garden, with options for a
neighborhood vegetable garden, a xeriscape demonstration garden or a botanical garden. It is
this element of the Master Plan that must be amended prior to implementation of the Council's
Major City Goal to construct a parking lot behind the facility (See Attachment 3 for preliminary
parking lot site design.)
Advisory Body Review,
The process for amending the Mitchell Park Master Plan involves seeking input from the public
and requires review by the PRC, the CHC and the ARC, with recommendations ultimately
forwarded to the Council for final action. The results of those reviews are summarized below:'
Parks and Recreation Commission. In response to the 2007-09 Major City Goal, the PRC
considered the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan on two occasions. The first review
occurred on November 7, 2007, and after lengthy discussion and a 4-3 vote, the PRC approved a
recommendation to amend the Plan, removing the area behind the Senior Center designated for a
specialty garden and replacing it with a parking lot. The Commission also recommended that:
1. The City mitigate the loss of Mitchell Park land to parking lot (6,000 square feet) by
purchasing land in the downtown area equal in size to the area lost for parkland use (7-0); and
2. And in the future, if the Mitchell Park Senior Center reverts to a use other than a Senior
Center, at that time return the parking lot to "active park use" (4-3).
Subsequent to the November 7 meeting, the Council, PRC and City staff received
correspondence from many citizens in the community, most particularly neighbors living near the
park and in the area known as "Old Town," opposing construction of the parking lot. (All letters
received are available in the Council Reading file.)
�- 3
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Parks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.08.doc
l �
Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 4
Additionally, members of the community attended both the February and March, 2008 meetings
of the PRC and requested that the PRC re-examine the issue given the strong opposition to the
parking lot, and in light of a January 2008 action by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC).
After much discussion and majority direction, the PRC placed the Mitchell Park Master Plan
amendment on its April agenda for re-examination.
On April 2, 2008, the PRC reviewed the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan a second
time, evaluating it for conformance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan
and taking into account the added view of the CHC (discussed below). After hearing from a
room full of citizens, speaking both in support-and in opposition to the amendment, the PRC
determined that the construction of a parking lot behind the Senior Center was not compatible
with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and voted 6-1 to forward a
recommendation to the Council to deny the amendment. (See Attachment 4 for draft minutes and
agenda report.)
Cultural Heritage Committee. At its meeting on January 28, 2008, the CHC unanimously
recommended denial of the Mitchell Park Master Plan amendment. The CHC found that the
project is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties because it alters the setting of the historic property by introducing an element (parking
lot) that is not consistent with the historical context of the,site. The CHC also found that the
project detracts from the Old Town Historic Preservation District because the proposed
amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan does not promote the historic character of the area.
(See Attachment 5 for minutes and agenda report.)
Architectural Review Commission. The ARC reviewed the amendment on April 7, 2008 and
voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan, based on
inconsistency with Community Design Guidelines. The Commissioners felt that the parking lot
would detract from the visual character of Mitchell Park and the surrounding neighborhoods, and
remove urban green space that is vital to the community's quality of life for its residents. The
ARC also recommended expediting the installation of the community garden and addressing a
better means of meeting the parking accessibility needs for those with disabilities at the Senior
Center. (See Attachment 6 for draft minutes and agenda report.)
Environmental Review
Although this report deals exclusively with an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan, the
Council requested that it be provided with the results of an environmental review associated with
the construction of a parking lot behind the Senior Center. A Negative Declaration of
environmental impact in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was
recommended by the Community Development Director on March 26, 2008 (See Attachment 7).
The amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan would change the area designated for a
specialty garden to a parking lot. CEQA focuses on physical changes to the existing
environment. Changing the Mitchell Park Master Plan to accommodate a parking lot instead of a
community garden is key to the policy decision, but because there is no garden there now, a
garden is not part of the discussion of physical changes to the existing environment. LP
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Parks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.08.doe
Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 5
Next Steps (including feasibility study for the construction of a new Senior/Community
Center)
If the Council approves the amendment, the next steps in constructing the parking lot include:
Task Date
1.
. -
1. Complete plans & specifications,finalize budget and submit for Council approval 9-08
2. Invite bids and receive proposals 10-08
3. Evaluate proposals and award construction contract. 11-08
4. Execute agreement and start construction. 12-08
5. Complete construction 2-09
If the Council does not approve amending the Mitchell Park Master Plan to allow for on-site
parking, then work on this element of the Major City Goal will be concluded; and we will
continue implementing the other"Action Plan" tasks of the Major City Goal (See Attachment 8).
One major component of this work plan is to study the feasibility of developing a new
community center that can accommodate the needs of senior citizens and, perhaps, meet other
community needs as well. Support for this study has already been expressed by the Senior
Center Board, as well as the Parks and Recreation Commission and Joint Use Committee. At
this time, an RFP has been drafted to begin the consultant search, and the study is expected to be
underway this summer and completed in time for Council to consider the further pursuit of a
center in conjunction with the development of the 2009-11 Financial Plan.
CONCURRENCES
Staff from the Public Works Department concur with the information contained within the
report.
FISCAL IMPACT
Although amending the Mitchell Park MasterPlan has no direct fiscal impact, the design process
has revealed that additional items such as enhanced lighting, landscape, fencing and decorative
pavement will be needed, which will add to the cost of the project. The current construction cost
estimate is approximately $195,000. At this time, $70,000 has been allocated through the 2007-
09 Financial Plan for construction of the parking lot. If the Council approves the amendment,
staff will return to the Council for approval of plans and specifications, and recommended budget
adjustments at that time.
ALTERNATIVES
A number of alternatives to the construction of a parking lot have been researched by City staff
and are discussed in detail below. The first section addresses options for on-street parking, while
the second section looks at transportation alternatives.
U1 "�
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Parks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.08.doc
I
Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 6
In reviewing these alternatives, it is important to consider that the need for a parking lot behind
the Senior Center, as expressed by the seniors, is based on the need for parking to be located
within a short distance from the Center to accommodate:
1. Those with mobility limitations; and
2. An off-street loading zone for lunches, food give-aways and other programming needs.
Therefore, based on these considerations and past senior input, staff feels that any parking spaces
located more than a half-block from the Senior Center would not be considered an effective
solution.
On-Street Parking Options
1. Maintain the current parking system. The current parking controls surrounding Mitchell
Park began in the late 1990's with two hour time limits on Santa Rosa and Buchon Streets
and three hour meters on Pismo Street. After several changes through 2004, the streets
surrounding the park now consist of four-hour time limits on three streets surrounding 75%
of curb space surrounding the park: 15 spaces on Pismo; 14 spaces on Buchon Street; and
four spaces on Santa Rosa Street. Osos Street has open parking for approximately nine
vehicles (See Attachment 9 for parking map).
Current On-Street Pa king Zone Surrounding Mitchell Park
assenger
4-Hour Disabled Loading Open 30 Minute
Time Limit Parking Bus Zone Zone Parking Zone
Santa Rosa 4 3 1 1
Buchon 14 1
Pismo 15
Osos 9
Totals 1 33 1 3 1 1 9 1
2. Reduce Time Limits and Provide Exemption Permits to Seniors (Staff Recommended
"best alternative"). The City could lower the time limits on Buchon and Santa Rosa
Streets from four-hour zones to two-hour zones and allow the seniors to exceed that time
limit through the use of a parking permit. The lower time limit increases turn over of the
spaces while increasing the likelihood of available on-street parking for seniors. These
streets are in closest proximity to the Senior Center and add 18 potential spaces (four on
Santa Rosa and on 14 Buchon). Parks and Recreation staff can issue permits to seniors to
exempt them from the time limit. Seniors with disabled parking placards would not need a
permit because they are exempt from time limits by law.
Although this option does not guarantee senior-only parking, it allows for multiple users for
the park and surrounding areas. There would remain nine open or unregulated parking spaces
on Osos Street and 15 spaces with four-hour limits on Pismo Street. This would
accommodate parking for the mixture of non-residential uses on the north side and east sides
of the park. rr
r l�
TACouncil Agenda Reports\Parks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.0g.doc �fffrrr
1
Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 7
Due to competing parking interests in this area, this alternative would be preferred by staff
because it allows for non-exclusive or multi-use parking. This is preferable over single-use
reservation of street parking for seniors only. There may be some resistance from the seniors
due to the risk of receiving a parking citation for not displaying a parking permit. However,
the City has an appeal process that allows consideration of extenuating circumstances relating
to the issuance of a parking citation. This may alleviate some of the seniors' concerns.
3. Retain Time Limits with Exemption Permits. Another alternative is to retain all of the
four-hour zones on Pismo, Santa Rosa, and Buchon and provide for exemption permit
parking to seniors. This would work the same as the second alternative. The concern is that
having a longer time limit may not provide the increased likelihood of available parking for
seniors, since the spaces will conceivably only turn over every four hours as opposed to two
hours.. (It is staff's opinion that four-hour time limits do not deter downtown employee
parking because they move their cars at lunch.) This alternative was considered in the past
and was not endorsed by the seniors since it carried with it the risk of receiving a parking
citation for not displaying a parking permit. Staff does not think an exemption permit system
is a viable alternative for these reasons.
4. Senior Only Parking on the Street. This alternative would reserve parking exclusively for
seniors on some or all of the streets surrounding the Senior Center. This option works well
for seniors but excludes all others.
Staff has identified when the seniors require parking at the park. Seniors need access
Monday through Saturday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm. Any parking space identified for seniors
only excludes all other park users during most of the day and week. This is not as effective
or desirable as multi-use parking that accommodates other uses. The park is located within a
mixed use area that parks residents, church goers, downtown visitors, office visitors, the
DeGroot home for children with disabilities and a mini-market. Also, it will establish a
precedent that the Parking Division attempts to discourage. Currently, staff receives requests
from business owners, residents, and others who think that the parking space in front of their
property should be designated their parking only. Staff continually reminds the public that
on-street parking and other public parking areas are for the benefit of many and not reserved
for one use. Therefore, staff prefers a multi-use approach rather than reserved parking at
Mitchell Park.
5. On-Street Angled Parking. Parking on the street can be converted from parallel parking
spaces to angled parking spaces to provide for more parking. This would increase the
number of spaces and allow for more disabled parking. Non-nal standards require a minimum
of 60 feet from curb-to-curb to accomplish this. The streets around the park are 40 feet from
curb to curb. This option could require taking more park space on all or some of the streets
surrounding the park.
This option presents several challenges. Angled on-street parking has the potential to
increase accidents because the cars have to back into the traffic lane. A driver has limited
TACouncil Agenda Reporrs\Parks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.08.doc
Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment Page 8
visibility until they are almost into the lane of traffic. This can increase vehicle-to-vehicle
and vehicle-to-bicycle accidents.
The other challenges associated with angled on-street parking would be the cost to implement
and the elimination of park space needed to accomplish this. There would be costs for design
and environmental review. The design would result in taking some park land as well, which
has been a concern of those opposing the construction of a parking lot.
6. Increase Green Curb Temporary Time Limits. Many of the seniors have disabled
person's placards that allow them to park at any green-curbed time zone for as long as they
wish. Currently there is one 30-minute parking space that was intended for deliveries to the
Senior Center. The four parking spaces on Santa Rosa and all or some of the 14 parking
spaces on Buchon could be converted to green curbs with 30 minute time limits. This will
greatly increase the turnover of these spaces, giving seniors a better chance to find space in
close proximity to the park. The issue with this alternative is that it will not accommodate
seniors without disabled placards.
7. Add Metered Parking Surrounding the Park. This alternative was recommended by a
member of the community. This alternative was tried in the past on Pismo Street adjacent to
the park to deter the parking by downtown employees seeking free parking. Parking meters
are preferred by staff because they are less labor intensive to enforce than time zones.
Although adding parking meters did improve parking access next to the park on Pismo Street,
residents, seniors, and other park users objected to paying for parking so the meters were
removed. It is unlikely that this solution would be accepted by seniors or residents.
Transportation Alternatives
Regardless of Council action, staff will pursue the following alternatives.
1. Support SLO Regional Rideshare's Senior Transportation Options Program and Other
Alternate Transportation Systems. Currently, SLO Regional Rideshare works directly
with the seniors at the Senior Center to provide transportation choices and has created a
Senior Transportation Options program, complete with posters and ambassadors. This
program engages other seniors to help their peers plan trips, reduce fear and increase
understanding of the transportation system.
2. . Work with the seniors to encourage use of the SLO Transit System, Dial-a-Ride and
similar shared transportation options. SLO Transit currently operates two routes, one in
each direction past the Senior Center, with bus stops on Santa Rosa at Buchon. Route #4
leaves the Downtown Transit Center (DTC) every 30 minutes Monday through Thursday;
and Santa Rosa/Buchon is the second stop after leaving the DTC. Service starts at 6:40 am,
with the last trip leaving the DTC at 10:20 pm. (5:40 pm from June 15`h until September due
to Cal Poly student summer vacation)
Weekend service starts at 8:10 am with the last trip leaving the DTC at 5:10 pm and operates
once per hour. Route #5 operates every 30 minutes Monday through Friday, with service past
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Parks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.08.doc
1
Mitchell Park MasterPlan Amendment Page 9
the Senior Center-Santa Rosa/Buchon St bus stop heading towards downtown. Service starts
at approximately 6:41 am (Amtrak Station schedule timepoint with Buchon two stops after
this location), with the last trip at approximately 6:36 pm. Weekend service starts at
approximately 9:11 am (Amtrak) with the last trip at approximately 6:41 pm with service
once per hour..Seniors also could choose to use Route #4 to return to the DTC; however, it
would require them to ride the entire remaining route and would take approximately 45-50
minutes from the Senior Center departure to DTC if choosing this option. The benefit is that
there is later evening service from Monday through.Thursday on this route at least until June
15t'. Transit staff would be willing to work closely with other City staff to develop a specific
transit marketing plan to increase senior ridership on these routes. (See Council Reading File
for SLO Transit Map)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map for Mitchell Park
2. Mitchell Park Master Plan
3. Preliminary Parking Lot Design
4. PRC Draft Minutes and Agenda Report—April 2, 2008
5. CHC Minutes and Agenda Report—January 28, 2008
6. ARC Draft Minutes and Agenda Report—April 7, 2008
7. Negative Declaration
8. 2007-09 Major City Goal: Senior Center Facilities
9. On-street Parking Map
10. Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Mitchell Park and Senior Center Parking History (detailed)
Letters of support and opposition from the community
San Luis Obispo Bus System Map
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Parks&Recreation CAR\CAR Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.06.08.doc
�! Mitchell ParkVicinity Map
Ile
J J� I
fr
r �
• :il�llll�ll��� �li � I f
1'
c - d
--------------------------------
Q11"No
INTO, Ii
at- It
OR
1I /I /
�•� pp5.l��� � ro
��
r�/jW�/�/ ���
i///.► 3 '''fsc?r`.'zu:<t ;jxr?�K;^gt.i` Ni
li�� 7��f:Sfflau".e'✓�T.i�SF�is�I�����k�*.+a�
IS
ME
�.Jx ii;° .' m+.l rya° �"s`s'y1�`E •'�' VIII! ,a *v n"'1
,IM
-�+C'it`�y .. 't��p.au���'���t'�A'.�i�-'T;�,tN '� : 'C rl(�•.•S ' �`tis��'�`
3'g�g
"tt`'i^"�, �a '� eu�` 3, '�s"';C,E' 'F3vk'ts'°1 ��t ke�'�", rrP• F`",S
�I 16`J§nAz�
� �q`Sf�'a A t :..✓kv � '��`"�11' � 1111111111 � �, �: tai.
e S -x� + � t Y��"'°1 ��+rrT- y,,'>, 1 1• �1 eY ,;� t�c, '2T'" ani,�.
.`4aa„Qly� e w d,k� �f � �fiy '�i. �.Ir 116r s 1.1�•!�Ic i��+y�3,d�}°: '1 'GSt
1 c� �aa'u d� �}`,k`.y."""'�x�'4K;y, ,'R=a 1 .1n1•,' T' [`��,syy,T3��`2 `Cr' "Y�`taa5�eyr,�
e'r1�2' X t'ry'
C a a.tya e t Spy i � zz
�C
"�
I�Irya�y tt.{�,`« � '+c �`i y! �a.v"ui�k \ v ay.`r •`+ti�u� "1''`� y '"aw`9 x f<ti"�'``r ;,� 1,
al
��1�•�`�+�IY�r t ��i��S�..a�. �v«i'!`x'"r���+' ��a?sx'R��� ��,��"i �'a'.a x � �Y,fv�lvF��r�a�
v1.2� J l xd'��^2 '+.�•k y. isl.�"."'�d+^ti?, a ro � ^wtiv jSa C ?9 Y 4f*L�y
'M
c. �x�.7 Zhk � ilx t '}�'.psyp a p h ro ��x , ,
cS a t n. a z{" °k f "'`''yyy-Ws k ' .;+lR, x. d R M t J 4�. MIMS,
tlµµ1`-J`' ''2"�� 'xn`" C y �pp�RJ! aaC1xT'
,.ci ,k�
a,CtY\.1 1�,,. 1ry � -c a•3� e a� "�."}, >�..���w r l l l 1.1111
II r •1, -i'?j�e'` -q� �*�^>+y. l.€�}'�treSta',�3�J.� c'"t�..r'�*`a"�`t' �';k..A'� rC��y.Nyr Ylllllll llllllr h '
111111111111. .�'a,�t�*yt lr Lt,.a.e.o. w3as.tr:,,��`ww i�r�ti h.�rP,yelWc�"` t std'c'r6 "Ih1141144:r�y'�.��I �.
1111 y 11 t � 111 11
(ILII t'•-•t3 llllt i i����dil�t���XJa i�vl�t��Jar� vear %Pil IN��`�A�1� �rYIDc�3:Y�.rvh/JI I �1 II
i `: 11111 Y 111111 N s _y �`S a.5..+'a til Sti t .l htu l.Y.s�-.Y -X �.r h�u..t v]Sa Y• a�law:f.l . Illr
(�. ' IIII�'ilililililili tt vt'-.-,`'1��.*N,L.S'.LnaP"`,c::�:�c.xa''�3X YtY7 i+� �'`�� ..,.�i.i' t's`*•,,n �'�fa� • 'Illlr
i
ATT ACHIMENT 3
i
W�� �.0• - .-r . ..-. .,
OC
m
-c
v
r ,
y
r 4 h yl d
' .. "'� o �"'Z.���.Oq � � - �� •-• � � V fit„
mm
(� o
'.� _ � S-A-NTA ROSA STR T
AT iACHMENT�I_—
Parks and Recreation Commission—Draft Minutes
April 2, 2008
Page 3 of 12
Chair Lemieux will set up a meeting with Agatha Reardon and keep in contact as an unofficial
liaison to the Senior Center.
6. Amendment to Mitchell Park.Master Plan—Kiser
Action: Review the proposed amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan removing the area
behind the Senior Center designated for a specialty garden and replacing it with a parking lot, and
forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the amendment.
Chair Lemieux read a statement providing background on the amendment and reviewing rules of
conduct for the meeting. Because of the number of speakers, Chair Lemieux asked as an
alternative to applause that the audience raise their hands in support of a comment. Stated goal of
everyone present is to make the best decision for the community.
Director Kiser gave the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation on the Mitchell Park Master
Plan background and history. Initial PRC approval of amendment on November 7, 2007 was
with caveat that replacement land be purchased downtown equal in size to that lost to parking lot
and that if there was a change in use of the center that parking lot area would return to parkland.
CHC denied the proposed amendment January 28, 2008. A multitude of public comment was
received February and March. The ARC will hear on April 7 and Council on May 6. The
Director explained the role of the Commission was to evaluate the amendment in terms of
conformance to the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. Alternatives are to a)
determine that amendment is not compatible with the Element and deny; and b) identify
alternatives to parking lot for presentation to Council. Alternatives have come in the form of
letters to the editor from the community, Robert Horsch, Parking Manager; and Council.
Chair Lemieux opened the subject for Public Comment but reminded the Commissioners they
will be asked to review.
Richard Rall of 2449 Ladera Court, Vice President of the Senior Board, reminded the demands
of the few shall not outweigh the needs of the many. Reminded that those opposed to parking lot
are able to rally large groups of people through computer technology that unfortunately most
seniors do not use. Asked Commissioners to address the parking problem at the Senior Center.
Use by the seniors Monday — Friday leaves time for use by others. Need to address loading and
unloading on the street, security of off street parking, mobility problems, parking for caterers,
unloading of supplies, delivery of food.
Dick Flanders of 52 Los Palos Drive, devotes five days a week to senior activities. Thinking as
an eventual community center already half pavement even though "specialty garden" of 6,000
1 -3
ATTACHMENT [
Parks and Recreation Commission—Draft Minutes
April 2, 2008
Page 4 of 12
square feet listed, small portion. Does not understand why so much opposition. Rented facility
that Parks and Recreation utilizes to raise funds.
Charles Oldham of 1600,Toro commended the board for parking proposal. Supported gazebo,
vitality of youth using it. Feels opposition acts as though it would be a Wal-Mart parking lot.
Believes coating proposed would have aesthetic value. Asked to consider danger of service road
existing now. Backing on to Santa Rosa, one-way traffic proposed.
Marie Wilson of 1722 DeVaul Ranch passed out pamphlets to the Commissioners. USDA and
weekend programs needing parking. Noted considerable cement already in place. Used Emerson
Park as an example of a downtown park with business parking and reminded any future change
in building use will still have parking need. Sees amendment as a simple solution.
Carol Nelson Selby of 1201 Leff hopes that Council listens closely to community. Suggested to
the PRC they are not politicians and can take the long view. Depend on their view for the future
as keepers of renewable resource. Asked this "jewel" be protected for future. Many uses,
speaking as a senior but urban pocket park does not require parking. Suggested senior facility
could be run from other area.
Paul Wilson of 1722 DeVaul Ranch informed that Paso Robles used senior center for meetings,
the parking issue will go on forever. Passed photograph of park to commissioners to view of four
cars bumper to bumper where designed for three. Keep proposed plan. Gave example of Persian
Square in Los Angeles with parking underground and park above. Stated City has done a lot for
parking downtown.
David Kuykendall of 1218 Pismo thanked the Commission and asked they consider three things
1) map of SLO showing location of households throughout the City that opposed the parking lot;
2) petition to not put in parking lot; 3) survey with 172 signatures. Strong agreement park is
valuable and senior center available. 98% of those surveyed agreed the parking lot is not the best
us of park. Disagrees as long term solution and that public transportation should be first priority
to consider.
Meg Kuykendall of 1218 Pismo believes specialty gardens are of value to community and feels
seniors deserve better space. Issue not parking spaces but access to the center. Funds should be
used to pay for public transportation to address mobility problems.
Bill Casella of 125 Pismo is concerned for safety and traffic flow, exhaust, public transportation
and the cost of fuel.
Jim Kelliher of 1216 Buchon feels should adhere to Master Plan. Specialty garden should be
1 -4
ATT ACHMF14T
Parks and Recreation Commission—Draft Minutes
April 2, 2008
Page 5 of 12
pushed forward.
Carmie Casella of 1225 Pismo referred to the Children's Outdoor Bill of Rights which lists #3
as being able to play in a safe place which is what we have now. Feels driveway with bolder
perimeter would be tempting children to be in area where seniors with slower reflexes would
reduce safety. Feels with so few parking spots available, user can't see if there is space available
until already in the lot.
Gini Griffin of 1436 Johnson Ave, representing Obispo Beautiful Association, read statement.
Referenced awards in Mitchell Park. Concerns over intrusion of parking lot; keep character of
Mitchell Park.
Eric Meyer of 1242 Buchon stated the Master Plan was achieved after years of work. All
realized except for community garden. Usurping this part of Master Plan is not in best interest.
Asked why keep fighting the same fight. Asks Commissioners 1) Motion to withdraw prior
approval and 2) request City Council fund community garden in Master Plan.
Mary Andrews of 1153 Islay Street spoke as a mother of a 4 and 6 year old and a neighbor.
Echoes 100% what last speaker said. Wants park garden but knows seniors need parking. Feels
losing sight of gaining minimal parking spaces. Seniors need adequate place and current senior
center will never be it. Transfer to the Ludwick with adequate facilities. Pocket park not
appropriate place to be talking about parking. Not losing but gaining a community garden. Would
be losing an asset.
Bruce Collier of 1203 Pismo Street referred to donation history and identified the Ludwick
Community Center as an existing facility with parking that could be used. Consider the area
behind the Senior Center designated as a specialty garden should be used as such.
(Chair Lemieux noted specifics on history available, contact Parks and Recreation staff.)
Jenn Yost of 1703 Santa Barbara Street stated unfortunate that the view seems to be neighbors
versus seniors. Wants to invest more in seniors. 19 residents from her building use the park
daily. Space in question is surrounded by fence, did not know it was to be a garden space. Feels
the tenants in her building would use the space. Views as an asset to community center.
Suggested that when events take place the seniors are given right to block off the street on both
sides of Buchon and Santa Rosa. Feels more adequate facility at the Ludwick Community
Center.
Matt Ritter of 1352 Pacific Street and a botany professor stated driveway goes under canopy of
heritage tree in plan which feels would kill the tree.
1 -5
ATTACHMENT—14
Parks and Recreation Commission—Draft Minutes
April 2, 2008
Page 6 of 12
J. Trees Ritter of 1341 Ifiguera, a physician with three daughters, feels the exit onto Santa Rosa
and entry into an area children are playing would be unsafe when combined with potentially
slower reaction time of older drivers.
Wendy Knight of 1320 Sydney Street opposed the parking plan, feels the large park would be
reduced and safety compromised. Feels it's a mistake to pave green space.
Agatha Reardon of 1275 Manzanita stated senior population underrepresented. Fence removed
after many years and its being open has not been a safety issue mentioned before but feels it
would go back up. Believes tree committee found heritage tree to not be endangered by plan. As
someone who is at the senior center every day, does not believe small parking area would impact
the park. Master Plan changed several times; concern lies with community garden not greater
traffic.
Sean Ryan of 1703 Santa Barbara Street hopes to keep area as is intended for community garden
and not a parking lot.
Samantha Smith of 1703 Santa Barbara Street also opposed, better used as garden space.
Craig Jacobson of 1703 Santa Barbara Street reiterated opposition to parking lot and also
unaware because of fence that could use horseshoe pit. Excited about community garden
possibility and use as green space.
Sue Power of 1227 Buchon supports safety issue comments and resolving in other ways.
Concentrate on individual parking and transportation alternatives so center can be utilized.
Center not adequate as a senior facility; need something larger to accommodate growing
population, parking spaces won't resolve problems. Asked to stay with existing Master Plan and
focus on future.
Ursula Bishop of 1208 Pismo feels over last 19-20 years improved park. Didn't know about
November meeting. Asked Commissioners to consider as a new vote. Feels the seniors deserve
better. Asked to consider angled parking. Requests staying with existing Master Plan.
Peter Schwartz of 1441 Iris Street feels parking lot would be subsidizing the motor industry and
that real estate is too valuable to use as parking. Conveyed formula using real estate values to
describe how much it would cost to park per hour to equal out. Reconsider vote to maintain
existing Master Plan.
Lou Carpine of 1227 Buchon Street thanked the Commissioners. Feels the parking lot will not
correct the problem. Asked about exit road and how close to children's area. Gain of only seven
1 -6
� � ICP
ATTACKIENt�'
Parks and Recreation Commission—Draft Minutes
April 2, 2008
Page 7 of 12
spots. Reconsider vote to maintain Master Plan.
Stephen Lamb of 1251 Buchon Street reiterated the sentiments of other speakers. Referenced
photo of four cars parked too closely together and said found empty spots this morning. Senior
Center an improper location for functions and activities held there and that are already held at the
LCC. Recommends to deny amendment to Master Plan and fund community gardens.
John Altman of 2289 Florence Avenue feels gas prices raising issue of alternative transportation
need and changes in senior driving habits. Preserve green space, opposed to developing parking
lot.
Stew Jenkins of 1336 Morro Street speaking on behalf of his wife and himself opposes
amending Master Plan. Likes ability to walk to the center and potentially garden in area. Better
access to seniors, with vehicles not a long term answer. Consider transportation alternatives such
as add more loading zones or drive-through completely fenced with no damage potential to the
heritage tree. Recommend Council use money for parking lot on public transportation instead.
Valerie Endres of 790 Islay asks consideration for change with regard to preservation of
character of park and needs and consensus of neighborhood residents. Consider alternate
transportation solutions not parking.
Larissa Heeren of 1022 Leff Street loves park for the trees and grass her home does not provide.
Supports creative solution and exhausting every possible alternative. Consider reversible
solution first. Concerned for trees and the wildlife living there.
Mary Ellen Gibson of 1251 Buchon states there has been a response to this matter from around
the world. Opposed to paving public gardens.
(End of Public Comment).
Commissioner May clarified with Director Kiser that the rules of use for parking lot were to be
determined at a later time, the availability of parking to the public at night, that the parks close at
10 p.m.,, and the location of pavement near the heritage tree.
MOTION: (May) Stay with Parks and Recreation Commission Vote of November and
recommend to City Council a parking lot be put in behind the Senior Center.
The Motion failed due to a lack of second.
MOTION: (Kincaid/Hensinger) Move to deny the amendment to Master Plan and open for
discussion.
1 -7
f — t�
ATTACHMENT I/
Parks and Recreation Commission—Draft Minutes
April 2, 2008
Page 8 of 12
Commissioners discussed the motion.
Commissioner Hatch understands need to provide for senior citizens but difficult decision on
which way to take direction. Studying where trees are, the flow of traffic, and looking at spaces
currently available, would probably be better to keep with Master Plan, looking for a better
solution for the senior center. Would rather see monetary upgrades go to a new center.
Commissioner Hensinger appreciated public turnout as previously there was not as much input or
exposure to all age group's viewpoints.
Commissioner May gave background as a long term resident of SLO since the 1960's. Would
personally like to see the garden developed. Concerns for the heritage tree — interviewed park
attendees. Feels real solution is a senior center that provides for all needs. Feels need for
proposal to take to Council that takes care of both sides wishes; however there is no solution at
this point. Hopes to find solution to area, but rather than a hard yes or no, propose yes to
temporary parking and then deal with senior center at a later date. Fix current senior center first—
feels it works because seniors can come and go freely and get answers to their challenges,
prepare taxes, socialize, etc.; we need to be able to give that type of freedom and personal
comfort somewhere else (in a new facility).
Commissioner Regier stated he has tried to keep an open mind as a new commissioner. Has
familiarized himself with the topic and is at a crossroads as he can respect both sides of the issue.
Shared biases and philosophies pertinent to this decision making process. That 1) half measures
show progress but stop tactic may make reaching long-term solution more difficult. 2) As a
Commission they are custodians of park land and stewards of active programming and defenders
of green space and as such that under any circumstance the taking away of parkland should take a
very compelling argument, and 3) seniors unique special needs are deserving of support.
Sympathetic to both sides yet certain arguments has no sympathy for. Will vote not to amend the
master plan feeling that the seniors deserve better and approaching a new center is past due..
Congratulated audience for committing the time to attend.
Commissioner Kincaid thanked both sides illuminating all issues. Feels need for public
transportation, ease of movement, and removal of cars from the streets. Was not aware of
community garden area. Sensitive to seniors' needs and the inability for some to not use the
center due to parking. Although unsure that it is the job of the PRC to solve problems, at least
can help by denying the amendment.
Commissioner Havas relayed a personal experience of hearing musicians in the gazebo after dark
and feeling the magic of the park. Does not see an easy solution, particularly Commissioner
May's approach. Feels the least expensive option should be tried first and agrees with comment
1 -8
ATT AC4iditNT
Parks and Recreation Commission —Draft Minutes
April 2, 2008
Page 9 of 12
to try something not irreversible. Feels compromise is needed and there will be unhappiness
from one side or another with the decision either way. Favors changing parking in the street,
repainting options. Urges compassion, that ten years is a long wait to get a new senior center.
Sees underutilization and can see both parking lot and community garden.
Chair Lemieux thanked the public and staff and community correspondence received. Feels need
to ensure representing community appropriately, takes responsibility seriously knowing that
people will be impacted. Thanked Agatha Reardon who was first to relay to her that seniors
don't refer to the center as a ten year plan, but rather that the City needs a new community center
of which a part will be a senior center. That the LCC was seriously considered but it doesn't
meet 100% of their needs either. Feels responsibility to not make decision on loudest voice but
to take into consideration all viewpoints. Past notes show loudest voice supported the parking
lot; feels new information should be given equal weight. Clarified the term "band aid" which
was used in the past really means "unmet need" i.e., transportation. Transportation alternatives
not being an easy fix, feels subject needs to be brought before Council. Appreciated
Commissioner Regier's information and has always approached decision making with question of
if whether it will still be good 20 years from now. If a good decision had been made 10-20 years
ago, for example, would not be dealing with this situation now. Is respectful of the effort that
went into the master plan and feels all the thought that went into it should not be undermined by
a body of people that disagree with it. Putting in a parking lot is not doing the community the
best service, but questions how the needs of seniors be met immediately. Although it can't be
done tonight, can be part of solutions and that process. Wants everyone to feel there is a solution
for them. Voted against parking lot last time.
The motion was reread.
MOTION: (Kincaid/Hensinger) That construction of a parking lot behind the Senior Center is not
compatible with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and thereby deny the
amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan removing the area behind the Senior Center
designated for a.specialty garden and replacing it with a parking lot.
Approved: 6 yes: 1 no: 0 absent
7. Annual Park Tour—date,time,areas of interest
Director Kiser explained the premise of the annual Park Tour for the three advisory bodies within
the Parks and Recreation Department. The tour generally includes a mix of open space, trails and
park sites that are new, renovated or have proposed projects. Commissioners discussed possible
preferences and reviewed with the Director sites selected on the last tour. Commissioners preferred
an afternoon tour with a BBQ dinner at the Laguna Lake Golf Course. Potential date of July 9 will
be confirmed next month. Commissioners made suggestions for areas to be included on the tour, as
1 -9
U- 0
A>~ACli dKNIT�
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks and Recreation Commission
Agenda Report
Date: April 2,2008
Subject: Amendment to Mitchell Park MasterPlan
Prepared by: Betsy Kiser, Parks and Recreation Director
Recommended Action: Review the proposed amendment to the Mitchell Park
Master Plan removing the area behind the Senior Center designated for a specialty garden
and replacing it with a parking lot, and forward a recommendation to City Council to
approve the amendment.
DISCUSSION
Situation
During the 2007-09 Financial Plan development, the City Council established a Major
City Goal to enhance senior citizen facilities through improvements to the current senior
center and the pursuit of plans for a future senior center. The work program that resulted
included the renovation of the senior center kitchen, replacement of windows and chairs,
the construction of a parking lot in the area behind the facility and a needs study for a
new facility (see Attachment 1 for Major City Goal and associated Capital Improvement
Programs).
To proceed with construction of a parking lot behind the Senior Center, the Mitchell Park
Master Plan, which guides the development of the Park, must first be amended to reflect
a change of use for that specific area from specialty garden to parking lot. While
ultimately the City Council will approve any amendment to the Mitchell Park Master
Plan, the process seeks input from the public and review from the advisory bodies with
purview over various aspects of the amendment, in this case, the Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC), the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), and the Architecture
Review Commission (ARC).
History of Mitchell Park*
Mitchell Park is located in the Old Town Historic District and includes the city block
bounded by Santa Rosa, Buchon, Osos and Pismo Streets. The Senior Center, located in
the Park, is a former kindergarten school and is located on the Master List of Historic
Resources.
The site was originally part of the Dallidet Adobe vineyards. Local resident Frank
Mitchell donated the property to the San Luis Coastal Unified School District in 1917.
The site also served as a community park and included a ball field and gazebo.
` A complete history of Mitchell Park,the Senior Center and parking issues has been provided to the Commissioners in
a separate document entitled"Mitchell Park and Senior Center Parking History"and can be accessed by the public at
u,ww.slocitv.orelparksandrecreation under Mitchell Park.
/, ^
r
ATTACHi'AENT�
Amendment to Mitchell, k Master Plan (2) page 2
In 1948, the City leased the site from the District and the two agencies agreed to an
extensive renovation of the park. This project, which was completed in 1953, was the
configuration of the park at the time of the Master Plan development in 1995.
During the intervening years, the former kindergarten school was renovated (1974) and
became home to the Senior Citizen Center organization that exists and operates at the
facility today. In 1978, an agreement was established between the City and the Senior
Center Board of Directors whereby in exchange for the Senior Center facility, phone
service, office supplies and funds for mailing the newsletter, the senior citizens who use
the facility agreed to operate the program under the direction of the Parks and Recreation
Department at no personnel cost.
Since 1988, the concern over parking for the seniors who use the facility has been
addressed on a number of occasions. Specifically, and as recent as 2000, the request for
an off-street parking lot has been reviewed and denied by.both the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the City Council, resulting in the 4-hour on-street parking zones that
currently surround the park.
Mitchell Park Master Plan
The Mitchell Park Master Plan was adopted by resolution by the City Council on October
2, 2001 after review and recommendations of support from the PRC, the CHC, and the
ARC (see Attachment 2 for Master Plan document). The plan called for a number of
improvements to the park, including:
1. a pavilion similar to one that existed in the park for over thirty years,
2. landscaping and fencing on the perimeter of the site,
3. relocation of a flagpole from the center of the park to a small plaza on the corner of
Pismo and Osos.Streets that contains an arbor/trellis structure with benching,
4. renovation of the playground
5. the addition of public art,
6. replacement of the shuffleboard and horseshoe courts behind the Senior Center with a
specialty garden (neighborhood vegetable garden, xeriscape demonstration garden, or
botanical garden).
Thus far, the playground has been renovated, public art installed and a bandstand/pavilion
constructed by Rotary Club of San Luis Obispo. The flagpole was returned to its original
location upon completion of the bandstand/pavilion.
As noted above, the area located immediately behind the Senior Center, which currently
contains an underused shuffleboard and horseshoe court, has not been completed and is
designated for a specialty garden, with options for a neighborhood vegetable garden, a
xeriscape demonstration garden, or a botanical garden. It is this element of the Master
Plan which must be amended prior to implementation of the Major City Goal to construct
a parking lot behind the facility.
Advisory Bodv Review
Parks and Recreation Commission Review. On November 7, 2007, the PRC reviewed the
proposed Senior Center Parking Lot plans. After lengthy discussion, in a 4-3 vote, the
G:\4Dt`IIN\Parks&Rec Cominission0008\Agenda Reporlswlitchell Park.Master Plan Amendment 4.02.08.doc
ATiACHit9ENT _
Amendment to Mitche. ark Master Plan (2) __ ' page 3
Commission approved an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan, removing the
area behind the Senior Center designated for a specialty garden and replacing it with a
parking lot. In addition, the Commission made a recommendation to Council that 1) the
City mitigate the loss of Mitchell Park land to parking lot (6,000 sq. ft.) by purchasing
land in the downtown area equal in size to the area lost for parkland use (7-0); and 2) in
the future, if the Mitchell Park Senior Center reverts to a use other than a Senior Center,
at that time return the parking lot to an active park use (4-3). Attachment 3 contains the
minutes and staff report from the meeting with a preliminary design for the parking lot.
Cultural Heritage Committee Review. On January 28, 2008, the proposed Master Plan
amendment was reviewed by the CHC to determine that the parking lot was consistent
with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (see Attachment 4 for the full CHC
staff report and minutes from the meeting.). After hearing from twenty-eight citizens
speaking both for and against the amendment, the CHC voted 7:0 to recommend that the
City Council deny an amendment to the Mitchell Park MasterPlan to construct a parking
lot, based on the following findings:
1. The project is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties because it significantly alters the setting of the
historic property by introducing an element (parking lot) that is not consistent with
the historical context of the site.
2. The project detracts from the Old Town Historic Preservation District because the
amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan does not promote the historic
character of the area.
Subsequent to the CHC meeting, the City Council, the PRC and staff received
correspondence from many citizens in the community, most particularly the neighbors
living near the park and in the area known as "Old Town", opposing the construction of
the parking lot in Mitchell Park (see Attachment 5 for copy of letters). Additionally,.
members of the community attended both the February and March, 2008 meetings of the
PRC and requested that the PRC review the issue a second time given the public outcry
opposing the parking lot. After much discussion and a majority consensus, the PRC
chose to place the Mitchell Park Master Plan amendment on the April agenda for re-
examination.
Architectural Review Commission and City Council Review. Review by both the ARC
and City Council will occur as scheduled. The ARC will take action on the amendment
on April 7 and City Council will consider the amendment at its May 6, 2008 meeting. If
the amendment is approved, the parking lot design will be considered at a later date.
EVALUATION
The role of the PRC is to advise the City's Parks and Recreation Department and the City
Council on the development and operation of recreation programs and parks, and on the
implementation of the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. As such, any
GA\ADM➢V\Parks&Rec Commission\2008VA ends Reports\Alitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.02.08.doc Le' 1
ATTACHNIENr _
Amendment to Mitchell k Master Plan (2) page 4
proposed amendment to a park Master Plan is first reviewed by the PRC with ,
recommendations forwarded to the City Council for final action via resolution.
The Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan serves as a guide for the PRC's
deliberations and action. The following excerpts from the Element's vision statement,
principals and policies should be evaluated by the PRC to determine whether the
proposed amendment and parking lot will help ensure that our facilities and programs
keep pace with the ever changing needs of our community.
Section 1.0—Vision Balancing the needs of these two dynamic senior populations ("50
and over" and older seniors, aged 70 and above) will be a key
focus of the Parks and Recreation Department's services and
facilities.
City officials, staff and volunteers who will implement the Parks
and Recreation Element and Master Plan are responsible for
ensuring city programs and facilities are current and meaningful by
regularly seeking input and evaluation from those who use these
services. They must also ensure that new or expanded recreation
programs and facilities are implemented because they represent a
need expressed by a cross-section of the community and not ;just
by a small, special-interest group.
Section 1.1 —Executive Summary As demand for recreation facilities and activities
grows and changes, the City intends to focus its
efforts in the following critical areas..... Meeting the
special needs of disabled persons, at-risk youth, and
senior citizens.
Policy 2.6.1 Recreation Services will be operated in a manner that is
environmentally sensitive and conserves natural resources.
Policy 3.13.1 Parks shall be maintained in such a manner that priority will be
given to the preservation of the natural beauty and safe use of the
land within the system.
Policy 3.15.2 The design of neighborhood parks shall be consistent with the
needs and preferences determined from a consensus of
neighborhood residents.
Policy 3.16.4 While major facilities shall be designed to meet multi-generational
needs, there shall also be space available to address the unique
needs of the senior population.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Determine that the construction of a parking lot behind the Senior Center is not
compatible with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and deny
G:WDNnMParks&Rec Commission\20MA.genda Reports\A itchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.02.08.doc 3
ATT.AC4NPI EPdT_ q _
Amendment to Mitchell :k Master Plan (2) page 5
the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan removing the area behind the
Senior Center designated for a specialty garden and replacing it with a parking lot.
2. Staff is working on alternative options to a parking lot for Council consideration
on May Oh. These alternatives will take time to flesh out and therefore are not
available at this time. If the PRC presents options, these options will be included
in the report to Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Major City Goal and Capital Improvement Project
2. Mitchell Park Master Plan
3. PRC Minutes and Agenda Report—November 7, 2007
4. CHC Minutes and Agenda Report—January 28, 2008
5. Letters from Residents
GAADINI NTarks&Rec Commission\2008\4enda Reportswlitchell Park Master Plan Amendment 4.02.08.doc
ATTACHMENT.,
CHC Minutes,January 28,2008 Meeting
Page 6
1. Site landscaping shall be designed to respect the historic ranch.
2. All historic structures shall be rehabilitated in place rather than rel ated unless specific site
conditions warrant otherwise (specific site conditions include dr ' age problems, site distance
conflicts, or other significant unavoidable conflicts). If it is ermined by the CHC, on advice
of a qualified historical preservation architect, that the b granary building or other accessory
structures are not restorable, then these structures all be reconstructed on the existing
footprints using existing materials and new material at closely match the original construction
materials.
3. The proposed project shall comply with th storic Preservation Agreement recorded with the
property.
4. New buildings shall respect an complement the historic ranch design theme by utilizing
agrarian architecture. Materia such as comrgated steel, wood (or simulated wood) siding, and
related products shall be ed as exterior treatment. Roof forms and massing shall represent
agricultural-related b ' ings such as barns, silos, or other agricultural-related structures.
5. The project sh return to the CHC with conceptual architectural drawings of new buildings,
detailed pl for restoring or reconstructing the historic buildings and structures, and an initial
enviro ntal study.
6. A 'tional research to document the historic uses and their location on the site shall be
ompleted and provided to the CHC.
4. 1445 Santa Rosa Street. ARC 166-07; Review of modification to Mitchell Park Master
Plan to construct a parking lot for the Senior Center located in the historic Kindergarten
School; PF-H zone; City of San Luis Obispo-Public Works,applicant.(James David)
Jeff Hook provided opening comments regarding events leading up to Master plan amendment and
explained the CHC's purview in reviewing the Master Plan amendment. He introduced project
planner James David who presented the staff report.
Chairperson Breska declared she is a member of the senior center but has no financial interest in
project and will keep an open mind, listen to all testimony and participate in a well-considered
decision after hearing input. She opened the public hearing.
Craig Lindeman said that the game of throwing horseshoes has been around longer than parking and
felt it was more important to preserve the horseshoe court behind the Senior Center rather thanbuild
a parking lot. He felt it would be a poor historical decision to replace horseshoes with cars. .
Mike Shipsey, a long-time city resident, said the area was grassland before it was a horseshoe pit.
That was followed by bocce, lawn-bowling and other things over time. He felt that the parking lot
was needed, especially to serve handicapped seniors.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. '
J:
�i ATTACHMENI- �'
CHC Minutes,January 28,2008 Meeting
Page 7
Stephan Lamb felt that Mitchell Park is part of historic resource — the whole setting and
environmental context are historically important. Surrounding the historic senior center with paving
is not historically compatible or consistent with standards.
Sherry Fontane said she agreed with Mr. Lamb.
Mary Ellen Gibson opposed building a parking lot; she said the property deeded to the City for
recreational use not as a parking lot.
Canny Parsell agreed with the previous speakers.
Trudy Lindeman agreed with the previous speakers.
Lou Carpine said his grandchildren refer to Mitchell Park as "Nana's park". This decision is not
about the seniors. It is wrong to support the parking lot for many reasons: historic preservation,
kids' safety and park uses..
Jan Marx said the historic use of the site is as a park and playground for children. Teddy Roosevelt
spoke on a bandstand in the park in 1903 and Mitchell Park is historically important as a public
gathering place. The Community use of the park is the historic use. The Council decided to update
the master plan in 2001 to show community gardens in this location and it was inappropriate for the
Council to include the parking lot in a CIP program when it was clearly inconsistent with the
Mitchell Park Master Plan. The third phase of the existing master plan is to install the garden and
that is what should happen.
Dick Rawl, past president of the Senior Center and current vice-president said the Senior Center has
approximately 325 members from the ages of 55 to 90 plus. There are monthly luncheons,
deliveries of food to distribute to low income families, and all sorts of volunteer activities. Their
handicapped members have difficulty in accessing the Senior Center and the parking lot is needed.
Lisa Quinn, director of SLO Regional Rideshare, said they are working with seniors to identify
transportation options. It is important to use transportation services available and to be more
efficient in transportation services and resources rather than having individuals in separate cars. The
small van service is available for$2 each way by reservation. She felt that a 19-space parking lot
was not sufficient to meet the need.
Suzanne Power — Wanted to know the status of the parking survey received in November from
Public Works regarding the Old Town District. Staff member Jeff Hook responded that Public
Works is still working on the survey and results are not completed.
Hilyard Wood felt the ultimate historic resource is the land and it needs to be preserved. The garden
and park use is the more historic use. He felt the parking lot was a "band aid approach" and that
senior needs should be addressed but not by replacing a park with parking.
Ginny Griffin agreed with the previous speaker. She is a neighbor and did not receive notification
of neighborhood meeting. She said don't take parkland for parking.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
ATTACHMENT
CHC Minutes,January 28,2008 Meeting
Page 8
Louis Ortega said he lives across the street from the park and loves the area. He has brought his
children and now grandchildren to the park to play. It is important to have this green area for the
community and opposed the parking lot.
Agatha Reardon, president of the Senior Center; noted that many seniors are able-bodied, but many
have physical limitations that make it difficult for them to walk any distance even though they may
not qualify for a handicap parking pass. The area around the senior center was fenced off and
secluded/private to the senior center until the playground renovations were completed. Using this
area for parking would not be taking away from park since it was never publicly accessible until this
last round of renovations. The fence needs to be replaced. The current drive to Santa Rosa does not
have a separation between the children's play area and the senior center. This is a potential safety
issue for the children.playing in the park. There are many volunteer activities that occur in the
senior center that benefit the community at large. The seniors use both the center and the Ludwick
center for some activities, although the Ludwick center is not appropriately designed to
accommodate the volunteer activities nor for the senior activities. Anyone who will use the
building in the future will need parking.
Frank Little agreed with the previous speaker.
Robert B (Ash) said that activities at the Senior Center also happen at night when bus service is
limited or not available. There are safety issues where seniors who leave after dark are not
comfortable walking in the dark to a remote car or bus service. The kitchen expansion will result in
an increase in demand for use of the building and this demand will also lead to a demand for
parking. The seniors are currently parking on the street and a parking lot will help free up those
spaces.
Cynthia Simmel felt the seniors' needs are great and growing as the population in SLO ages. There
are other options—provide senior citizen parking permits for street parking. The problem won't be
solved by provision of a small parking lot.
Marie Wilson said she is in charge of the volunteers at the senior center and these workers have
difficulty in getting to work at the center. The volunteers need a place to park — she supports the
parking lot.
Ursula Bishop said she does not support the parking lot. The City should develop a new senior
center to meet the seniors' needs. Depending on how the CHC votes, she would hope a comment
could be added to have the Council direct staff to find a better solution and respect the previous
decision made by Council.
Betty Culp said there is no grass now in the area of the proposed parking lot. All buildings in the
City are required to provide on-site parking to serve the building. The need for the parking lot is
large and she supported the proposed parking lot.
Meg Kirkendahl said that she was a neighbor and did not receive notice of the October
neighborhood meeting. She likes the original master plan and does not support a change. Installing
a parking lot is a band-aide approach and she personally doesn't like the idea of seniors driving.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. ry(�
ATTACHMENT
CHC Minutes,January 28,2008 Meeting
Page 9
Steve Linder asked the CHC to preserve the historical and cultural continuity of the City. Is this
primarily a park or a senior center? How much of the park should be sacrificed?
Wallace Henry said he is a long-time senior center patron who supports the parking lot. The area
was always fenced off and not used as parkland.
Ellen Peck said she is.a senior center volunteer who will be 82 years old next week. She had heart
surgery and is unable to walk a long distance. She hostesses twice a week and volunteers three
times per month for the food distribution to low income families. She has an ADA sticker but there
are no available ADA parking places on the street. Landscaping will hide the parking and so it's
possible to keep the park beautiful while still getting a parking lot for the seniors.
Diane Wood objected to the parking lot. A bigger senior citizens' center is needed that meets the
seniors' needs.
Chris Hoover said neighborhood-wide parking is an issue. The neighborhood parking effort and the
senior center effort should collaborate. Senior's exiting the driveway onto Santa Rosa Street could
cause problems.
Larry Hollis felt that converting a century old park into a parking lot is a bad idea.
Chairperson Breska closed the public hearing.
Committee member Landwehr said she worked for 5 years at San Luis Medical Center and
observed that people who work downtown take up the four hour spaces around the Park. Why
hasn't the City addressed this? Need to work constructively to find a parking management solution.
Committee member Crotser felt there was a need to look at the problem from different angles. The
master plan is a long-term vision. The amendment needs to reflect this. While the parking lot is
reversible (historic preservation guidelines could support), it doesn't seem to reflect the long-term
goal for the park and is only a short-term benefit. He would feel more supportive if there was a full
senior center development in the works and this was a limited-time parking use. He didn't support
amending the Master Plan for the parking lot.
Committee member Fowler said he was not in support of the plan amendment. He agreed with
Committee member Crotser.
Committee member Pavlik said the proximity of parking,to senior center doesn't necessarily mean a
negative impact to the building itself, however the historic building is in the context of the larger
park. Introducing car parking where historically it has not been before impacts the site's historic
setting, feeling, and association (part of the criteria for the national registry). Other alternatives
need to be explored.
Committee member Miller felt other solutions could make the situation better than it is now,even if
they wouldn't completely solve the problem. Under the Secretary of the Interior Standards, placing
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and -
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
U7ACHMENT�__
CHC Minutes,January 28,2008 Meeting
Page 10
parking directly adjacent to an historic building is not recommended. A delivery area exists and van
service can be used. He does not support the amendment to accommodate a parking lot.
Committee member Pavlik suggested using public parking structures and a shuttle service to make it
easy for seniors to access the center. Look at other solutions.
Committee member Wheeler had nothing more to add to the discussion — she agreed with points
being raised by other committee members.
Chairperson Breska felt that Mitchell Park is an historic landscape. It has transitioned from a
children's school to a community park. She cannot support the parking lot and feels a community
garden is the more appropriate use for this area in terms of historical character.
Committee member Landwehr felt that adding a parking lot is not compatible within the historic
context of the park.
On a motion by Committee member Pavlik, seconded by Committee member Wheeler the
Committee voted 7:0 to recommend that the City Council deny an amendment to the Mitchell Park
Master Plan to construct a parking lot, based on the following findings:
The project is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties because it significantly alters the setting of the historic property by introducing an
element (parking lot)that is not consistent with the historical context of the site.
The project detracts from the Old Town Historic Preservation District because the amendment to the
Mitchell Park Master Plan does not promote the historic character of the area.
DISCUSSION ITEM
d�5. Cit -WiU date the Contributing Properties list; Ci tyof San Luis Obispo, applicant.
(Jeff Hook)
Jeff Hook presented th taff report, noting that the Contributing Properties List needed updating
because some historic buil ' gs had been removed and some property addresses had changed since
the historic list was adopted. ttee member Miller asked about the historic status of 1256 Mill
Street. He questioned whether i as on the updated Contributing Properties List but not on the
original list. Mr. Hook said he woul eck on that property and get back to the Committee.
On a motion by Committee member Whe r, seconded by Committee member Crotser, the
Committee voted 7:0 to recommend that the City uncil:
1. Remove the following addresses from the Contributing operties list: 1153 Buchon, 585 Dana,
595 Dana, 969 Islay, 1228 Mill, 680 Monterey, 970 and Niporno, 1419 Osos, 1423 Osos,
1249 Palm, 1302-06 Palm, 1334 Palm, 1352 Palm, 1365 Palm, Pismo, 1020 Pismo, 1028
Pismo, 1036 Pismo;
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. /�.�
ATiACHMENT, -6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT ITEM#4
BY: James David, Planning Technician MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008
FROM: Jeff Hook, Senior Planner, Long Range Planning
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1445 Santa Rosa
SUBJECT: Review of an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan to construct a parking
lot for patrons of the Senior Center located in the historic Kindergarten School.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Determine that the proposed Master Plan amendment to accommodate a parking lot is consistent
with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and forward a recommendation to the City
Council to approve the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan, based on the findings and
conditions noted.
BACKGROUND
Situation
As part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, Council established a Major City Goal to improve the
Senior Center located at 1445 Santa Rosa. The resultant work program included the renovation
of the Senior Center kitchen, replacement of windows and chairs, construction of a parking lot in
the area behind the Senior Center, and a needs study for a new facility.
This project has been forwarded to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) because it is within
the Old Town Historic District, and includes a Master List structure, the Kindergarten School.
The CHC is being asked to make recommendations to Council regarding the project's potential
effects on historic resources. The CHC should also consider providing input to Council on how
the parking lot might better reflect the park's historic setting.
To proceed with parking lot construction, the Master Plan must be amended to reflect the change
of use adjacent to the Senior Center from specialty garden to parking lot. Changes that are
proposed to the historic Kindergarten School include interior remodeling and repair and
maintenance activities only.
Previous Review
At its meeting of June 25, 2001, the CHC determined that the Mitchell Park Master Plan was
consistent with the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. The CHC recommended the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approve the Plan, subject to the inclusion of photo-
documentation, a historic plaque or interpretative display, and historic site lighting fixtures.
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of August 20, 2001, recommended the
Council approve the Mitchell Park Master Plan, subject to the CHC's recommended conditions. �(�
ARC 166-07 ,.' ATTACHMENT
1445 Santa Rosa —'---
January 14, 2008
Council adopted the Mitchell Park Master Plan on October 2, 2001. The elements of the Master
Plan that have been implemented to date include renovation of the playground, installation of
public act, and a bandstand/pavilion constructed by Rotary Club of San Luis Obispo. As part of
the plan, the area located behind the Senior Center, which contains an underused shuffleboard
and horseshoe court, was designated for a specialty garden, with options for a neighborhood
vegetable garden, a xeriscape demonstration garden, or a botanical garden.
The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), at its meeting on November 7, 2007,
recommended approval of an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan changing the area
behind the Senior Center from a specialty garden to a parking lot. The PRC recommended to
Council that the City mitigatethe loss of 6,000 sq. ft. of park land by purchasing land in the
downtown area of equal size for park use.
Project Description
Senior Center Parking Lot Design
Per Council directive, the first phase of the Senior Center remodel is the construction of a
parking lot to specifically meet the needs of the seniors using the Center. (Currently, seniors
compete for four-hour on-street parking spaces.) Public Works staff surveyed the site and
prepared a preliminary design plan based on site constraints and input from members of the
Senior Center Board of Directors. The resultant design (Attachment 3) was presented to over 35
users, neighbors and community members at-large at a public meeting held at the Senior Center
on October 11, 2007. The proposed parking lot will occupy 6,000 sq. ft. out of 1.33,000 sq. ft. of
total Park area. Input on the design included suggestions on fencing, view protection, tree
selection, retention of disabled parking spaces on Santa Rosa Street and policies governing use of
the lot. The comments and suggestions received, along with input from the Community
Development Department regarding landscaping requirements and parking lot codes, are being
used to revise the plan. The Senior Center parking lot site plan is a work in progress. Staff
anticipates that a more refined parking lot design will be completed before ARC review.
Advisory Body Timeline
01/28 Cultural Heritage Committee—Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment
02/19 Architectural Review Commission—Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment
03/18 City Council —Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment
04/15 City Council —Senior Center Parking Lot Design
Historic Background/Existing Site
Mitchell Park is located in the Old Town Historic District and includes the city block bounded by
Santa Rosa, Buchon, Osos and Pismo Streets. The Senior Center, located in the Park, is a former
Kindergarten School and is listed on the Master List of Historic Resources.
The site was originally part of the Dallidet Adobe vineyards. Local resident and former Mayor
Frank Mitchell donated the property to the school district in 1917. The site also served as a
community park and included a ball field and gazebo.
Page 2 �Q
ARC 166-07 ATiACHMENT__ _
1445 Santa Rosa
January 14,2008
In the same year, the Craftsman Bungalow Style Kindergarten School, designed by architect
Orville Clark, was constructed. The structure has a low pitched hipped and gabled roof with
gable ends to the sides, and one gable over the center front entry. The roof material is asbestos
shingle and the eaves project with exposed rafters. The structure is sheathed with two widths of
clapboard siding. Rectangular divided light windows vary in size. The double door is centrally
located with a ten light transom above, and each door is glazed with 16 lights of glass. There was
an addition constructed in 1974 that is somewhat consistent with the style of the original
structure.
EVALUATION
The General Plan and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines should guide the CHC's
deliberations and action. The CHC should evaluate whether the proposed amendment and
parking lot may affect the Old Town Historic District and architectural compatibility with the
historic Kindergarten School, based on the following policies and guidelines:
Conformity with the General Plan
Capital improvement planning is one of the main ways communities implement their general
plan. Capital Improvement Program (CEP) funding priorities reflect community values, needs,
desired services and projects and resources to accomplish them. "Senior Center Remodel" was
identified as a CEP project in the 2007-2009 Financial Plan, and adding a parking lot was one of
the approved project objectives (City of SLO 2007-09 Financial Plan, 3-346). The Planning
Commission reviewed the CEP on May 230, 2007 and determined that the Senior Center remodel
project conformed with the General Plan. The following General Plan policy supports
accommodating senior citizen needs for parks and recreation:
Policy 3.16.4 While major facilities shall be designed to meet multi-generational needs,
there shall also be space available to address the unique needs of the senior
population (Parks and Rec. Element, 7-19).
The Land Use element outlines policies that govem the conservation and development of
residential neighborhoods, some of which are directly related to parking:
Policy 2.2.9 Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be screened
from street views. In general, parking should not be provided between
buildings and the street (Land Use Element, 1-30).
The proposed design provides tree landscaping, subject to City Arborist approval, which will
help screen the parking lot from street views. The Zoning Regulations, Parking and Driveway
Standards, and Community Design Guidelines contain parking lot standards that will inform
specific design details of the proposed parking lot. For example; the parking lot must be
additionally screened from the street by a three-foot wall, fence, berm or landscaping.
Policy 6.4.5 The City encourages the use of porous paving to facilitate rainwater
Page 3
Co --3�-.
ARC 166-07 `,ACHiMENT
1445 Santa Rosa
January 14, 2008
percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas shall, where
practical, use one or more of the following measures to reduce surface
water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge: porous paving; ample
landscaped areas which receive surface drainage and which are maintained
to facilitate percolation; drainage detention basins with soils that facilitate
percolation (Land Use Element, 1-69).
It should also be noted that the Public Works department has proposed to use pervious concrete,
which conforms to General Plan policy.
Consistency with the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
The CHC should review the proposed Senior Center parking lot for potential effects on the
Kindergarten School. Key principles stated in the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines on
New Construction Projects should help guide actions that may change historic properties:
Guideline D.2 The design of new accessory structures (such as storage sheds or garages)
or minor structural additions should complement the style of the historic
building...Careful attention to building form, bulk, scale, siting and site
landscaping is encouraged (Historic Pres. Program Guidelines, 6).
The proposal does not alter the historic structure, and the location of the parking lot is in the best
possible location given site constraints and competing uses in the park. The CHC should assess
the impacts of the location and details of the new parking lot, given the evaluation of staff and
the following excerpt from the U.S. Department of the Interior's Standards for Historic
Preservation:
Standard 9 New additions, exterior additions, or related new construction shall not
destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work
shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment (Historic Pres. Program
Guidelines, 7).
The proposed parking lot design will incorporate 15-foot tall Downtown Pedestrian Lighting (see
Attachment 4), which will be compatible with the historic integrity of the property and Old Town
Historic District. The parking lot will also be designed to preserve a significant heritage tree
adjacent to the project site.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The Old Town Historic District is characterized by pedestrian-friendly streets, historic homes
from the late 1800s and early 1900s, and minimal traffic. Mitchell Park serves as a central
gathering place within this district that provides multi-generational access to community
facilities. Currently, the only parking serving Mitchell Park is on-street parking, which becomes
heavily impacted by patrons using the Senior Center. The proposed parking lot will help reduce
Page 4
ARC 166-07 U ATTACHMENr 6 _
1445 Santa Rosa
January 14, 2008
on-street parking impacts, essentially bringing the neighborhood back to its Old Town character.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend Council approves an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan to construct a
Senior Center parking lot, based on findings and.subject to the following conditions.
Findings
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan by encouraging multi-generational design for
park and recreation areas that addresses the unique needs of the senior population.
2. The project will not harm the general health, safety, and welfare of people living or working
in the vicinity because the proposed project conforms to Zoning Code requirements for small
parking lots.
3. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because it will
not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic.Kindergarten School.
The project will not demolish, destruct, relocate or alter the building or its immediate
surroundings.
4. The City Council has adopted this project as a Major City Goal under the Capital
Improvement Program of the 2007-2009 Financial Plan.
5. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Class 11, Accessory
Structures, of the CEQA Guidelines.
Conditions
1. The project shall comply with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines
and a note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction
plans for the project.
2. Planting areas shall be provided after each six parking spaces in any row and at the ends of
each row of parking spaces in order to encourage use of trees. Landscape areas shall have a
minimum dimension of 4 feet, and areas with trees should have a minimum dimension of 8
feet. The parking lot shall have at least 5% of its surface devoted to landscaping (P&D Stds.
2010).
3. An itemized planting proposal shall be included on a landscape plan. Proposed trees shall be
called out according to type and size. Based on public meeting results, London Plane Tree
should be considered as a potential tree species.
4. The proposed 3-foot concrete block wall shall be redesigned using historically compatible
materials or eliminated. There is an existing hedge that separates the children's play area
Page 5
ARC 166-07 ���% 6"
1445 Santa Rosa ATTACHMENT
January 14, 2008
from the project site. Compatible materials may include wrought iron fencing or :poured
concrete, subject to the Community Development Director's approval.
5. Additional screening shall be incorporated to adequately screen the proposed parking lot from
street views. A low wall, fence, hedge or berm shall be added along the southwestern edge of
the parking lot.
6. Site drainage shall be directed away from the Senior Center to protect the structural integrity
and aesthetic appearance of the Kindergarten School.
7. Individual wheel stops shall be replaced by continuous curbing to improve the aesthetic
qualities of the proposed parking lot.
8. Applicant shall revise the parking lot design to comply with City standards.
9. Plans submitted for building permits shall include a tree protection plan complying with City
standards.
Alternatives
1. Determine that the proposed new construction is not compatible with the Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines and the Old Town Historic District, and the project will not complement
the historic resources onsite.
2. Determine that revised project drawings will be required in order to make a recommendation
to Council and continue the project to a date uncertain to return to the CHC with specific
changes prior to proceeding to the ARC.
3. Continue the item to a date certain for additional discussion or research.
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Reduced scale Mitchell Park Master Plan
Reduced scale Project PIans
Downtown Pedestrian Lighting Standard#7915
Parks and Recreation Commission minutes,November 2007
Memo to the CHC with additional historic information on Mitchell Park(dated June 5, 2001)
Available at the hearing:
Photos of existing property
Photo-simulation of the proposed project
Full-Size Project Plans
'Page 6
Draft ARC Minutes
iI ���i;�i tiil�
April 7, 2008
Page 2
2. 1445 Santa Rosa Street. ARC/ER 166-07; Review of a modification to the Mitchell
Park Master Plan to construct a parking lot for the Senior Center, PF-H zone; City of
San Luis Obispo-Public Works, applicant. (James David)
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, introduced James David to the Commission and audience
and described what the ARC's main purview was with the review of the amendment to
the park master plan.
James David, Planning Technician, presented the staff report, recommending that the
Commission determine that the proposed Master Plan amendment to accommodate a
parking lot is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and forward a
recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendment to the Mitchell Park
Master Plan, based on findings, and subject to conditions. He provided detailed
information regarding the adopted park master plan and the consistency of the request
with the Community Design Guidelines. He described the Council directive to pursue
the development of an on-site parking lot and the demonstrated need of the seniors for
convenient parking. He also noted the proposed schedule for review of the request.
Manny Guzman, Engineer I, stated that the size of the parking lot was determined
based on the site constraints of the area around the Senior Center.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Gini Griffin, Obispo Beautiful Association (OBA), San Luis Obispo, read a letter into the
record regarding OBA's position on the request. She noted that OBA did not support
the request based on concerns for aesthetics and retaining parkland.
Dennis Wheeler, San Luis Obispo, stated that he felt that the proposed parking lot
would be a good idea to increase access to the Senior Center. He stated that he would
like to see additional accessible spaces provided.
Eric Meyer, San Luis Obispo, provided the Commission with a more detailed history of
Mitchell Park and the area. He felt developing the parking lot would compromise use of
the park and supported developing a community garden per the approved master plan
rather than amending the plan to accommodate the proposed parking lot.
Suzanne Heitzman, San Luis Obispo,, stated that building a parking lot would not solve
the parking problems of the Senior Center. She believed that other solutions should be
pursued prior to amending the park master plan. She expressed concerns that more
people did not receive notification about the project and was concemed with the loss of
the parkland in terms of health impacts.
Carmie Casella, San Luis Obispo, noted that the park serves as an extended yard for
many in the neighborhood because of the tight development pattern. She was
concerned that the proposed parking lot and boulders would create a safety issue for
children. She suggested the ARC not amend the master plan.
Draft ARC Minutes - ��' ATTACHMENT_ (o_-
April 7, 2008
Page 3
Lou Carpine, San Luis Obispo, expressed building a parking lot in this area will only
delay the building of a new Senior Center, which is badly needed. He asked the ARC to
not amend the plan and keep it as is.
Mary Ellen Gibson, San Luis Obispo, agreed that the space where the parking lot is
proposed is currently under-utilized, but did not support the park master plan
amendment to allow the parking lot. She felt that the open space should be preserved
and was concerned with safety issues related to vehicles exiting the site.
Stephan Lamb, Chair of Human Relations Commission, noted his opposition to
amending the park master plan, but supported allocating money to fulfill the plan. He
felt that the park should be designated as a historic resource and will suggest that it be
added to the list. He stated that 723 people have signed an online petition opposing the
building of a parking lot.
Ursula Bishop, San Luis Obispo, was opposed to the proposed amendment to the
master plan, noting that it would only be a stop-gap measure. She stated that the
current senior center does not meet long-term needs, and alternatives to a parking lot,
such as reserving on-street parking spaces for senior use, should be explored. She
mentioned that in the past, the City Council and advisory bodies have voted against this
proposed parking lot.
Charles Oldham, San Luis Obispo, board member of the Senior Center, stated that the
needs of seniors have been unmet since 1988. He noted that the current City Council
had provided a viable solution to install the parking lot.
Dave Kuykendall presented the ARC with a map showing the distribution of residents
that are opposed to the proposed parking lot. He also presented the findings from
surveys given to the surrounding residents and Senior Center members. He felt that the
proposed parking lot is not a long-term solution to the problem.
Margaret Kuykendall, San Luis Obispo, supported denial of the proposed amendment to
allow the installation of the parking lot, but recommended moving forward with a long-
term solution to meet the needs of the seniors. She agreed with implementation of the
community garden shown on the current master plan. She suggested that the funds
allocated for the parking lot be used to finance ride-share arrangements for seniors.
Mark Johnson, San Luis Obispo, opposed the proposed parking lot and stated that it
would not be an aesthetically-pleasing addition to the site. He supported the current
master plan of putting in a community garden.
Willow Walking Turtle, San Luis Obispo, opposed the building of a parking lot adjacent
to the Senior Center and supported the idea of having a community garden in the same
place as already listed on the master plan for Mitchell Park.
Draft ARC Minutes � ATT A,N HENT
April 7, 2008
Page 4
Agatha Reardon, San Luis Obispo, President of the Board of the Senior Center,
supported the building of a parking lot adjacent to the Senior Center. She pointed out
the pitfalls with some of the alternatives because of their high costs and the mobility
limitations of the seniors that use the center. She mentioned how the parking lot was
made a part of the Major City Goals by the Council and why an amendment to the
master plan was appropriate.
Danielle Castle, San Luis Obispo, noted her research for the Women's Shelter on how
community gardens benefit people. From her research, she believed that a community
garden would be more beneficial than building a parking lot. She mentioned that the
number of parking spaces that would be gained in the proposed lot was not worth the
effort and recommended that the park master plan be adhered to.
Stew Jenkins, San Luis Obispo, explained that a parking lot would adversely
compromise the available park space for the public in Mitchell Park. He suggested
adding more handicapparking spaces on the street by the Senior Center.
Shawn Temple, San Luis Obispo, proposed adding parking meters for the current street
parking spaces to decrease demand and encourage car pooling. He suggested that the
money from the meters could go to a Mitchell Park fund to build the community garden.
He opposed the amendment to the master plan.
Bill Casella, San Luis Obispo, supported the current master plan as adopted and
opposed the proposal of building a parking lot.
Judith Seibert, San Luis Obispo, suggested the idea of angled parking on the street to
create additional spaces.
Andrea Apodaca, San Luis Obispo, suggested that the money being proposed for this
parking lot should be used for building a better center for local seniors.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Howard characterized the parking lot as a short-term solution to a long-
term goal. As designed, she indicated that the parking lot did not have enough
handicap spaces. She stated that the proposed parking lot would detract from the
character of the park. She suggested that funding for the parking lot be used to find
other solutions to this current problem that would not adversely affect the beauty and
functionality of the park.
Vice-Chair Wilhelm opposed the amendment of the master plan because he felt that this
solution is not in the best long-term interest of the seniors and that the park needs to
serve citizens of all ages. He would like to see Mitchell Park preserved and maintained,
K -3V
i •.^lRr-,T
Draft ARC Minutes
April 7, 2008
Page 5
and supported the pursuit of a new senior center. He suggested using funds allocated
for the parking lot to look at off-site parking solutions.
Commissioner Hopkins stated that he is not in favor of amending the Master Plan. He
suggested that this is a transportation issue more than a parking issue and would like to
see the community garden put into place and would strongly urge City Council to direct
staff to alleviate transportation issues for senior citizens.
Commissioner Kambitsis opposed amending the master plan and supported the 'idea of
installing a community garden. He stated that the parking lot would only be a temporary
solution to a long-term problem. He suggested the pursuit of various parking
alternatives such as putting meters on the street for the current free parking spots
around the park, designating spaces in the nearby parking structure for park users, and
providing direct transportation services for seniors.
Commissioner Duffy opposed amending the current master plan and thought that the
City should consider a new senior center at an alternative location. He stated that this
is not the best use for this current piece of property and would like to see the City look
at ideas for off-site parking for members of the Senior Center.
Chairperson Root stated that we need to focus on moving people and not
accommodating cars and would like to see the current handicap spaces on the street be
changed to comply with ADA regulations. He opposed amending the master plan.
On a motion by Commr. Howard, the ARC determined that the.proposed project is not
appropriate as an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan, recommending to the City
Council that alternative solutions to an on-site parking lot be explored to meet the
transportation demands of seniors, based on the following findings: 1) The project.is not
consistent with the CommunityDesign_Guidelines because it introduces an element
(parking lot) that detracts from_the visual character and use of Mitchell Park and the
surrounding residential neighborhoods: 2) The project is not consistent with the
Community Design Guidelines because it removes urban green space from a City park
that contributes to the _community's quality .of life for its residents: 3) The proposed
parking lot and access to and from it raises potential safety concerns for users of
adiacent park areas: and 4) The development of a specialty garden on the site
consistent with the approved Mitchell Park Master Plan is a demonstrated community
need that is appropriate in the park setting. Seconded by Vice-Chair Wilhelm.
AYES: Commrs. Howard, Wilhelm, Hopkins, Kambitsis, Duffy, and Root.
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Palazzo
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
ATiACi Iiv ENT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1
BY: James David, Planning Technician MEETING DATE: April 7, 2008
FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARC 166-07
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1445 Santa Rosa
SUBJECT: Review of an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan to construct a parking
lot for patrons of the Senior Center.
SUNEWARY RECOMMENDATION
Determine that the proposed Master Plan amendment to accommodate a parking lot is consistent
with the Community Design Guidelines and forward a recommendation to the City Council to
approve the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan, based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
i
BACKGROUND
Situation
As part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, Council established a Major City Goal to improve the
Senior Center located at 1445 Santa Rosa. The resultant work program included the renovation
of the Senior Center kitchen, replacement of windows and chairs, construction of a parking lot in
the area behind the Senior Center, and a needs study for a new facility.
This project has been forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) because it is an
amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan (Attachment 2) which received previous ARC
approval. The ARC is being asked to make recommendations to the City Council regarding the
project's potential effects on site layout, the surrounding neighborhood, and the community as a
whole. The ARC should also consider providing input to Council on how to enhance the parking
lot design in accordance with the Community Design Guidelines.
The project site is adjacent to the Senior Center in the space currently occupied by a barbecue,
shuffleboard court and horseshoe pit. To proceed with parking lot construction, the Master Plan
must be amended to reflect the change of proposed use for this area from specialty garden to
parking lot.
Data Summary
Address: 1445 Santa Rosa Street
Applicant/Property Owner: City of San Luis Obispo, Parks and Recreation Dept.
Zoning: PF-H (Public Facility w/ a Historical Preservation Overlay)
General Plan: Public Facilities
ARC 166-07 (1445 Santa Rosa) ' !170'iaitP+T
Page 2
Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration of environmental impact in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
was recommended by the Community Development
Director on March 26, 2008 (Attachment 5).
Previous Review
At its meeting of June 25, 2001, the CHC determined that the Mitchell Park Master Plan was
consistent with the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. The CHC recommended the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approve the Plan, subject to the inclusion of photo-
documentation, a historic plaque or interpretative display, and historic site lighting fixtures. The
Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of August 20, 2001, recommended the Council
approve the Mitchell Park Master Plan, subject to the CHC's recommended conditions.
The City Council adopted the Mitchell Park Master Plan on October 2, 2001. The elements of the
Master Plan that have been implemented to date include renovation of the playground,
installation of public art, and a bandstand/pavilion constructed by Rotary Club of San Luis
Obispo. As part of the plan, the area located behind the Senior Center was designated for a
specialty garden, with options for a neighborhood vegetable garden, a xeriscape demonstration
garden, or a botanical garden.
The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), at its meeting on November 7, 2007,
recommended approval of an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan changing the
proposed use for the area behind the Senior Center from a specialty garden to a parking lot. The
PRC recommended to the Council that the City mitigate the loss of 6,000 square feet of park land
by purchasing land in the downtown area of equal size for park use.
At its meeting on January 28, 2008, the CHC recommended denial of the Mitchell Park Master
Plan amendment. The CHC found that the project is not consistent with the Secretary of
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties because it alters the setting of the
historic property by introducing an element (parking lot) that is not consistent with the historical
context of the site. They also found that the project detracts from the Old Town Historic
Preservation District because the amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan does not promote
the historic character of the area.
Site Description
Mitchell Park is 133,000 square feet of urban parkland located in the Old Town Historic District
and includes the city block bounded by Santa Rosa, Buchon, Osos and Pismo Streets. The Senior
Center, located in the Park, is a former Kindergarten School and is listed on the Master List of
Historic Resources.
The site was originally part of the Dallidet Adobe vineyards. Local resident and former Mayor
Frank Mitchell donated the property to the school district in 1917. The site also served as a
community park and included a ball field and gazebo.
In the same year, the Craftsman Bungalow style Kindergarten School, designed by architect
Orville Clark, was constructed. The structure has a low pitched hipped and gabled roof with
b"4 (
ATiACHMIENT
ARC 166-07 (1445 Santa Rosa) �
Page 3
gable ends to the sides, and one gable over the center front entry. There was an addition
constructed in 1974 that is somewhat consistent with the style of the original structure.
The project site is a partially screened area behind the Senior Center that contains a barbecue,
picnic tables, horseshoe pit, and shuffleboard court. This area is underutilized by the general
public, and is visually detached from the rest of the park. It appears to be part of the Senior
Center grounds.
Other elements in the park include a bandstand, children's play area, a flagpole, a memorial at
the corner of Santa Rosa and Pismo, various picnic tables, public art, mature trees and a large
open field with crisscrossing pedestrian walkways.
Project Description
Senior Center Parking Lot Design
Per Council directive, the first phase of the Senior Center remodel is the construction of a
parking lot to specifically meet the needs of the seniors using the Center. Currently, seniors
compete for on-street parking spaces. Public Works staff surveyed the site and prepared a
preliminary design plan based on site constraints and input from members of the Senior Center
Board of Directors. The resultant design (Attachment 3) was presented to over 35 users,
neighbors and community members at-large at a public meeting held at the Senior Center on
October 11, 2007. The proposed parking lot will occupy 4.5 percent of total Park area. Input on
the design included suggestions on fencing, view protection, tree selection, retention of disabled
parking spaces on Santa Rosa Street and policies governing use of the lot. The comments and
suggestions received,along with input from the Community Development Department regarding
landscaping requirements and parking lot codes, were implemented in the latest revision of the
project plan.
Advisory Body Timeline
04/02 Parks and Recreation Commission—Second Review of Amendment
04/07 Architectural Review Commission—First Review of Amendment
05/06 City Council—First Review of Amendment
TBD City Council —Senior Center Parking Lot Design
EVALUATION
With its review of the proposed amendment, the ARC's purview is to determine whether a
parking lot serving Senior Center patrons supports good neighborhood design principles, and
provides a cohesive site design for a city park. The General Plan and the Community Design
Guidelines are the two documents guiding the ARC's deliberations and action. Alternative
solutions to the apparent need for senior parking are being considered by the Parking Services
Manager and will be reviewed at the Council hearing. The ARC needs to remain focused on
design review of this specific alternative, based on the following policies and guidelines.
Conformity with the General Plan
Capital improvement planning is one of the main ways communities implement their general
plan. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding priorities reflect community values, needs,
^r f n
ATTACHMENT �
ARC 166-07 (1445 Santa Rosa) -
Page 4
desired services and projects and resources to accomplish them. "Senior Center Remodel' was
identified as a CEP project in the 2007-2009 Financial Plan, and adding a parking lot was one of
the approved project objectives (Attachment 4). The Planning Commission reviewed the CIP on
May 23`d, 2007 and determined that the Senior Center remodel project conformed with the
General Plan. The following paragraphs highlight relevant General Plan policies in bold followed
by staff's analysis in italics:
Policy 3.16.4 While major facilities shall be designed to meet multi-generational needs,
there shall also be space available to address the unique needs of the
senior population (Parks and Rec. Element, 7-19).
Staff's analysis: This policy supports accommodating senior citizen needs for parks and
recreation. The Land Use Element outlines policies that govern the conservation and
development of residential neighborhoods, some of which are directly related to parking:
Policy 2.2.9 Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be screened
from street views. In general, parking should not be provided between
buildings and the street(Land Use Element, 1-30).
Staff's analysis: The proposed design provides seven new trees, landscape berms, and large
boulders to help screen the parking lot from street and pedestrian views. The Land Use Element
also contains policies to ensure resource protection through proper drainage strategies:
Policy 6.4.5 The City encourages the use of porous paving to facilitate rainwater
percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas shall,where
practical, use one or more of the following measures to reduce surface
water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge: porous paving; ample
landscaped areas which receive surface drainage and which are maintained
to facilitate percolation; drainage detention basins with soils that facilitate
percolation (Land Use Element, 1-69).
Staff's analysis: The applicant is considering porous paving material for the parking lot, and
staff feels this would be an appropriate recommended condition of approval that will help
mitigate any potential impacts to the existing heritage tree onsite.
Consistency with the Community Design Guidelines
Neighborhood Compatibility
The Community Design Guidelines stipulate that infill development should be designed to
integrate with the surrounding neighborhood. The ARC should evaluate whether the project will
be compatible with Mitchell Park and the Old Town district, which is an area with clearly
defined character that is valued by the community.
The Old Town Historic District is characterized by pedestrian-friendly streets and historic homes
from the late 1800s and early 1900s. Mitchell Park serves as a central gathering place within this
district that provides multi-generational access to community facilities. A significant problem in
the Old Town Historic District, and specifically in the vicinity of Mitchell Park, is on-street
parking congestion. This existing condition is not consistent with Community Design Guidelines
L9 -0
ARC 166-07(1445 Santa Rosa)��� AinC!194ENT
Page 5
for residential neighborhoods, which encourage reducing the visual dominance of the
automobile. Currently, the only parking serving Mitchell Park is on-street parking, which
becomes heavily impacted by patrons using the Senior Center. The proposed parking lot will help
reduce on-street parking impacts, which will further promote consistency with City guidelines for
residential design to reduce the visual impacts associated with views of automobiles.
Site Location
According to the Community Design Guidelines, each development proposal should demonstrate
consideration for existing conditions such as onsite uses, neighboring structures, natural features,
viewsheds, and pedestrian linkage. The proposed parking lot would be clearly separated from
other park uses, being immediately adjacent to the Senior Center and partially screened with
fencing and new trees. An attempt has been made to separate children using the play area from
automobile traffic exiting the parking lot by using large boulders and additional fencing as
barriers. The exiting roadway has been designed to minimize encroachment towards a nearby
heritage tree while meeting City standards for width and turning radius.
The Community Design Guidelines further state that:
Guide 3.1.C2 Loading facilities should not be located at the front of buildings where
they will interfere with customers and employee traffic and be difficult to
adequately screen. These facilities are usually more appropriate at the rear
of the buildings...
Staff's analysis: Existing loading facilities are located adjacent to the front entrance of the
Senior Center and children's play area, which is not consistent with this guideline. The proposed
parking lot at the rear of the building would serve as the new loading zone for food delivery
trucks associated with Senior Center activities.
Parking Lot Specifics
The Community Design Guidelines contain standards that inform specific design details of the
proposed parking lot. As noted earlier, the proposed parking lot must be screened from the street
by a three-foot wall, fence, berm or landscaping (Guideline 6.313). In addition to porous paving,
the Community Design Guidelines also suggest alternative paving materials to help mitigate
aesthetic impacts of parking lots:
Guide 6.3.E The City supports the use of innovative paving materials such as colored
and/or stamped concrete, brick or grasscrete to help define an entry or
.walkway, to minimize the visual expansiveness of large paved areas, or
help save a specimen tree.
Staff's analysis: Typical AC paving would not be compatible with the surrounding residential
and historical character of the site. The ARC should consider recommending alternative paving
such as stamped concrete or brick to help enhance the aesthetic qualities of the proposed
project.
The Community Design Guidelines also provide specific guidance on parking lot lighting:
Guide 6.1.0 To achieve the desired lighting level for parking and pedestrian areas, it is
LI ,
ATTACHIVAENT (D
ARC 166-07 (1445 Santa Rosa)
Page 6
preferred to have more, smaller scale lights instead of fewer, overly tall
and large lights. Parking lot lights shall be as low in height as possible, and
shall not exceed a height of 20 feet from the approved finished grade to the
top of the fixture.
Staff's analysis: The proposed parking lot design will incorporate 15 foot tall Downtown
Pedestrian Lighting (Attachment 6), which will be compatible with the Old Town Historic
District. This lighting standard is used throughout the City and does not adversely affect
nighttime views.
PUBLIC COMMENT
A main goal of the ARC is to maintain the community's quality of life for residents. The
proposed amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan has generated significant public input on
both sides of the issue. The Senior Center patrons have been lobbying for a parking lot since the
1980s. The City has also received substantial correspondence from community members — the
majority being surrounding neighbors —in opposition of the proposed parking lot (Attachment 9).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Determine that the proposed project is not appropriate as an amendment to the Mitchell Park
Master Plan, based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
2. Continue the item to a date certain for additional discussion or research.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend Council approves an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan to construct a
Senior Center parking lot,based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions.
Findings
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan by encouraging multi-generational design for
park and recreation areas that addresses the unique needs of the senior population.
2. The project will not harm the general health, safety, and welfare of people living or working
in the vicinity because the proposed project conforms to the City's Parking and Driveway
Standards.
3. The project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because it reduces on-street
presence of automobiles, is appropriately located given site constraints, and conforms to all
design standards for small parking lot construction.
4. The City Council has adopted this project as a Major City Goal under the Capital
Improvement Program of the 2007-2009 Financial Plan.
^ LC
ARC 166-07(1445 Santa Rosa)�v --'
4TiF.CIiI14tM'�
Page 7
5. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on March
26, 2008, which describes potential environmental impacts associated with project
development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project could not have a
significant effect on the environment.
Conditions
1. The project shall comply with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines
and a note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction
plans for the project.
2. The parking lot shall be comprised of an alternative paving material such as colored or
stamped concrete, porous paving, or brick to minimize the visual expansiveness of the paved
area and protect the heritage tree.
3. Site drainage shall be directed away from the Senior Center to protect the structural integrity
and aesthetic appearance of the historic Kindergarten School building.
4. The City shall mitigate the loss of 6,000 square feet of parkland by purchasing land in the
downtown area of equal size for park use.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced scale Mitchell Park Master Plan
3. Reduced scale Preliminary Design
4. Excerpt from City of SLO Financial Plan 2007-09
5. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form
6. Downtown Pedestrian Lighting Standard#7915
7. Parks and Recreation Commission minutes, November 2007
8. Cultural Heritage Committee minutes, January 2008
9. Public comment letters
Enclosure:
1. Full color Preliminary Design
GACD-PLANUDavid\ARC\ARC 166-07(Senior Ctr)
LO T
4TTACHUNT
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ARC 166-07
1. Project Title: Mitchell Park Master Plan Amendment
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number. James David,Planning Technician
(805)781-7576
4. Project Location: 1445 Santa Rosa Street, City of San Luis Obispo (intersection of Santa
Rosa Street and Buchon Street).
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Dept.
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo
Parks and Recreation Department
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Public Facility
7. Zoning: PF-H(Public Facility with Historical and Architectural Preservation Overlay)
8. Description of the Project: Review of an amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan to
construct a parldng lot for patrons of the Senior Center.
As part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, Council established a Major City Goal-to improve the
Senior Center located at 1445 Santa Rosa. The resultant work program included the renovation
of the Senior Canter kitchen,replacement of windows and chairs,construction of a parking lot in
the area behind the Senior Center, and a needs study for a new facility. To proceed with parking
lot construction, the Mitchell Park Master Plan must be amended to reflect the change of use
adjacent to the Senior Center from specialty garden to parking lot.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Mitchell Park is located in the Old Town Historic District and includes the city block bounded by
Santa Rosa, Buchon, Osos and Pismo Streets. The Park is surrounded by Medium-density to
Medium-high-density residential development. There is a small lot zoned Neighborhood-
ATTACHMENT-
Commercial across from the Park at the intersection of Osos and Pismo Streets.
The Senior Center, located in the Park, is a former Kindergarten School and is listed on the
Master List of Historic Resources. The Senior Center is classified as a Public Assembly Facility,
and there is no designated parking for this use. The proposed 6,000 sq, ft. parking lot would
replace an existing outdoor shuffleboard court and horseshoe pit adjacent to the Senior Center.
Currently,four-hour on-street parking exists in the vicinity.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant has requested minor architectural review and approval of an amendment to the
Mitchell Park Master Plan.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
P `-a
AMMON
NT
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Qwl /Soils Public Services
Hazards&Hazardous
Agricultural Resources Materials Recreation
AirQuality I H drol /water Quality I Transportation&Traffic
Utilities and Service
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Cultural Resources Noise S'
Energy and Mineral
Resources Epoulation and Ho
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such,the project qualifies for a
de minimi c waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days(CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
U -49
AT TACH i1FENT
—�I
DETERMIIVATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made,or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s)have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an
E MONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant"impact(s)or`potentially
significant unless mitigated"impact(s)on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and(2)has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects(1)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(2)have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier BIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions
or mitt 'on measures that are"unposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is requnvd,
Si �
701E Mandeville,Comm,mity Develop =Director
Pnnt2d Name
ATTACHMENT
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IWACT5:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects lice the one
involved(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts.The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant If there are
one or more"potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless IVStigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant Impact" The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier )IR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist-
6.
hecklist6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
bell (e-g• gel plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed m an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project
47ACHMENT�
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Som= Paternally PM=fiany Lms Tium No
Significant Significant Swnffi=t Impad
ARC#166-071s Un>ms Impact
Mitigation
Incmpontcd
Page No.6
I-AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 5 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,bid not limited 5,8, X
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 9,20,
within a local or state scenic highway? 21
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 9, 19, X
thesite and its surroundings? 20
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 19,20 X
adversel affect a views in the area?
Evaluation: The block surrounding Mitcbcll Park is not designated as having scenic value in Figure 11 of the Conservation
and Open Space Element(COSE). There are no local or state scenic highways adjacent to the site.The project is an at-grade
parking lot that will not block views of the surrounding hills as seen from the roadway or adjacent properties.
The proposed parking lot will replace an underutilized shuffleboard court and horseshoe pit adjacent to the Senior Center.
This existing area is partially screened with a chain-link fence and landscaping that visually separates the project site from the
rest of the park The proposed parking lot is approximately 6,000 sq.ft.,which is 4.5 percent of the total park area.The small
parking lot area in combination with adequate screening is not expected to substantially degrade the site's overall visual
character.In addition,three trees will be removed and seven trees will be planted for additional screening from the majority
of the site and its surroundings.
The project will incorporate 15-foot tall Downtown Pedestrian Lighting(Eng. Std. 7915),which is used throughout the City
and does not adversely affect nighttime views.
Conclusion: The project is expected to have a less than significant impact on overall aesthetics. The project is subject to
architectural review and the City's Architectural Review Commission will review the project for consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would theproject:.
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farland,or Farmland of
Statewide Importance(Farland),as shown on the maps 8,10, X
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of I 1
the California Resources Agency,to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zonmg for agricultural use,or a 8 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 9 X
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,
tonon-agricultural ase?
Evaluation: The project is located on a site that is not considered prime farmland or farmland of unique or statewide
importance as indicated on City maintained maps created pursuant to the to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency.The site is too small to be considered important farmland and furthermore is surrounded
by developed urbanized uses.No properties within the immediate vicinity are zoned or used for commercial agricultural use.
Conclusion:The project is not expected to have any impact on cultural resources.
3. AIR QUALFTY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 12, 13 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obsh uct implementation of the applicable air 12 X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 20 X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 20 X
-AT EACHMPIT 1
I
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources som.,m potc3itir r I=Thazi No
significant sip£',cant SipMcant Impact
In= Unim Impact
ARC#166-07 Mittgation
Incmponnd
Page No.7
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 20 X
(inchitimg releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Evaluation: San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PM10(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter)air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attamment pollutants and their precursors be reduced
by at least 5%per year until the standards are attained.The Clean Air Plan(CAP)for San Luis Obispo County was developed
and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning
document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources,as well as from motor vehicle use.
Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
According to the APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," land uses that generate 10 or more pounds per day (PPD) of
reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter have the potential to affect air quality
significantly.A small parking lot will generate an amount of pollutants that is well below this threshold.
The use or intensity of the use of the Senior Center is not anticipated to change with the installation of the new parking lot
Therefore the City is not anticipating any additional vehicle trips or associated vehicle emissions from this improvement.
Minor increases in air pollution, such as dust and equipment emissions,may occur during project construction. The City's
Grading Ordinance includes mandatory dust control measures that will mitigate any short-term air pollution associated with
site grading and construction.
Conclusion:The prgfect is not eiipected to si " cant!y impact air quahoi.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,5,9 X
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive;or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 5,9 X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional'
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 5,9 X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native 9 X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved 5 X
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but
not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)through direct 5 X
removal, h drolo ' tior other means?
Evaluation: The site is not within a riparian corridor and there are no creeks on the property.No endangered,threatened or
other protected species have been reported on the project-site.There are m local ordinances or habitat conservation plans that
affect the property or that identify the site as potential habitat for any protected species of plant or animal
47ACH.)J ENT
Issues, Discussion and Supporting`Information Sources sower potentially Poeenttiuy iesa Aim No
Significant Significant sipni cxw Impact
ARC#16007 i� °ate Impact
Mitigation
Incmpmaled
Page No.8
The project site contains a heritage tree. The applicant has consulted the City Arborist, and all grading activities will be
shallow enough to avoid significantly impacting the heritage tree's roots. The heritage tree is rooted in alluvial soil which
allows the root system to penetrate deeper into the ground than typical clay.The proposed parking lot will be formed at-grade
to avoid impacts to any shallow roots.
In addition, three trees will be removed and seven trees will be planted in accordance with City policy. The project is not
expected to conflict with City tree preservation policy.
Conclusion: The pro2ject is not expected to s4?zificandy im ct biological resources.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the:significance of a 9, 15, X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 17,22
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the,significance of an 9,14 X
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 5,14 X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any hurnan remains,including those interred outside of 16, 17 X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation:Mitchell Park is located in the Old Town Historic District and the Senior Center is a former Kindergarten School
that is listed on the Master List of Historic Resources.The Cultural Heritage Committee(CHC)found that the proposed
amendment to the Park Master Plan will have no impact on the physical structure of the historic Kindergarten School.
However,the CHC did find that the project significantly alters the setting of the historic property by introducing an element
(parking lot)that is not consistent with the historical context of the site.
Mitchell Park is not on the City's Master List nor is it a contributing property.It is not listed in the California Register of
Historical Resources.Mitchell Park is not designated a historic resource for the purposes of this environmental review.
The Kindergarten School is not listed in the California Register of Historical Resources,but it is listed on the City's Master
List of Historic Resources.CEQA defines a"substantial adverse change"as an alteration that causes"tire significance of an
historical resource to be materially impaired"(CEQA,2007).No physical demolition,destruction,relocation,or alteration of
the resource will result from the proposed amendment.CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 Section 2B further stipulate that:
The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse
manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources...or its identification
in historical resources survey...(CEQA,20071
The Kindergarten School was included on the Master List because of its historical architectural style(Craftsman Bungalow),
building design.age(1917),architect(Clark),and important contribution to the community(kindergarten).Noce of these
historical characteristics would be impacted by the proposed project.
The preceding analysis demonstrates that alterations to the immediate surroundings of the resource will not cause a substantial
adverse change in accordance with CEQA guidelines.The alteration of the building's setting is a less than significant impact
The City's Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines require preliminary archeological studies for properties that are
considered sensitive sites. The project site does not meet the criteria for sensitive site designation because it is more than 200
feet away from the City's major creeks and known archeological sites. Awarding to the Central Coast Historical Resource
Information Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara and previous archaeological studies,the site is not within
an archeological sensitive area.
The project site does not contain any known paleontological or geological resources and is not within an area where burials
are likely,as indicated by the City's Burial Sensitivity Map,on file in the Community Development Department
Ai,A0 Efd?
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sourm Po=uny Pmcntiany Imslban xo
Significant Significant signdiceat rmpaa
ARC#166-07 11' unim' tmpaa
hrmgatioa
incorporated
Page No.9
Conclusion: The ect is expected to generate less d=sigmficant impacts on cultural resources.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose People or structures to potential substantial adverse 4,20 X
effects;including tisk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 18 X
most recent Alguist-Pciolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map'
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
IL Stung=me ground shaking? 4 1 X
III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? 4 X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 4 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4,20 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is instable,or that 4 X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the4 X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or
Evaluation:There are no significant structures proposed for this project and therefore no anticipated risks of seismic damage.
However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground
shaking should be expected during the life of the proposed project
The project is too small in size to produce substantial soil erosion,unstable soil or risks to life or property. The project is a
minor structure accessory to an existing institutional facility.
Condusion: There are no anticipated impacts to geology and soils.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Dn feet:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 20 X
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 20 X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 20 X
hazardous materials;substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 20 X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 8 X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 8- X
two miles of public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 4 X
adopted emergency response plan of emergency evacuation
- T,ACHn4ENT--
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sau, rotmntiatly Fotentialty I=s Than No
significant significmt s;gnificmt impact
ARC#166-07 N9M Unkm Impa`x
Mtigation
Page No. 10 IncapamW
-- — —
h) Eatpose people or strucuaes to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 X
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or when residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation: The site does not contain any known hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk. As an
accessory structure to an existing institutional facility the project will not emit any hazardous emissions or require handling of
hazardous wastes. The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5.
The project site is outside of the Airport land Use Plan area.
The project is not expected to conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires.
Conclusion: The pr4ect is not expected to create hazards or generate hazardous materials.
& HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality,standards or waste discharge 6,20 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 6,20 X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 20 X
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 19,20 X
area in a manner which would result m substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 19,20 X
area in a ma . which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 8 X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a I 00-yeair flood hazard area structures which 8 X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h Otherwise substantially degrade water ? 20 X
Evaluation: The project is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. All n in-off is
required to be directed to an approved point of disposal,in this case flows discharged onto adjacent properties do not exceed
historical flow discharged along the front and back of the lot. The project will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater
resources or negatively effect water quality.
The proposed parking lot will.increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and affect the absorption rate,drainage
patterns and the amount and rate of surface runoff. The parking lot has been designed to meet all applicable City codes,
including City grading and drainage standards. Site runoff rates will be slightly increased as a result of this project,however,
flows discharged onto adjacent properties and the public right-of-way will not exceed historical flow discharges,and there
will be only insignificant differences in the depth of flow along the curbs downst=m of the project.
The project site is not within the boundaries of an area subject to imndation from flood waters in a 100 ear storm
� -S(�
Issues, Disdismion and Supporting Information Souroes Sources Potentiagy potentiW►y l.G,a Than No
sipiSraot s4affieant swuficmd Impact
Issues Unksa Impact
ARC#166-07 Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. I I
Conclusion:No amici ed impacts have been identified whir respect to water quality or
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of I X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
propose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? 20 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or nahi al 5 X
community conservation fans?
Evaluation: There are no applicable land use plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
associated with the proposed development site.
The Mitchell Park Master Plan was adopted by City Council on October 2,2001.The plan was developed as a collaborative
effort between the Parks and Recreation Commission,City Staff and Steven Cammiti the project landscape architect.The plan
proposes to replace the existing sidewalks that bisect the park with a meandering path at the perimeter of the site. New
lighting is planned along the pathway for pedestrian safety. The primary pedestrian portals are identified at the corner of
Buchon Street and Osos Street and at the comer of Pismo Street and Osos Street Additional pedestrian portals are provided
mid-block and defined by overhead trellises. The flag pole that is currently located at the center of the park would be
relocated to the comer of Pismo Street and Osos Street and would be the focal point of a small plaza bordered by benches in a
covered seating area The plan proposes a new pathway to link the Senior Center with the park and a specialty garden next to
the Center where a paved shuffleboard covet, horseshoe pit, outdoor lighting and manufactured barbecue pit are currently
located.The proposed specialty garden could contain a neighborhood vegetable garden,a xetiscape demonstration garden,or
a botanical garden. The plan also proposed a new centrally located pavilion that has already been constructed with finding
from the Rotary Club of San Luis Obispo.
The amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan wound change the area designated for a specialty garden to a parking lot
CEQA focuses on physical changes to the existing environment.Changing the Mitchell Park Master Plan to accommodate a
parking lot instead of a community garden is key to the policy decision,but because there is no garden there now a garden is
not part of the discussion of physical changes to the environment.
The project is too small to create a physical divide in the established community and the site is not subject to any habitat
conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.
The Senior Center is currently a legal nonconforming use because of lack of parking.The project would bring the subject use
further into conformance with adopted Land use regulations by supplying parking dedicated for Senior Center patrons.
Conclusion: The project is noi expected to create any impacts to land use and planning,
10.NOISE. Would the project result.in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"imaceeptable"noise X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 3
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 3,20
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 20 X
vibration or groumdbome noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 8
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project am to
excessive noise levels?.
l.11
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sowom Poteotiauy' Potentiany Isar Than No
sa mmiscant sigafficam signi5raot Impact
ARC#166-07 Issucs
UnIms Impact
Muptmn
incorporated
Page No. 12
Evaluation:According to Figure 5 in the General Plan Noise Element,a portion of the project site is within the measured 60
db noise contours for Santa Rosa Avenue. The Noise Guidebook stipulates that the maximum decibel level for outdoor
activity areas is 60 dB.The project site therefore does not exceed outdoor activity area noise thresholds.
During construction,there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the City's
Noise Ordinance,which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated.
The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibrationThe project is outside
of the Airport Land Use Plan area and is not directly in a flight path where occupants`would be subject to noise from aircraft
operations.
Conclusion: The project is expected to generate less than significant noise impacts. During construction there will be a
temporary increase in ambient noise levels,as controlled by the City Noise Ordinance.
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly 1,20 X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace stibstantial numbers of existing housing or people 1,20
necessitating the construction of replacement housing X
elsewhere?
Evaluation: There will be no substantial population growth or displacement in the area because the project is a small
accessory parking lot
Conclusion: The project is not expected to generate impacts on population and housing,
12.PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
signiflcant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
rformance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,20 X
b) Police protection? 1,20 X
C) Schools? 1,20 X
d) Parks? 1,20 X _
e) Roads and other transportation inSastruct re? 1,20 X
Other public facilities? 1,20 X
Evaluation: No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the small scale of the project and its
location within an existing residential neighborhood.
Conclusion: The project is not expected to generate substantial impacts to public services. The project has been routed to
City Departments for review and comments on the proposal.As part of each routing,the reviewing department is required to
certify that serving the project will not result in a deficiency to any City facility or resource.All reviewing departments have
indicated their ability to serve this project
13.RECREATION. Would the project.
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 20 X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or 20 X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation: The use or.intensity of the use of the Senior Center and Mitchell Park is not anticipated to change with the
installation of the new parking lot Removing the underutilized horseshoe pit and shuffleboard court is not expected to
generate a significant impact on recreational use of Mitchell Park. Additional parking will create improved access to the
r A ACHNIENT_
Issues, Discussian and Supportirig Information Sources _ Sour= PntmtiallyPa=daffy IA=Than No
Signfeant Significavr Significant Impad
ARC#1166-017lasm Unless Impad
. hfitigatmn
lacmpm lcd
Page No. 13
facility for senior citizens, but is not expected to accelerate substantial physical deterioration of the Senior Center or
surrounding park land.
The project does not include or require the construction of recreational facilities. Future development of Mitchell Park is
governed by a master park plan that was adopted by Council on October 2, 2001.The elements of the Master Plan that have
been implemented to date include renovation of the playground, installation of public art, and a bandstand/pavilion
constructed by Rotary Club of San Luis Obispo. The project area located adjacent to the Senior Center,which contains an
underused shuffleboard and horseshoe court, was designated for a specialty garden, with options for a neighborhood
vegetable garden,a xeriscape demonstration garden,or a botanical garden.The amendment to the Mitchell Park Master Plan
would change this area from a specialty garden to a parking lot
Conclusion: The project is not expecied to generate impacts on intensity o recreational acilily use.
14. TRANSPORTATIONfrRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2,20 X
casting traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 2,20 X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 20 X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 20 X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 9,20 X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2,20 X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 8 X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a change in air traffic atnerns?
Evaluation:The City's Transportation Division has indicated that the use or intensity of the use of the Senior Center is not
anticipated to change with the installation of the new parking lot Therefore the City is not anticipating my additional vehicle
trips from this improvement.While the distribution of traffic may change due to Senior Center Parking Lot,volumes are not
high enough to warrant any modifications to existing levels of service.
The project will create no hazards due to design features or inadequate emergency access because the parking lot has been
designed in accordance with City standards.
The Senior Center is currently a legal nonconforming use because of lack of parking.The project would bring the subject use
further into conformance by supplying parking dedicated for Senior Center patrons.
The project will not interfere with the existing transit stop adjacent to the Senior Center or pedestrian thoroughfares and
bicycle racks in Mitchell Park.
The project site is not in an area subject to the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan.
Conclusion:No impacti have been identi d with respect to bans avtm9on and traffic.
15.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed Wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 6,20 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 6,20 X
treatment,wastewater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,the
constriction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
• � AitiCHl9EPJ?�
Issues, Discussion and Supporting infdrrhaticin Sources Sornom Potalhany Potantiatly Iiae Hien No
signfcant Significmt signfcaat Impact
ARC#166-07 ►seam Unkas Input
NeiptL
IncotpmW
P No. 14
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 6,20 X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 6,20 X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to6,20 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal state,and local statutes and regulations 6,20 X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation:The project is not anticipated to generate any significant water demand beyond standard park maintenance.The
paving will be slightly sloped to direct stormwater runoff away from the Senior Center into a bioswale bordering the parking
lot.
The project is not anticipated to generate any additional solid waste beyond what is currently produced by the existing Senior
Center.
Conclusion: The project is not expected to generate any impacts on utilities and service terns.
16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNMCANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustain*levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the maior vefiods of California history or ?
As indicated in the Table on Page 3,the project does not have the potential to have adverse impacts on any of the issue areas
evaluated.
b) Does the project have unpacts that are individually limited,but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
me=dud the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
future o'ects
No significant'impacts have been identified in this initial study.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on himuan beings,either directly or
The project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
17.EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where,PUnniant to the tiering,program OR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
s Earlier analysis used Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan Element update and Final EIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department at 919 Palm Strect,,San Luis Obispo,California
b) Impacts adequately addressed Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis—
Lo
nal is._.
f r� n
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources mentiany Potentially Less Than xo
SigniScant significant Signi icait Tmpact
ARC#166-07 Issues Unless Im"d
%Stigation
Incorporated
Page No. 15
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"describe the mitigation
measures which Were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
Not applicable.
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,Angust 1994
2.
City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,April 2006
6. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996
7. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
8. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
9. Site Visit
10. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
IL Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dirp&'MW/
12. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001
13. CEQA Air Qualib(Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
14. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community
Development Department
15. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
16. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma
17. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development
Department
18. San Leas Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alqu ist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective Jamiary 1 1990
19. City of San Luis Obispo Community_Design Guidelines
20. Project Plans
21. Mimi 1970 .A Cali ornia Flora
22. Cultural Haitage Committee Hearing,01/28/2008 -
ATTAWN X
GOALSMAJOR CITY
SENIOR CITIZEN FACILITIES
OBJECTIVE
Enhance senior center facilities through improvements to the current senior center and pursuit of plans fora future
senior center.
DISCUSSION
Measure Y Relationship
This major City goal for improving senior facilities directly supports a top priorityfor the use of Measure Y
funds, as identified by the community both before and during the campaign.
Workscope Summary
The proposed work scope includes the following key elements:
Remodel of Existing Senior Center
1. Evaluate existing interior space to add general storage through reconfiguration.
2. Refurbish the existing kitchen including adding stainless steel counters and appliances..
3. Replace the old windows with modem, energy efficient ones.
Parking Lot Feasibility Study
1. Using a facilitator to work with stakeholders, including seniors, other park users, neighbors and City staff to
develop parking options for review by the Parks & Recreation Commission.
2. Present findings and recommendations to the Council for consideration.
Senior Center Needs Study
1. Develop a request for proposals (RFP) to study the need and possible site for a new senior center include as
alternatives additional community uses for the facility.
2. Hire the consultant; hold stakeholder meetings and complete the study.
3. Complete review by the Parks and Recreation Commission
4. Present Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff findings and recommendations, including costs and
funding sources, to Council for consideration.
Existing Situation
Remodel of Existing Senior Center
The current Senior Center at Mitchell Park is a 5,800 square foot building, consisting of one assembly and one
meeting room; kitchen and barbeque area; and office and storage space. It is used daily by seniors governed by a
Senior Center Board for recreational activities such as movies, bingo, bridge, pool, music, dance, and monthly
luncheons as well as humanitarian activities such as food distribution and volunteer services. It is also scheduled
by the Parks & Recreation Department for enrichment classes and by the public for private gatherings such as
weddings and celebrations.
Over the years, the Senior Center Board has requested a number of improvements to the existing center to make it
more usable. To provide an easier to use and more maintainable space, their requests have included an enlarged t r�
(.0U d'
ATTAINMENT __
MAJOR CITY GOALS
SENIOR CITIZEN FACIES
and upgraded kitchen, additional storage, new windows and a parking lot at the rear of.the building. Replacing
the stove and refrigerator with larger stainless steel units; replacing Formica countertops with stainless steel
preparation and serving surfaces; repainting; and completing related plumbing work will enhance meal
preparation and make the area easier to use and sanitize.
The seniors have also identified the general equipment storage at the Senior Center as inadequate for current uses.
It may be possible to achieve gains in storage space through an evaluation by a qualified architect to determine
how to effectively reconfigure some interior areas while providing the additional space to other areas. A
reconfiguration to increase storage efficiencies is a more cost effective and expeditious solution. The alternative
of adding space to the existing historic structure has not been studied but is anticipated to be costly, subject to a
variety of new code requirements and not a near-term solution. However, should reconfiguration prove
inadequate, expansion could be considered.
Parking Lot Feasibility Study
Over the years, the senior citizens who use the Senior Center have requested that a parking lot be constructed
behind the Center to alleviate the parking issues associated with on-street parking. The subject has been the topic
of several Parks & Recreation Commission meetings; and most recently was presented to Council in 2004 for
consideration. At the time, and for a variety of reasons, Council decided not to construct parking behind the
Center. However; the issue of parking remains for many users of the Center.
A parking lot feasibility study, facilitated by a third party, with input from stakeholders (such as seniors, other
park users, neighbors, and City staff), will identify needs and recommended solution for Parks & Recreation
Commission review and Council consideration.
Senior Center Needs Study
In a recent letter to the City, the Senior Center Board stated: "We believe that a new community center; which
will accommodate the needs of the entire community, including our fast growing senior population, is a top
priority." The Parks & Recreation Commission and the Joint Use Committee further echoed the need for a new
senior center, and the community identified the protection of senior services and programs as a community
priority during the Measure Y campaign.
The current Senior Center is small and meets the needs of only a small group of seniors (100-150). And while the
Ludwick Community Center recently received a significant remodel, it also meets a limited need based on its
configuration. The senior center needs study will provide information regarding:
I. Need for a new center based on a review of existing information, including but not limited to population
trends, current programs and potential to meet future programming needs, and facility opportunities and
constraints.
2. Space requirements of a new facility based on the programming needs of the seniors, as identified through
industry standards and benchmarks; and community outreach such as workshops, newsletters and other
strategies.
3. Alternative uses for the center which could include other users in addition to seniors resulting in a community
center.
4. Site location options based on availability of land, demographics of the community and other factors
5. Cost estimates for acquiring land (if required), constructing and operating a new center; and funding
strategies.
ATTACHMENT
MAJOR CITY GOALS;..
SENIOR CITIZEN FACILITIES
Work Completed
While ongoing programs and services address this goal, specific work has not been completed on any of the three
areas described above. Gathering up to date information, the study of specific issues, and the involvement of
previously identified stakeholders are steps that will be undertaken immediately to get the action plan underway
for this goal.
CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS
There are many competing needs in the 2007-09 Financial Plan and General Fund resources may be limited in this
two-year period, resulting in the phasing of some of the identified projects for this goal. Upon study, a
reconfiguration of the existing Senior Center for additional storage space may prove inadequate and the more
costly and time consuming alternative of onsite expansion may have to be pursued. The parking lot feasibility
study could identify some of the previously recognized challenges to this project, including: change in park use,
neighborhood concerns and practical difficulties in managing parking access. Finally, current market conditions
may result in high costs associated with sites identified in the Senior Center Needs Study.
STAKEHOLDERS
The entire community and senior population in particular (both current and future) will benefit from this project.
Because the seniors who currently use the Senior Center have been most vocal in expressing their needs, outreach
to this group will be specifically targeted. Other stakeholders include the neighborhood surrounding the Senior
Center, park users, and City staff involved in the maintenance and management of our parks.
ACTION PLAN
Task Date
Senior Center Remodel
1. Replace the windows in the Senior Center. 11/07
2. Meet with stakeholders to finalize kitchen remodel workscope. 2/08
3. Evaluate the existing kitchen to add general storage through reconfiguration and develop design 11/08
documents.
4. Complete kitchen improvements. 6/09
Parking Lot Feasibility Study
1. Engage a consultant to facilitate this study. 7/07
2. Identify and consult with stakeholders. 9/07
3. Develop recommendations. 10/07
4. Review recommendations with Parks&Recreation Commission. 11/07
5. Present Parks&Recreation Commission and stakeholder recommendations to the Council for 1/08
consideration.
Senior Center Needs Studv
I. Develop a request for proposals to study the need for a Senior Center. 10/07
2. Hire consultant and begin stakeholder meetings. 2/08
3. Complete the study and present recommendations to the Parks & Recreation Commission and 10/08
Council.
-u4
ATTACHMENT.y
MAJOR CITY GOALS
SENIOR CITIZEN FACILITIES
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
The key assumption for the Senior Center remodel is that a basic upgrade to the kitchen facility will meet the
most pressing needs of the seniors who use the Center.
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
1. Public Works will serve as the lead department for the Senior Center remodel with support from Parks &
Recreation.
2. Parks & and Recreation will serve as the lead department for the parking lot and Community/Senior Center
studies with support from Public Works.
FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL
Cost Summary
Operating Programs Capital Improvement Plan
2007-08 2008-09 2007-08 2008-09
Senior Center Window Replacement 9,000
Facilitator Assistance:Parking Lot Feasibility 7,500
Senior/Community Center Needs Study 30,000
Senior Center Remodel 15,000 45,000
Total $16,500 $0 $45,000 $45,000
Funding Source: General Fund
The costs identified for the work program reflect a course of action that staff believes best reflects the goal as
identified by the Council and seniors. The approach has been conservative, and costs will increase once refined
scopes of work has been completed and estimated for each of the action plan tasks. Costs increases could result
from an expansion instead of reconfiguration of the existing Senior Center. Additionally, the cost of
implementing the recommendations of the parking feasibility lot feasibility is unknown at this time, and could
include the construction of a parking lot. Finally, a new Senior Center is likely to have significant design,
construction and site acquisition costs.
GENERAL FUND REVENUE POTENTIAL
It is unlikely that there will be any significant General Fund revenue enhancements as a result of achieving this
goal. Some revenues may be generated by leasing the remodeled kitchen to a senior meals program. A new
Senior Center could generate facilities use revenues, although the amount cannot be projected until the scope of
the project is known.
OUTCOME—FINAL WORK PRODUCT
At the end of the two year Financial Plan, the windows in the Senior Center will be replaced, the kitchen will be
updated and the City will know if a parking lot behind the Senior Center is feasible and desirable. We will also
know if the community needs a new Senior Center, and if so, what it might contain, where it might be located,
how much it might cost and how it would be funded.
arAcHMMT
VSMI ViNVS
ac
N V
c
Y o
L m
d O
a
� � V
Um
a_+
C
C
O
c0
O
ca
N coo
C
cu
a � �
O
2
a
m
a
10 9
a � �
Soso
0
� MEMO
A7ACHMENT IO
RESOLUTION NO. (2008 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE MITCHELL PARK MASTER PLAN TO REFLECT A CHANGE
OF USE IN THE AREA DESIGNATED FOR A SPECIALTY GARDEN TO ALLOW FOR A
PARKING LOT
WHEREAS, the Master Plan for the renovation and improvement of Mitchell Park was
adopted by the City Council by its Resolution No. 9235 (2001 Series) on October 2, 2001, and
WHEREAS, as part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, the City Council established a Major
City Goal to enhance senior citizen facilities through improvements to the current senior center
in Mitchell Park, and the pursuit of plans for a future senior center, and
WHEREAS, the work program established for the Major City Goal includes a capital
improvement project to construct a parking lot behind the Senior Center in Mitchell Park in an
area designed in the Mitchell Park Master Plan for a specialty garden, and
WHEREAS, the Mitchell Park Master Plan should be amended to reflect a change of use
for the project site from a specialty garden to a parking lot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that it hereby amends the Mitchell Park Master Plan, as approximately depicted in
Exhibit A.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 6`h day of May 2008.
Mayor Dave Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
G:ADM(MCouncil Agenda Repon Mitchell Park Master PlanWitchell Park Mm'ter Plan Ameu6nem Reso 4 23 08(2).doc
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cj27we:ll�, City Attorney
G:\ADMIMCoancR Agenda ReponsWachell Park\M=er PlanMicheR Park Master Plan Amemlmem Rem 413 08(Z).doc
EXHIBIT
odsaao slyd, Ues °�=.�� Ndld 6.-sm T
jO ml:) Nddd113HO1IW p$ +
a 3 � sip
9 3F
f Y 5 t a i3g _
�7 � i � € E z r �i`¢ i � E F• W R�� 6� S° a,"���K 8
. ♦ ❑ ' ' �p 133EUS VS08 V1NVS N Po �p
't[L pp
�. °
'Lyi::1t�'.. •i'.'i'..�'� 3e�� EQ§�>!gy� �CEzg
•"w'jfj G
OF ::5i viiE. c + a L
a ygQG �: aa
_. �yp qq yygg
U j voAv 6WyJed 6
kIW J � ��'• � '� t 1 J' � .a Q 4ay'lJ� �
7"" y�� t� ♦ ♦ t` Fx, � p$
� C� ' ;� r t A �qc • � is ... t�k a Jk 'r� m
r
.v3Ft�iSa.•a}+�•q, `k � � w� ` a Y�i CY ap e Z 0
$ � '�.�m Z5�J
�� T�97� mg+��M'S'''S �q�,i„id ��'.�"tla a. . tlFR++ +� �t W: 8 �f' •e , •t4v�•��� � �� o`o�'
" 1 Y '$ i^'a�• '�'a �'a[Yv�,'b Q'?�'�rC•'Y_$0.cE, ®c� pSpq
'"F'!.T
4 b� d r• ^' ,+� r ,���y.. a .t�"a 1 ,7€� r-4,
CC {+C •°q s� .: raA'� 1•w O�
cc
14
____ __ 4T " � � �� Y � _y,� �� � ��� pp55 q( tl - •.� � � X71 SdS
— `tl ? it C } �} `• • Qi
' 9, . .402/'.♦ 'l.l� ���. � � �� W�• n
133Ha 8050 `�1
Co' E L RECEIVED
COUNCIL CDD [)IR MAY 0 6 2008
t�J CAO �FIN DIR
ACAO Q�FIRE CHIEF SLO C17Y CLERK
ATTORNEY DPW DIR
MCLERK(ORIG &'POLICE CHF
O DEPT HEADS 11 REC DIR
A'— ---_ UTIL DIR
HR DIR
chat u aeC
May 5,2008 j- 64�
�- e LErL.,C._ RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM # aN
To City Council Members:
As a member of one of our city's advisory bodies, I make every effort to learn as
much information as I can about the issues facing San Luis Obispo. After visiting
the Save Mitchell Park website (www.savemitchellpark.com), however, I believe
that the portrayal of this issue to the public has been very misleading. I have
attached pages printed from the website,with my comments in red.
Thank you for your consideration in reviewing this matter.
Sincerely,
I� �
Cathie A. Babb
(805) 544-7771
y m CL m m d
o
C ° m c `
00
� f
v I ;
v, O O o O O D 0 CD 0 3
m > = >
p — CD
n ¢ m m � Ur Z - `G
O m v
fA C N y JC
m
(O O t0 C (O n co f (0 (mmCD CD CD y
CD m m m y m O (D (7 m
O m 0 a 0 0 0 _ = oz.
O
vv u v y v m v 1 q Q
(/� m N n 4i O f/1 _ N m /1
Dl m m m m
f0 O [O t0 O co m coCD w
y ..
N t/f
O ° O O m O y O m O m � 9/p
v O v a v m — y�
y .. v m v m ryC �+
O O O = O y O m O ? O
.O C :E * O :E m
y m D
O' x n l m 0 9 O m O n a _.
D - D m d `°
!O y (O O_ co mf0 Q (O
N C N O N 3 N y N O N o r't
m y O c
J O m O C CD o 0
Cl) U) U) (i) U7 a U) .
O o y o O o o N ^
f=
0 0 U3 0 t0 t0
m
r
m m m m m ° `
m m m m m m _. V'n
MFZ
o (7 rp
cEl
CDo
't
A �D
NJ
� p
n
CD
... o
t
v r Az O
I 4
IR
i
U r ,; Sz.
Lam✓
d d d d
y d m m d 0 CD
O
O
CD
Q� hpp
CD SD C .w+ '�3 a »,
C1 ti43
w y O. tz
CD
{ tz
CDpr
O 0 I tw
� a CD
aCD
aw -CDs w S
CD
y CD
CCD00
M CD SU
0 � � ." rwy, ►" � � CD �
CD CD
, � a
O � O
CD y o
CD CDS CD 0
a C4CD
CD
_
� a' � .� O w O. O w l •• C
CD
w
CD
a 7rCb
r ��
r�oCD
5c1
y a.CD � oq
R.
N
b
QQ
� N
CD
} . n
C
�
M
�
E fD
` \0)
:3
\�k
- 2k
So
B c /
§ B2
/0
\\/
\ CL >
(D
CD >/.
\ ƒ ƒ
m
\
zo
\
§ ten
CDi5
CD
CD
9
�
} \
Fes, �- ���n_ Y '� •,::, � ,��'.
r •�n
* , * • � //
41,
01.
It
J
1`�` < ,v� '�"'✓y ,µ L,✓ (+p '� a j.'�
ti
!. It ' ~
CCUNCIL �oCDD DIR
CAO �-IN DIR
40
ACAO IRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY ,p PW DIR RECEIVED
Z CLERK/ORIG Iii.POLICE CHF RED FILE
05-06-08 0 DEPT HEADS REC DIR MAY 0 6 NOB
VIL DIR MEETING AGENDA
��®I� DATE . ITEM #Dd( SLO CITY CLERK
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council;
I would like to look up to you all to make the right decision regarding NOT PAVING over Mitchell Park for Senior Center
Parking.The real problem lies in Downtown sprawl and the continued lack of leadership in allowing new downtown
developments to build even though they have had and continue to have HUGE NET LOSSES of parking for their increased
user demands. The already built:Downtown Center,Court Street Center,and County Government Center have ruined the
quality of my neighborhood and I only fear worse with the 5 Story developments that are on the current planning horizon.
You and City Staff should be lambasted for playing a political trump card regarding the Downtown Parking District If
you all were hoping for attrition by mailing the document out prior to a 3 day holiday(Fri.of Veterans Day Weekend)and
a mere week away from Thanksgiving and wanting it back the Wednesday after Thanksgiving;well you got it Given the
low response rate I think you ought to get staff out of the office fora door to door survey.I'd also like to know why they
decided to include Pacific Street Businesses in the survey.Aren't they a part of the problem?Seems like a conflict of
interest to me.It would also greatly change the results of your survey of the 24%that did vote.Sad to say;but nobody
ever wants to pay for parking.
Downtown sprawl belongs in a parking garage you all.It doesn't belong in our neighborhood all day every day and
into the night and it doesn't belong in front of the Senior Center either.Downtown needs to take responsibility for itself,
and the city needs to implement policies that make sure this happens before it gets even worse.
I am alarmed when I read City Staffs report that the proposed parking garage at Nipomo and Monterey will be the last!
given what is proposed for upper Monterey Street and beyond I believe this view is incredibly shortsighted.I realize that
developers need some incentive to develop;but the wholesale giveaway of taxpayer owned parking lots without them
providing their own replacement parking for their projects user demand despite In Lieu fees is ludicrous to me.Developers
outside the downtown core have to provide parking according to a zoning formula and I firmly believe Downtown
Developers should be held to the same conditions.
I'm running out of time but would like to pose these questions:
-Is the Senior Center Adequate for the number of current members and the increasing numbers of retiring baby boomers?
-Would a parking district and or 2Hr limits if not a resident not improve their and our chances for parking?
-Why were 15 spaces taken out of use in the 800 block of Pismo Street?What is the mitigation here and for my immediate
for my immediate neighborhood?When do we get relief?
-What does it take to get Police or Parking staff out to enforce the 72 hour movement rule and to ticket all the currently
unregistered cars parked in my neighborhood? I pay my license fees...Why are so many not?The State is broke.Lets
generate some revenue.This seems to be a problem all over town that I notice while walking.
-Why is the issue of parking raised by so many people in the comments of the most important things for the city to
Accomplish in the next 2-5 years.What are you really doing about it?Is the Parking District Survey an example??
I'm sorry to say;but what I see happening amounts to a lot of soul sucking from what made and makes this
Town nice.Lets see some leadership,foresight,and some preemptive thinking on parking.Its far past due.
Sincerely Yours,
Jim Millenaar
1444 Morro Street
�_ RED FILE
FCOUNCILQ *CDD DRECEIVED
IR MEETING AGENDA
16'CAO r FIN DIR DA u o . TEM # MAY 0 612008
ACAO ' FIRE CHIEF
19 ATTORNEY PW DIR Jan Howell Marx Es SLO CITY CLERK
QFCLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF ' q'
❑ D Tip HEADS REC DIR 265 Albert Drive
UTIL DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Z?Z&4&&e - HR CIR
OLvrue- L
'May 5, 2008
Dear Mayor Romero and City Council,
I am writing to oppose the idea of paving over part of Mitchell Park for parking.
This idea was proposed when I was on City Council in 2000 and 2001 during the
Mitchell Park Master Plan update, and rejected by all of the advisory bodies as
inconsistent with the park purposes for which the land had been donated to.the city. This
issue has been thoroughly considered,and I am appalled it has reared its head again.
At the Master Plan update hearing, a small number of people spoke in favor of
making a parking lot and against the proposal of putting in a children's playground in that
area of Mitchell Park. Children were "too noisy" and parking was more important.
Wisely the City Council at that time decided in to plan a playground. We also planned a
band stand and a garden area behind the Senior center. Today, both the playground and
the band stand are a reality and excellent amenities in the park. The garden should be
developed next according to the Master Plan.
A few years later, I happened to serve on the San Luis Obispo Rotary Club
Committee which built the bandstand in the middle of Mitchell Park. We built it on the
location of the former bandstand, built there in 1903 for Teddy Roosevelt's campaign
speech. Events at the bandstand have attracted crowds of people, who sit on the grass
and picnic. The park is utilized by more people than ever, due to the addition of the
playground and the bandstand.
Furthermore, adding a few parking spaces restricted to users of the Senior Center
will not solve the parking problem in that area. Even if the city paved over the entire
park, there would not be enough parking. There are other solutions available which do
not involve sacrificing park land for parking, for instance making more 4 hour zones or
improving bus and shuttle service. The city needs to get creative about solving the
parking problem.
The Seniors who wish more parking near a Senior Center have a point, but that
does not mean that the city should pave over part of the park. Instead, the city should
build a new, larger, more modern Senior Center with plenty of parking, not in Mitchell
Park. The city needs to get creative about solving the Senior Center problem, instead of
sacrificing the character and beauty of Mitchell Park.
This letter also constitutes an Appeal to the negative declaration determined in the
initial study of the environmental impacts of the proposed paving over and tree removal
1
-
of Mitchell Park for seniors-only parking.,The finding that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment is without foundation. There are several potential
significant effects on the historical and aesthetic value of the Park, as found by the
Cultural Heritage Committee.
Since the project may have one or more significant effects, the city must circulate
a Notice of Preparation (NOP) in anticipation of preparing an environmental impact
report (EIR) and must consult with responsible and trustee agencies as to the content of
the environmental analysis. All environmental aspects need to be studied, as well as the
historical.
The present Master Plan is, in my opinion, the environmentally superior alternative.
It fulfills the historical design of the park, rather than violating it. There are many viable
alternatives to the proposed plan which should be considered under CEQA, before cutting
down trees and paving over part of the park. Each one must be thoroughly researched and
presented in an EIR. The fact that Mitchell Park is not presently designated as historical
does not mean that it has no historical significance under CEQA.
A parking study should be done to determine the nature of the perceived parking
problem in that area(often parking spaces on the street are empty), as well as possible
solutions. There also needs to be a traffic study. Improved alternate transportation could
accomplish the goal of increased access without compromising the design of the park, or
replacing trees and turf with asphalt and cement. This alternative needs to be fully
explored.
CEQA requires consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives to the project
or its location which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects. 14 CCR § 15126.6(a)
The discussion in the EIR must focus on alternatives to the project or its location even if
these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives
or would be more costly.14 CCR §15126.6(b).
I urge you to vote against this short-sighted proposal, when it comes before
Council. Thank you for considering the value of Mitchell Park to the whole city as you
make this very important decision.
Sincerely,
Jan Howell Marx, Esq.
2
council m c m o iza n b u m
DATE: May 6, 2008 RED FILE FRECEIVED
TO: City Council MEETING AGENDA 006
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO �EM # ><F(e LERK
FROM: Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Mitchell Park Plan Amendment
Proper legal noticing was provided in compliance with CEQA for the Council to consider, and if
Council chooses to do so, adopt the Negative Declaration. The Initial Study is attached to the
agenda report (Attachment 7) and has been available for public review since March 29`h. It is
appropriate, however, to have the Negative Declaration referenced in the CAO recommendation
and the Resolution.
Revised CAO Recommendation
To implement the senior parking component of the City Council's 2007-09 Major City Goal for
Senior Citizen Facilities, the Council must amend the Mitchell Park Master Plan by adopting a
Resolution, including the Negative Declaration of environmental impact, changing the
proposed use behind the Center to allow for a parking lot of approximately 14 spaces.
(new language in bold)
Also, a revised Resolution (Attachment 10) is attached.
Please call Doug Davidson at extension#177 (781-7177) if you have any questions.
tcOUNCIL 'CDD DIR
CAO Iry FIN DIR
49ACAO FIRE CHIEF
--0 ATTORNEY PW DIR
LERK/ORIQ POLICE CHF
DEPT HEADS REC DIR
�� Pe UTIL:DIR
R HR DIR
p Couv ec C
,� -CLEe.ac.-
� r
RESOLUTION NO. (2008 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE MITCHELL PARK MASTER PLAN TO REFLECT A CHANGE
OF USE IN THE AREA DESIGNATED FOR A SPECIALTY GARDEN TO ALLOW FOR A
PARKING LOT
WHEREAS, the Master Plan for the renovation and improvement of Mitchell Park was
adopted by the City Council by its Resolution No. 9235 (2001 Series) on October 2, 2001, and
WHEREAS, as part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, the City Council established a Major
City Goal to enhance senior citizen facilities through improvements to the current senior center
in Mitchell Park, and the pursuit of plans for a future senior center, and
WHEREAS, the work program established for the Major City Goal includes a capital
improvement project to construct a parking lot behind the Senior Center in Mitchell Park in an
area designed in the Mitchell Park Master Plan for a specialty garden, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, a
Negative Declaration of environmental impact, dated March 26, 2008, was prepared, and
WHEREAS, the Mitchell Park Master Plan should be amended to reflect a change of use
for the project site from a specialty garden to a parking lot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo that it hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and amends the Mitchell Park Master
Plan, as approximately depicted in Exhibit A.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 6t'day of May 2008.
Mayor Dave Romero
ATTEST:
C:\Daca ws and SeaingSV:hOWp VAcal Sev mgMempamry Imemef Fl1eA0LKC4WftcheU Park Mager Plan Amendmenl Rem 413 08(1).dac
i
i
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonath Lowell, City Attomey
CADm mens and SPaingMam j"\ocal SeaingSTemporary lmemet FileA0LKC4VditcheR Park Master Plan Amendment Resa 4 23 08(2).dx
Page 1 of 1
i
From: Bob[ktblshop@charter.net] Sent: Tue 5/6/2008 9:56 AM
To: Brown,Paul; Carter,Andrew; Mulholland,Christine; Settle,Allen
Cc: Romero,Dave
Subject: Senior center parking
Attachments:
Please approve the plan to provide a few parking spaces at Mitchell Park. Bob and Kathleen Bishop
1032 Karen dr.
SLO CA 93405
7�*z6ez
$ CDD DIRRECEIVED
yZ FIN DIRff FIRE CHIEFRED FILE q PW DIR MAY 0 6 23u9
MEETING AGENDA G 'g POLICE CHFSLO CIN CLERK
S REC DIRDATEs� D4�ITEM # PNlc t¢UTIL DIR
- WR MIR
�f Ca&weteC
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchang or%20center%20parking.EML?Cmd=op... 5/6/2008
� RED FILE - " RECEIVED
MEETING AGENDA MAY 0 ?.0�8
Date: May 5, 2008 DATE-✓ TEM # 6 4
SLO CITY CLERK
To: Dave Romero,Mayor eopcl
MCCOUNCIL JtaCDD DIR
From: Rick May, Resident CAO FIN DIR
SubMitchell Park 'CACAO FIRE CHIEF Cow-V Of
J Ja ATTORNEY PW DIR
RCLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF q CAa
0 DEPT HEADS t'r REC DIR
Dave: I 5-1 UTIL DIR
22Z(9kW0 a HR DIR
A quick note in support of the parking lot at Mitchell Park. I know you are getting a lot
of email on this subject—so I thought I would provide a very brief list of misstatement of
facts presented by those opposed to the placement of the parking lot. In no particular
order:
1. The curved exit driveway places youngsters at risk—This discussion is normally
addressed with the engineers as the divider is placed between the youth area and
the driveway. A medical doctor always makes this statement,and says nothing
about the fact the new wide play area is adjacent to two busy streets and no fence
to keep the kids out of accidental wandering into the street.
2. Trees will be cut down—Trees will be added.
3. Seniors should take the bus to the Senior Center, because there is a bus stop in
front of the center. Who is going to pick up the seniors and transport them to the
bus stop in their home neighborhood to start the trip?
4. The Heritage Tree will be damaged. The city Arborist has taken this into
consideration. No problem with the tree.
5. The addition of a BBQ pit removes from the value of the Park. The park is
extremely underutilized and this addition brings this park into a more family
oriented park.
6. Many talk about a public garden being taken out of existence. No public garden
was planned for this location.
7. There is street parking around the park during the day. Correct, on most days
there are spaces in the sides of the park as local residents drive to work. However,
this does not provide a solution to the few who need immediate access to the
building.
8. Several of those opposed to the lot admitted that they thought this area to be not
useable because of the partial fence and unused concrete. The specific place for the
parking lot location has been completely unused.
9. A similar park with a parking lot currently exists—at the Parks and Recreation office,
and there is no challenge with the use or youngsters in the park.
10. The focus group opposed to the parking lot is a very small entity. They have
generated a "broad"support for"no paving over the park"simply because this
misstatement has generated an "apple pie,America"type of support. This focus
group states that the wishes of a small group is trying to push over large group.
This is exactly what is happening. The focus group is small. An example- Since this
r w U J
Rem has been in the press, I have visited and talked with people in the park. On two
different occasions,I talked with mothers in the play area. They had very little or no
knowledge about the parking lot! I talked with a person sitting in the open area
reading a book. Completely no knowledge about the parking lot.
11.At one time, it was expected that the Ludwick Center would be for Seniors. That did
not happen for several reasons. Now,the center is well used by the City of SLO for
its own purposes. Thus,the seniors either need another center or assistance at the
current center until a new center is created. The assistance is the parking lot.
12. And finally,the commissions'votes these past few weeks regarding the placement
of a parking lot for the seniors was done with the heart and not the mind. We need
to take care of everyone in the City.
Page 1 of 1
From: Richard Rall[djrali@charter.net] Sent Thu.5/1/2008 12:52 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject Seniors Parking Lot RECEIVED
Attachments:
RED FILE MAY 0 2 2008
Dear Sir, MEETING AGENDA
DATF�TEM #_U SLO CITY CLERK
Thank you for your support of the Seniors Parking Lot to date. By now you have probably been flooded with
calls, letters and e-mails, both in support and opposed to the project.
There has been a lot of hoopla by well organized and well staffed groups using the latest technology to get
their word out opposing the project. This would be fine except for the distortions and exaggerations that have
been printed in the newspapers, shown on the Internet, and circulated by word of mouth. They are too
numerous to cover in a short memo. The Seniors have tried to be factual in describing our needs and
problems.
You would be surprised by how many people believe that the plan calls for paving over the children's
playground and/or a major portion of Mitchell Park. This is the result of the slogans: "Save Mitchell Park"and
the website"savemitchellpark.com". By using the latest Internet technology and some misconceptions, it was
easy for the organizers to gather large numbers of people opposing the parking lot.
In the end, it boils down to: Do we preserve a small underutilized portion of the Park which had been the
fenced-in back yard of the Senior Center since 1974 or do we provide improvement to the parking situation for
mobility impaired seniors that has been requested over and over for 20 years?
I hope you can see your way clear to continue to support the Parking lot in the face of the large numbers
opposing the project.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Rall
9X0UNCIL 9rCDD DIR
2449 Ladera Court CAO FIN DIR
ACRO FIRE CHIEF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ATTORNEY DPW DIR
- 0 CLERK/CRIG POLICE CHF
546-8119 ❑ DEPT HEADS �REC DIR
4V U'fIL DIR
_2Z4 R DIR
L"dU^1e c
https:Hmaii.slocity.org/exchange c:-,/S ;niors%20Parking%2OLot.EML?Cmd=open 5/2/2008
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
h4s..awd ,Mrs. Michael J. Molnar 5 a�TEM #
1761 Street - P. O. Box 486®AT
r UC' Cayucos, California 93430 R
(865) 995-3783 or93awoeq
APR 1(IOb
Ae-D
COUNCIL DD DIR /
CAO SPFIN DIR
ACAO FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG ^ POLICE CHF I cu Qd ro C� {y Gfj
DEPT HEADS REC DIRE
pil: _ UTIL DIR
� e
HR DIR ! / /,^stlJ� n r.r
X a5 b P e7
k e.c.e.uL
. 41 re
� 'n p lir c( reQ �
h� k7 Q QrQ� row
l � � -ere 5 1 r
a l
h P 1 , 4
o4 -� /�Ccrr� _, Ae _5e ti-.i c��C
5 r of kIn O ✓ c. ( tt
�1 O tc- -� �-Q y p 4 `s•
40
Alin ea
� �� w► ��a� I� a Q.
4a
`a er -/ -0o r , a ! ?
rXe.r e
1�/ � �
RE[- -ILE
CITY OF SP. ! I_UIGP'S?0 _ MEETING
� -AGENDA
Ma-sed Mrs.Michael ]. Molnar
176 1 Street - P. O. Box 486®A ITEM #
, APR 2 8 2008 Cayucos, California 93430 I V S D
(805) 995-3783 or X89
-�, vT APR (; 2008
G0td!%
SLO CITY CLERK
owoea
�GtC.Llc� s�• S i n G e / �a 7 r /(J�
Palr-K �a5 bpe7
Y e �nY�
6 ��. -Ta �
ere g inc G - Ca ►�
4c`c.
t I i i r-e eIrl /�a4o ,(n
O lir are4 � �
Q �t
4 QrQh T P�`ei
o�Ke�S
e ` o re, Tti� Se'+
� o4 ' 0 I J
e_ X r ll2r GLISL 4S5�
6'
L w a s
�e YP4rS.
r( ��Q �vt r C40(
�o / ✓1
! � 1
(P
1 / %a
-4e l/
!l e! I ra eU of �5
w---.
h of you,w were
COUNCIL CDD DIR RED FILE RECEIVED
tC
AOFIN DIR MEETING AGENDA
CAO FIRE CHIEF DATE ITEM # 6` 6 MAY 0 5 2008
TTORNEY E�,PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG 5?POLICE CHF Carol Nelson-Selby/Michael Selby SLO CITY CLERK
❑ DEPT HEADS AEC DO
UTIL DIR 1201 Leff St., San Luis Obispo, 93401
96aUA• - HR DIR (805) 593-0187;:slo2oz2@earthIink.net
-4 eoun.Gcc
Dear Council members,
I couldn't believe it when I read in the Tribune that the Mitchell Park issue is
"generational". Clearly someone with an agenda has chosen to mischaracterize what
has been going on, since anyone who has attended the various commission meetings
knows that many, many people of all ages are against the proposed paving project.
I am a senior and frequently walk through the park or use the grass to read a book or
just enjoy the sunshine. I'm not a "joiner" and haven't signed up at the Senior Center,
yet consider my enjoyment of the park to be as valid a park use as that of seniors who
want to belong to an organization. I'm sure the many families, apartment dwellers and
workers who frequent the park also consider it to be "theirs'.
I've noted that most of the time there are ample parking places on the streets
immediately surrounding the park, but that when there is a food giveaway for seniors or
a community event at the park, people who arrive after those slots are gone have to
walk the two blocks from the back of,the City lot at Pismo and Morro or find parking on
other streets. On those occasions, 15 parking spaces would not make a dent in the
need. In essence, under your current proposal, the taxpayers would just be providing a
few spaces for center "regulars" who arrived early enough to get them.
There is a simple and inexpensive solution for those who are too disabled to walk more
than a few yards. The driveway that is currently being used as parking for several cars
should be continued around the building so that it would be possible to drop off disabled
seniors at the bottom of the existing concrete ramp. This would also let caterers load
and unload. This modification would be temporary, until there is a more auto friendly
location for a new senior center. By making the driveway one-way and right turn only, it
would be safer than it currently is. Also, by using removable materials, such as
decomposed granite or asphalt, it would be inexpensive.
The bottom line is that Mitchell Park is not a place for program activities such as the
food giveaway that absolutely require the parking of cars in order to be successful. The
food giveaway doesn't need to be at the Senior Center or even at a park, but could be
run from a suburban shopping center, church or public agency (such as the Recreation
Department lot) that already has parking facilities.
Please do not make your legacy the dismantling of a precious resource in order to
provide a few parking spaces that will not significantly improve access to city resources
for seniors, but would forever change the nature of a very special San Luis Obispo icon.
Page 1 of 1
i
Council,SloCity
From: John D. Grady,CFP Ugradyslo@earthlink.net] Sent: Mon 5/5/2008 1:43 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park Parking Lot
Attachments:
Dear Council Members:
I greatly oppose the idea of a parking lot at Mitchell Park. The spaces provided seem quite minimal when
compared with the number of visitors there daily. And what assurance would there be that they would be
available to be used by the seniors? Unless somehow restricted from public use, anyone visiting the park could
park their vehicle in this lot.
I don't believe we should be paving over valuable city park land to provide parking. Perhaps the street parking
could be restricted with shorter hours so that more spots would then be available for the seniors to use? And
given the discussion of this being an inadequate location for our senior center anyway, why pave over land if
we are to relocate this site somewhere in the future? Once our precious park land is lost it is gone forever!
Why not put the money to better use in financing or improving another location better suited for the seniors?
Is any consideration being given to converting the Ludwick Center into a senior center? It already has parking
and the facilities seem much more up to date. Thank you for your consideration of my opinion.
Regards,
John Grady
SLO City Resident
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/sloci tycounci l/Inbox/Mitchell%20Park%20Parking%20Lo... 5/5/2008
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloClty
From: Chris McBride[chrispmcb@gmail.com] Sent: Mon 5/5/2008 9:18 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Michell Park
Attachments:
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
As long time residents of San Luis Obispo,we once again are writing you to express our strong oppose the possibility of a parking
lot at Mitchell Park. Not only does a parking lot not follow the general plan for the park, it will remove an important piece of a park
land.The parking lot will remove grass,trees,seating,the BBQ area and bring traffic INTO the park,just feet away from the
playground.
Again,we oppose the parking lot.We support the three city committees and the park general plan that was developed after review
and input from many sources.
Sincerely,
Chris and Sterling McBride
1633 Santa Rosa
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805-545-0111
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Michell%2OPark.ENIL?Cmd=open 5/5/2008
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Jorge Montezuma Ulmontezuma@gmail.com] Sent: Sun 5/4/2008 10:58 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Save Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Dear City Council,
Please take in consideration the importance of the action of paving part of the Mitchell Park. Even though it seems to be a small
section,this will set a precedent for the future of the few green spaces in the San Luis Obispo downtown area. I know it is important
for the older generation to be able to park near their center, but think about the future of the kids and the green spaces within the
inner city.
Please think consciously and save the park.
Thank you,
Jorge Montezuma
Environmental Engineering Student
Cal Poly,SLO
https://mai1.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Save%2ON itchell%20Park.EN4L?Cm... 5/5/2008
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: S.Wirts[swirts@calpoly.edu] Sent Sun 5/4/2008 9:35 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Dear SLO City Council,
I have been somewhat following the controversy around
potentially paving a portion of Mitchell Park to
increase the parking for the senior center.
I must urge you to consider the options that do not
include destroying part of the park.
If the senior center is in need of facilities with
more space, perhaps the Mitchell Park location is not
suited to the senior center's needs anymore, and
alternate locations should be considered.
Mitchell Park offers relief from the pressure the
surrounding developments exert, and I would consider a
partial destruction of this park a minor tragedy.
Please do not pursue plans that will put the park in
jeopardy.
— Shawn Wirts
Cal Poly Math Department, Lecturer
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Mitchell%20Park-91.ENII.?Cmd=open 5/5/2008
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Marc Bresler[marc.bresler@gmail.com] Sent: Sun 5/4/2008 9:25 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Parking lot
Attachments:
Dear Council,
Please do not remove the park picnic tables for a parking lot.
Mitchel park is a much needed precious area in SLO. It is a beautiful
place to have a little picnic or family party. Observe the park on
big days such as graduation and you will see so many families using
the entire park that there is obviously need for more park. If a
section of the park is paved it will be a tragedy for families in SLO.
I am sympathetic with the Senior center required more space but I
feel there are better alternative than paving over parkland. Also,
adding traffic to a place where children will play if not a prudent
move. In addition, with gas prices increasing and CO2 emissions
becoming a concern we should also put more value into carpooling and
public transit with a parking lot does not provide.
Some ideas to allow the senior center to continue to operate and
satisfy senior need maybe to move the center to a new place with a
large parking lot. If building an entire new center is not an option
it seems there are many churches with large parking lots that could
serve as a great meeting place. If this is not an option how about
sectioning off road parking for seniors only with passes or simply
making some road parking spaces for handicapped place card holders
only.
Thanks for your consideration in saving the park. My son had his
first birthday parry in the very place the paving is proposed. I am
sure there would be many more parties there to come if it is allowed
to exist.
Sincerely,
Marc(Bresler)
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Parking%20]ot-2.ENIL?Cmd=open 5/5/2008
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Jenn Yost Dennyost@gmail.com] Sent: Sun 5/4/2008 1:27 PM
To: Council;SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Dear City Council,
I am writing in advance of this weeks meeting to express my deep
concern over the proposed paving of Mitchell Park. I hope that you
go into the meeting with an open mind, hear the concerns and
suggestions, and act accordingly. I have faith that as elected
officials you will serve the people of San Luis Obispo. Having
attended that last 3 meetings regarding Mitchell Park, I think public
opinion is very strong in this case. So many people are against this
idea for so many reasons. If it were to pass it would only be
because you have ignored the voice of your own advisory bodies, the
people of San Luis Obispo, and are acting in some hidden self
interest. I hope that you vote not to amend the master plan and
decide instead to develop the community garden.
Thank you for your service, time, and attention.
Jennifer Yost
1703 Santa Barbara St.
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Mitchell%20Park-90.EML?Cmd=open 5/5/2008
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Sent: Sun 5/4/2008 6:07 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Parking Lot
Attachments:
We would like to urge the members of the council to vote in favor of the parking lot behind the Senior Center. It
is greatly needed. Last summer, we began using the Senior Center on a regular basis. We are both active,
healthy seniors. But, finding a parking spot anywhere, even one a few blocks away, became a challenge,
especially when Cal Poly was in full-swing. Seniors who are not as able as we are,just would not be walk as
far as we sometimes had to. It may not be too long before we are not able to spend the time, nor the energy, to
even get to the center, if parking continues to be as much of a problem as it is now. In addition to that,there
are very few handicapped parking spaces available at all.
Please vote for this needed addition to the much-used center that we now have. If a new center is ever built,
the parking lot can be removed and the area returned to its the park area it is now. If the lot is built,we believe
the neighborhood will realize it is not as intrusive as they now expect it to be. Let's give it a try,the seniors of
the community deserve it. We are not even asking for a new center,just help to be able to use the one we
have now.
Sincerely,
Mary and Jerry Lodge
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/sloditycouncil/Inbox/Parking%2OLot.EN4U 1_multipart_x... 5/5/2008
Page 1 of 1
From: betty pierce rboierce6381@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sun 5/4/2008 10:50 PM
To:
Cc..
Subject: FW: Mitchell Park paving
Attachments:
---Original Message--7-
From: betty pierce [mailto:bpierce6381@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 6:31 PM
To: 'dromero@slocity.org'
Subject: Mitchell Park paving
To respected members of the city council:
I have had the pleasure for the past three or four years to frequent the Senior Center at Mitchell Park and have found
a warm reception not often offered in other groups. I brought my Mother, Irene Dickson,from Missouri to live with me
about 4 years ago. At 90 plus years of age she was having a hard time adjusting and missed her friends at home. I
started taking her to the Senior Center and it was a Godsend! They welcomed her and she made friends quickly.
The hardest part of getting her there was trying to park. I had major foot surgery and could not walk too far. Mother
used either a walker or a wheelchair. The people at the center made-do the best they could, sometimes cramming
four vehicles into the handicapped spaces instead of the three as marked.
A good number of folks who use the center do come from that end of town and sometimes or usually walk. They
would have a difficult time getting to another location
I was at the Center at least three or four times a week. In that time I never once saw the area which is the subject of
controversy in use by anyone. No one ever played horseshoes or even used the picnic tables. It makes me sad that
folks who don't really know what the parking situation is for seniors would cry foul about using a space that is virtually
unused. I hope that you continue to be on the side of the Seniors and allow them a few extra spaces.
Sincerely
Betty J. Pierce
219 Albert Drive
San Luis Obispo
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchanL-- ' '20Mitchell%20Park%o20paving.EML?... 5/5/2008
VOICES
s and commentary from the Central Coast and beyond
TUESDAY , MARCH 2.5 , 2oo8 THE TRIBUNE B5
0
LETTERS TO 'THE .EDITOR ON PORTABLE BASKETBALL Hoops
Let the kids play decided to attack those dan--
®egarding"SIA basketball r �' gerous basketball hoops!
Rhoop policy isn't a fla I wonder how many people
grant foul" (March 20): have been injured or killed
Every swing in a public park, ' - bya basketball hoop in San
'
every tree planted in a public r, F Ws Obispo.It's too bad that
sidewalk,every step into City N; the city can spend tax dollars
�,. chasing hoops while ignoring
Hall is a potential source for ,^• r,tt - relevant complaints.
liability.Neighborhood bas I would like to know why
ketball hoops do not signifi- � F Mr.Hampian and.Mr.Lowell
cantly increase a city's over- > ryt. refused to address com-
all liability. plaints about the numerous
Not every parent is physi- and growing numbers of peo-
calls capable of moving a
ple living in RVs and cars
portable hoop for a child.Not 1 down in the south end of
every home is configured to town—a flagrant violation of
allow easy movement from the city's property develop-
storage to play.Taking a few ment standards,which state
seconds to"step around"so that no recreational vehicle,
kids can play is the smallest camper shell,automobile or
of sacrifices. been used by kids in our similar device shall be used
for living or sleeping quar-
Iiability and inconvenience neighborhood to get some tem except in a lawfully oper-
versus children,that is the is- exercise.It hasn't been in the cited mobile homepark.
sue.E-mail the council at way,no one has complained
slocitycouncil@slocityorg to to me,neverlhas anyone If this problem were in the
put the issue on the Novem- been injured;just joyous north end of city or in city of-
ber ballot.Ies the fair thing to sounds of kids and parents ent would let their kids go to ficials'neighborhoods,I won-
do. having fun. the park alone and they can't der if it would be ignored.
Lance Hillsinger With childhood obesity always go with them. The south end of the city is
rates in the United States This is just another dis- a family area and deserves
San Luis Obispo
i reaching 60 percent and'tk,e,,� turbing sign,along with the the same respect and atten-
realization that 70 percent of example of Sunny Acres,that tion given to the deep pock-
Forgetting citizens obese adolescents become San Luis Obispo city and ets and the downtown busi-
Over the last two years, obese adults,one would'', county care more about ap- nesses.Families are the peo-
our city has been ridding it think that disconnecting pearances than citizens. ple who give a city its heart
self of a public eyesore,the from video games to go out run Blair . Mc Hampian,show us that
dreaded basketball hoop.Re- and shoot some hoops would San Luis Obispo you are just as concerned
cently,I got a final notice on be something our city would about the families of this city
the hoop by my house that encourage.Yes,we have a as you are about the city's
stated it was in violation of a park a half-mile away,but Families have needs wealthy and connected.
city code. with the issues in our parks How nice it to see the 1Vlichelle Tasseff
For 10 years this hoop has and resfrooms,no smart par- city of San Luis Obispo has San Luis Obispo
m
u,
� O
° � n
9
Z �_ S m m
Z O
VI np = zoo
m C� OZ
Z a� O,DZ m
.w ZZ S D mnom
m0 m 2DA X
m CO iz mo =*z
a� m� mo m mlog
m mo NZ m N
x
0
N �
O mm<
+ cam
O � avo
O O Q�nm
N L <�N
-mi= 0 No
00 — — — — 7-1-
# O ! I r
uci � 1 m
Z
mn N
Am
7
IL �v
SANTA ROSA STREET
ohm Al
I '
zw;g
<DO
n
m0N_ 11 /
y m %D,
A m
L
m
Page 1 of 1
Hooper, Audrey
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:28 PM
To: David, James; Council ALL; Hooper;Audrey; Kiser, Betsy; Lynch, Barbara; Murry, Kim; Stanwyck,
Shelly
Cc: Mandeville, John; Davidson, Doug; Lowell, Jonathan P; Dietrick, Christine; Stanwyck, Shelly; Elke,
Brigitte; Ehrbar, Barbara
Subject: RE: Updated site plan
Reminder to all: While the diagram will be helpful, the matter coming before the Council in
March is a policy matter: Should the Master Plan be amended to allow a parking lot in this
location? The final design issues will be addressed if the answer to this question is "yes,"
when the design goes to Council in April (after review by ARC).
James, please forward the emails and letters to Barbara Ehrbar, who will review them to
assure that we are not passing on redundant emails. They are coming from.many directions,
and we need to try and manage the communication as best we can to avoid confusion. Thank
you.
From: David, James
Sent:Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:22 PM
To: Council_ALL; David,James; Hampian, Ken; Hooper,Audrey; Kiser, Betsy;Lynch, Barbara; Murry, Kim;
Stanwyck, Shelly
Subject: Updated site plan
Greetings,
Please find the latest site plan submitted by Public Works attached to this email. I will also be forwarding
a flurry of emals that I have received regarding the proposed parking lot.
Sincerely,
James David
Planning Technician
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781-7576
idavidQslocity_.org
2/5/2008
Suzanne Heitzman
1255 Vista del Lago
San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
D T 805 549-8159
RECE�08
Qsuz tine.heitzman@gmait.com
5�G� COUNCIL
January 31,2008
City Council
Architectural Commission
San Luis Obispo City
990 Paint Street
Satz Luis Obispo,CA 934101
Dear Distinguished City Council and Architectural Review Commission Members:
Mitchell Park should be preserved as a park in its entirety. It should not be parceled
up for parking. It is heavily used by children and their families,and the general
population.That is an appropriate use for that park,and what was intended.
A country that has an epidemic of obesity and diabetes in children and adults needs
all Lite physical activity it can get,noL less. It has been predicted that the current
generation of children will have a shorter lifespan than their parents, for the first time
in his tory.The social polity that would.permit taking resources and space from
children for exercise and play and redirecting them to seniors citizens for parking is
probably the basis for a thesis.
And it wouldn't resolve the parking problem anyway.
Susan to Ilcitzman 444r��
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
30 January 2008
1591 Slack, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405-1963 (dperellona,calpolv.edu)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I assume you will get some cat calls for spending the money on a Prevent Mardi Gras
program. I believe it was a good idea and just plain good insurance;the cost of the party
that got out of hand was something that should happen in our community(or at Cal Poly).
I am glad nothing has happened so far.
4 February 2008
I read Jan Marx's letter about the proposed parking at Mitchell Park. It made sense to me
but I waited until I could drive by Mitchell Park and see foi-myself.Parking on all four
streets surrounding the park were crammed; I didn't see a space,but it sure looks like
Slack Street when Poly is in session. You build a parking space and they will come! It is
a never-ending dilemma. I surely join Jan on this one.Us oldsters need a bit of walling
exercise anyway!
Dominic Perello
- Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Sue Preheim [spreheim@hotmail.com] Sent: Wed 1/30/2008 7:07 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
I am writing to urge you to stop the city's plans to pave over portions of Mitchell Park. I strongly oppose this
idea. Our family lives near the Park and use it almost daily. Although it is not a large park, it is probably one of
the most used parks in the city.
While I understand the perceived need for additional parking at the Senior Center I do not believe this is the
solution.
Please protect our park.
Thank you,
Sue Preheim
httl)s://mail.slocitv.orp/exchange/slocitycounciUlnbox/Mitchell%20Park-3.EML?Cmd=oven 1/31/2008
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Deborah Van Til[dlv@charter.net] Sent: Tue 1/29/2008 2:30 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
I was shocked to read in The Tribune this morning that Mitchell Park might be
compromised. To remove any part of this beautiful park to pave it over for a
parking lot would be a crime.
It is such a beautiful gateway to our town. ilkrkr� /IC�
fs y h�lse
Save Mitchell Park. A411 m
` Ayi v-l-
k'wes 4�9!M
Deborah Van Til
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciYInbox/Mitchell%2OPark-2.EML?Cmd=open 1/30/2008
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: CAMTMOM@aol.com [CAMTMOM@aol.com] Sent: Tue 1/29/2008 9:47 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
I hope you will listen to the many SLO folks who do not want you to use any part of Mitchell Park for parking.
This park services so many special needs in the downtown SLO city area it would be shame to us it for parking
autos. Please vote NO on this issue. Thanks for your time.
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
httt)s://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Mitchell%2OPark.EML?Cmd=open 1/29/2008
Page 1 of 1
�j
Council,SloCity
From: Alababs2@cs.com [Alababs2@cs.com] Sent: Tue 1/29/2008 9:34 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Save Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Honorable Members of the City Council:
The three letters in the Trib today (January 29) express my thoughts far more
eloquently and intelligently than I could. Please, find another solution and
spare this little jewel.
We are senior citizens and use the center on a weekly basis. We often walk
almost a block from our car to the center and watch our friends happily doing
same—without complaint. The last I heard, exercise is good for you, and there is
designated parking in front for the disabled.
Thank you for listening to my voice.
Barbara Frank
2725 Augusta Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
544-7930
What we once enjoyed and deeply loved we can never lose, for all that we love
deeply becomes a part of us. </HTML>
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncit/Inbox/Save%20N itchell%20Park.ENIL?C... 1/29/2008
Mitchell Park Pagel of 2
Hooper, Audrey
From: Stanwyck Shelly
Sent: Monday,April 23,2007 4:11 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Hooper,Audrey
Subject: RE: Mitchell Park
Thank you for your letter of input on this issue. It has been forwarded to all of the members of
the City Council for their files. By this email I am copy our City Clerk so that you will be notified
of upcoming meetings on this topic.
Although a majority of the Council, at its April 10th meeting, expressed a desire to complete a
parking lot at Mitchell Park adjacent to the Senior Center, there will be public meetings on this
topic prior to actual construction where your concerns can be expressed.
From: Council, SloOty
Sent: Monday,April 16, 2007 7:59 AM
To: Stanwyck, Shelly
Subject: FW: Mitchell Park
From: chris mcbride [mailto:chrispmcb@yahoo.com]
Sent: Fri 4/13/200710:03 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Mitchell Park
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As long time residents on Santa Rosa Street,we are
writing to express our opposition to the consideration
of placing a parking lot in Mitchell Park.While we
understand that seniors using the adjacent Senior
Center may prefer to have parking nearby,we oppose
paving any part of a wonderful,well-loved and
well-used city park.
If you haven't been at the park for awhile,we would
suggest that you spend several hours there-almost
anytime of the day you will find a wide variety of
people spending time at the park,including people
playing in the horseshoe area and using the picnic
area that is proposed to be paved over.
We would suggest that you consider other alternatives
to parking for seniors-is there a possibility of
adding several handicap parking spots along the
street?Could these spots be somewhat hike a
2/5/2008
Mitchell Park Page Z of 2
commercial loading zone and only m affect during the
weekday,daytime hours that seniors generally use the
center?Are there any alternatives to working with
Ride On to provide poration or shuttles from the
railroad area parking lot?
Again,please consider other alternatives.Once you
pave a portion of the park,there is no going back.It
is just the tip of the iceberg to begin paving parks
and open space.
lbank you,
Chris and Sterling McBride
1633 Santa Rosa
San Luis Obispo
805-440-5351
2/5/2008
Page 1 of 1
U u
Hooper, Audrey
From: Ehrbar, Barbara
Sent: Monday, February 04,2008 9:54 AM
To: Hampian, Ken; Hooper,Audrey; Kiser, Betsy; Mandeville, John; Davidson, Doug; Council ALL;
Lowell, Jonathan P; Stanwyck, Shelly; David, James; Walter, Jay; Lynch, Barbara
Cc: Cano, Elaina; O'Connor, Julie; Richardson, April; Craig, Karen; Betz, Ryan
Subject: RE: Mitchell Park
There seems to be some confusion on how to send emails to the"Mitchell Park Staff Group"list in the
Organizationwide Contacts section of Outlook. The easiest way is to right click on the title and you will
see a drop down box that includes a"New Message to Contact". Click on that selection and you should
be ready to send an email to the group. The other way is to double click on the group and then select
"New Message to Contact"from the Actions drop down menu. Hope this clears up the confusion on
how to get emails to everyone in the contact list
If you're still experiencing problems,give me a call at X 114.
The email group for this project is located in the Public Folders under"Organizationwide Contacts"and
is called the Mitchell Park Staff Group.
Those included in the group are Barbara Lynch,Betsy Kiser,Kim Murry,James David,Audrey Hooper,
Ken Hampian, Shelly Stanwyck,and Council Members.
Please let me know if anyone else should be included in the group.
2/512008
C -
Page I of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Kevin Walsh (kevin.mce.waish@gmail.com) Sent Wed 3/19/2008 6:37 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject Save(don't pave)Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members,
Mitchell Park Is a beautiful place to meditate, play,and enjoy that must be preserved for future generations.
We urge that you recommend against the modification of the Mitchell Park Master Plan. It would be a mistake to use park land for
parking instead of a garden as is currently listed in the Master Plan.
Thank you so much for seeking alternatives to the paving proposition that is being considered at the Mitchell Park Senior Center.
Thank you for keeping an open mind and a long view while performing in your elected positions.
Enjoy yor day,
Kevin Walsh
https:Hmail.slocity.orglexchange/slocitycounci l/Inbox/Save%20(don%27t%20pave)%20M... 3/20/2008
�1 Page 1 of 1
Ehrbar, Barbara
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Council—ALL; David,James; Dietrick, Christine; Hampian, Ken; Hooper,Audrey; Kiser, Betsy;
Lowell,Jonathan P; Lynch, Barbara; Murry, Kim; Stanwyck, Shelly
Cc: Ehrbar, Barbara
Subject: FW: Save Mitchell Park
FYI.
From: Ginintz@aol.com [mailto:Glnintz@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:57 AM
To: Kiser, Betsy
Cc: Hampian, Ken; Romero, Dave; Settle, Allen; Carter, Andrew; Mulholland, Christine; Brown, Paul
Subject:Save Mitchell Park
City Parks& Recreation Commission:
You are urged to help protect Mitchell park.
We are very frustrated that so much time, expense and energy is being wasted on an attempted parking project
that disrespects the Mitchell Park Master Plan and the General Plan which took many hours and many citizens
to create!
Please do not participate in the conversion of a much beloved neighborhood park to a paved lot!
Respectfully,
Gini and Robert Griffin
1436 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
543-3346
It's Tax Time!Get tips,.forms and adv ic.e.on A_O..L Money.&.Finance.
3/18/2008
�l Page I of I
Settle,Allen
From: tlindaman@charter.net[tlindaman@charter.netl Sent: Wed 3/5/200810:11 AM
To: litchie@gmail.com
Cc: Kiser, Betsy; khampion@siocity.org; Romero, Dave;Settle,Allen;Carter,Andrew; Mulholland,Christine; Brown,
Paul
Subject: MITCHELL PARK MASTER PLAN
Attachments:
Ms. Jill Leimieux
Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission
Dear Ms. Leimieux,
We are happy to hear that the Parks and Recreation Commission is going to revisit and reconsider its approval
of a parking lot in Mitchell Park.
We understand how much the members of the Senior Citizen Center desire this parking lot. Some of the long-
time members have seen request after request submitted and then denied. This latest proposal seemed as
though it would be approved, and some members reveled In the thought that there would be a parking lot in
their lifetime.
However, as the Parks and Recreation Commission is aware, a parking lot in Mitchell Park is not a sound idea.
The reasons are numerous and have been well-stated elsewhere.
When the Parks and Recreation Commission studied the need for parking at the Senior Citizen Center in the
past, it proposed changes In parking around Mitchell Park as an alternative solution. Although the changes did
not totally meet the needs of the Center, seeking alternatives to the parking lot was responsible and far-
sighted.
Think of Mitchell Parkas the.heart of a pedestrian friendly.community. Phil Dirkx reported on some interesting
ideas being proposed by Dan Burden to make Paso Robles more walkable, stating "Cities built for pedestrians
succeed, and cities built for vehicles fail." (The Tribune, February 22, 2008) San Luis Obispo would do well to
study some of his suggestions.
You are charged with caring for our parks. Insisting that the city find a better solution for the needs of the
Senior Citizen Center than paving parkland is your job. Thank you for doing it.
Craig and Trudy Lindaman
https:Hmail.sloci ty.org/exchange/asettle/In box/MITCHELL%20PA RK%20MASTER%20P... 3/6/2008
�. Page l of l
Council, SloCity
From: Christine Dewart[cdewart@gmail.coml Sent: Wed 3/19/2008 4:39 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Ce:
Subject: Save Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Dear Mayor Romero&City Council Members
Mitchell Park is an historic resource(the City of San Luis Obispo's Cultural Heritage Committee voted 7.0 against the parking lot)
that must be preserved for future generations.
We urge that you recommend against the modification of the Mitchell Park Master Plan. It would be a mistake to use park land for
parking instead of a garden as is currently listed In the Master Plan.
Thank you so much for seeking alternatives to the paving proposition that is being considered at the Mitchell Park Senior Center.
We consider it intrusive:The parking lot is larger than the building and Introduces unpleasant elements of asphalt,cars, noise,and
additional lighting in the green space.A trash container the size of a car is undesirable next to the main sidewalk into the park.That
planned large BBQ area under the redwood trees takes another big bite out of the green space and would create a hangout that
would not be easy to see from the street.The vision we prefer contains the activity area,with the BBQ in the currently underutilized
horseshoe pit area behind the building,trash located conveniently nearby,surrounded by the community garden.
We consider it unintended:The land for this park was never meant for parking.This proposal is also in conflict with the Master Plan,
which came about through much discussion over many years and favors a community sense of place.
We consider it inadequate: With a stated membership of over 300 and the huge baby-boomer population about to impact all senior
services,what is really needed is a new location,a new facility,and extensive parking for those who insist upon driving Instead of
using an alternative means of transportation.
We consider it dangerous: You can imagine the traffic congestion since the proposed exit is adjacent to a children's playground and
a city bus stop. Bicycle loading would block the driveway,delaying exit(by designated users)which then creates further hazard at
this busy intersection.The entrance on Buchon is equally problematic on this busy street.
The plan is to destroy trees and grass areas for a parking lot.We're one of only 152 Tree Cities In the state of California
(ham/lwww•arborday olg/o�CQgrams/t[eeCUSA/map tfID).Twenty-four years ago,we were the 23rd city chosen.The demands of
a few should not outweigh the needs of the many.Let's save the park for future generations.There have been many family picnics
and weddings at this park—paving down on one our city's simple treasures would be tragic. Even the students at Cal Poly rely on the
space Mitchell Park provides during SLO-bound--one of the many fun adventures Cal Poly WOW leaders take their incoming
freshman/students on.
Once again,thank you for keeping an open mind and a long view while performing in your elected positions.
Regards,
Christine Dewart
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciV[nbox/Save%20Mitchell%2OPark-3.EML?... 3/20/2008
Page I of I
Council,SloCity
From: curtygir12004@hotmaii.com on behalf of Lauren Z Sent: Wed 3/19/2008.3AS PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Save Mitchell Park
Attachments.
To whom it may concern:
My name is Lauren Zahner and I am a resident of San Luis Obispo at 1630 Fairview St, San Luis Obispo, CA
93401. I use Mitchell Park as a place to study, picnic, read, play frisbee with friends or just sit in the grass.
Follow the link below to see how others use Mitchell Park:
hitt djgllal oumalism.orgLWgbsites/W08/zahner/footprint.httm_I
Please preserve this beautiful space for future generations of San Luis Obispo residents.
Sincerely,
Lauren Zahner
Do more with your photos with Windows Live Photo Gallery.
http;/Lwww.windowslive_comLhare_html?ocid=TXT TAGLM Wave2�hot9s Q22008
https://mail.sloci ty.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Save%20Mitchell%20Park-2.EML?... 3/20/2008
C Page 1 of 1
Coundl,SloCity
From: ULRICH1614@aol.com[ULRICH1614@aol.com] Sera: Sun 2/24/200811:22 AM
To: Council,SloClty; Kiser, Betsy; KHampion@slocity.org;slamb@calpoly.edu;megibson@charter.net
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park Parking Lot
Attachments:
1144 Buchon Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
February 23, 2008
San Luis Obispo City Council
Paul Brown
Chrisatine Mulholland
Alan Settle
Andrew Carter
Dave Romero
Honorable Members:
We would like to express our opposition to the proposed conversion of part of Mitchell Park into a parking lot
As residents living within half a block of the site, we fully understand the problems generated by parking.
Several unsatisfactory solutions have been proposed to deal with this problem in the past. The problem lies not
with the Seniors' use of the center or the parking needs of the many local residents who do not have driveways
(in our block,only two houses have driveways). The problem is created by the use of neighborhood streets for
daytime parking by those employed nearby in the downtown area. Many of these are County employees who
commute from elsewhere.
A short term solution has been proposed that would encourage Seniors to take advantage of our excellent
public transportation system. However,the best long-term solution is to relocate and construct a larger facility
designed specifically for Senior use in a more accessible and suitable area. The Center's present location at
the intersection of two busy thoroughfares and the competition for daytime parking makes this difficult on
Seniors and residents alike. The relocation would require some spending, but it is time to"bite the bullet"and
face meeting the future needs of our Seniors rather than making awkward attempts at finding patchwork
solutions.
We oppose the violation of the General Plan entailed by the creation of a parking lot in Mitchell Park. Hours
of careful thought by our Planning staff and input by the public were intended to produce a long-term model.
This was not simply a requirement to be satisfied and then amended beyond recognition in response to the
request of a few individuals. The band concerts and social gatherings in the park have made it a focal point in
our neighborhood. Let's get creative and use the expertise of our great Planning staff to find a long-term
solution to this problem that will not make matters worse.
Sincerely,
Robert Hoover. PhD.
..............
Ideas to please picky eaters.Watch video on AOL Living.
(htip:/Aiving.aol.comtvideolhow-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachet-Campos-dufy/2050827?NCID=aoic p00300000002598)
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Mitchell%20Park%20Parki ng%20L... 2/25/2008
Page l of 1
Ehrbar, Barbara
From: Kiser, Betsy
Sent: Monday, February 25,2008 3:17 PM
To: Ehrbar, Barbara
Subject: FW: Proposed Parking Lot at Mitchell Park
Betsy Kiser
Parks and Recreation Director
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805.781.7294
bkiser®sl.Qci .or
Creating Community Through People, Parks and Programs
From: Linda Battles [mailto:broncobetty1950@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 12:06 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Kiser, Betsy; Hampian, Ken
Subject: Proposed Parking Lot at Mitchell Park
To: Paul Brown,Christine Mulholland, Alan Settle,Andrew Carter,Dave Romero
We were very concerned to learn about the proposal to change Mitchell Park by adding a 17 space
parking lot which would greatly reduce the size and usability of this popular, much-used park. We
wonder how this fits in with the Master Plan for the park.
It is our understanding that an ARC meeting is scheduled for March 4th. We feel the public should be
made aware prior to the March 4th meeting of potential tree removal and the actual footprint and impact
of this proposed parking lot.
Is this proposal really in the public's best interest?
Kathi and Ralph Battles
1700 De Anza Ct
San Luis Obispo CA 93405
2/26/2008
Page 1 of 1
Ehrbar, Barbara
From: Kiser, Betsy
Sent: Monday, February 25,2008 3:20 PM
To: Ehrbar, Barbara
Subject: FW: SLO Progress
Betsy Kiser
Parks and Recreation Director
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.7294
bkiser�kslocity. rg
Creating Community Through People, Parks and Programs
From: Antoine McGrath [mailto:antoine.mcgtath@gmail.com]
Sent, Monday, February 25, 2008 1:14 AM
To: Kiser, Betsy
Subject: SLO Progress
Betsy Kiser,
I am writing in regards to the development of San Luis Obispo.Specifically the creation of a parking lot on park land.
I would greatly appreciate being able to park in a designated location downtown.Currently there is no available spots during
events such as farmers market. t am forced to entrust my transportation with complete strangers as there are no available
parking locations for my bicycle.
The city should be paying the bicycle valet employees as they provide a valuable.solution to the lack of bicycle racks
downtown.
Bicyclists have no hazardous emissions and are less likely to kill pedestrians than automobiles.Bicycling should be
encouraged by the city.A greater bicycling population would help elevate increasing traffic problems,and the lack of
automobile parking spots.The source behind these two problcros are too many vehicles in downtown,the solution is not
expanding roads or parking to accommodate a problem that will continue to persist,but rather providing relief by addressing
the root problem;to many people are driving downtown.Encouraging alternative forms of transportation is the only way to
provide more space for greater numbers of people.
I would like to see my city be effective at addressing a problem rather than continuously addressing symptoms in vain.
Do not increasing parking locations,especially not on park land.
Do provide more bicycle lanes,bicycle parking,and adjust the metal sensitivity of light sensors at intersections(most
currently do not register bicyclists).
Please respond with your suggestions for improving our downtown.
Sincerely,
Antoine McGrath
(SLO county registered voter and permanent resident)
2/26/2008
Page 1 of 1
Ehrbar, Barbara
From: Kiser, Betsy
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 3:31 PM
To: Ehrbar,Barbara
Subject: FW: Save Mitchell Park
Betsy Kiser
Parks and Recreation Director
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.7294
bkiser@slocitv.orci
Creating Community Through People, Parks and Programs
From: Rachel Gellman [mailto:rachel.gellman7@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday;February 25, 2008 11:42 AM
To: khampian@clocity.org
Cc: Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy; Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave; cmulhol@slocity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: Save Mitchell Park
Good Moming Counsel Members,
I am a SLO resident and I am against the paving of Mitchell Park. The park should be safeguarded for
the next generation. 20 parking spots, in my opinion, does not warrant the eradication of a community
garden and one of the oldest trees in the county.
I would like to request a personal response to this e-mail and I would like to know what the plan of
action to date is on the park.
Thank you for your time.
-Rachel Gellman
2/26/2008
Page I of 1
Ehrbar, Barbara
From: Kiser, Betsy
Sent: Tuesday, February 26,200810:31 AM
To: Ehrbar, Barbara
Subject: FW: SAVE MITCHELL PARK
fyi
Betsy Kiser
Parks and Recreation Director
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.7294
bkiserslocity.org
Creating Community.Through People, Parks and Programs
From:Jeffrey Power[mailto:power.jeffrey@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 5:32 PM
To: Kiser, Betsy
Subject: SAVE MITCHELL PARK
Dear Betsy Kiser,
Hi my name is Jeffrey Power and I am a resident of San Luis Obispo. Do not pave the park land. This
land is extremely valuable to the city and me. It was a huge pan of WOW week for me and is a
beautiful spot to sit out,relax, and enjoy the day. To pave over this land would be an injustice. Save
Mitchell Park. I'd love to hear a response from you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Power
power.jeffrey4@gmail.com
2/26/2008
�l Page 1 of 1
�-
Ehrbar, Barbara
From: Kiser, Betsy
Sent: Tuesday, February 26,2008 2:12 PM
To: Ehrbar, Barbara
Subject: FW:Mitchell Park Parking Lot
another one
Betsy Kiser
Parks and Recreation Director
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.7294
bkiser ftlogity.org
Creating Community Through People, Parks and Programs
From: Danielle Castle [mailto:c(ligirl@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:42 PM
To: Kiser, Betsy
Subject: Mitchell Park Parking Lot
Dear Betsy Kiser,
I am writing in regards to the parking lot proposal in Mitchell Park. As far as community development
and health are concerned,I believe taking out a children's park to make space for parked vehicles is
tragic. The upkeep and health of our neighborhood heavily relies on our city planners, and open space
for people to take time with their friends and families promotes social bonding and more time spent
outdoors.There are plenty of parking places downtown for vehicles, and if parking lots are built, then it
encourages more people to drive. We should not be promoting more driving in this town because the
traffic has noticeably increased in the past five years. We ought to be encouraging walking and cycling
to park areas to increase the physical, environmental, and mental well being of our communities. As a
local representative, we are counting on you to promote the health of our public spaces in San Luis
Obispo.Thank you for your time!
Sincerely,
Danielle Castle
2/26/2008
Page 1 of 1
Ehrbar, Barbara
From: Kiser, Betsy
Sent: Tuesday,March 11,2008 4:20 PM
To: Ehrbar, Barbara
Subject: FW: Mitchell Park
fyi
Betsy Kiser
Parks and Recreation Director
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.7294
bkiserQslocityorg
Creating Community Through People, Parks and Programs
From: kayrathe@gmail.com [mailto:kayrathe@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kaitlin Rathe
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:44 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy; Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave; cmulho@slocity.org;
Settle, Allen
Subject: Mitchell Park
Hello,
I am a Mitchell Park neighbor on Pismo Street, and I have heard news of a potential parking lot being
constructed there. The best way I could think to have any influence over the decision was to email you
and express my deepest concerns for the area.
I love that park and watching the hundreds of people who use it daily. The greatest part about it to me is
that a group of friends can play a game of frisbee in the park's wide open space at the same time as the
families enjoying their picnics and other groups doing their own activities. Should the park be cut down
to a smaller size, the same amount of open lawn would not be available for multple activities at once,
and the park would lose so much of its value to the community. It seems to me that the city would like
to promote healthy outdoor activities like frisbee or games of catch or reading in the grass because the
college community here has had its share of bad reputations. Without big available spaces to do these
activities like Mitchell Park is now,I fear the college community will resort to finding other ways to
spend their afternoons indoors and not only lose touch with the community more and more, but
potentially provide more alcohol-related disturbances.
It would be a shame to put another huge eyesore of a parking lot among San Luis Obispo's historical
downtown area, especially in a spot that ALWAYS has parking open within one block of the senior
center, and I hope that the community voices will be heard in the matter.
Thank you,
Kay Rathe
3/11/2008
Page 1 of 1
Council,WoCity
From: Justin Paulson[jay—pak2003@yahoo.com] Sent: Sun 3/16/2008 11:19 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Dear City Council,
I am a second year physics major at Cal Poly; I am active In WOW, a drum major of the Cal Poly Mustang Marching Band,and
citizen of San Luis Obispo. I am disturbed to hear that there is a plan in place to pave over part of Mitchell Park In order to create
more parking spaces. One of the major reasons that I chose to attend college San Luis Obispo was the stunning natural beauty
here on the central coast. I can't imagine what SLO would be like with out all of Its parks and preserved natural beauty. Surely the
answer to cramped parking doesn't have to be the leveling and paving open leisure space?I'm sure Avila or Pismo would rather
owtlaw cars than pave over their parks and beaches,so lets preserve our natural gems with equal tenacity!!
Sincerely,
Justin Paulson
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncii/Inbox/Mitchell%2OPark-8.EML?Cmd_open 3/17/2008
RECEIVED
-
4AR 13 2008
SLO CITY COUNCIL.
.� •� le, 20ok
C ����•./ `fes.`.", .,�.a u ��4j
Page I of 1
Coundl,SloCity
From: JAMES SMITH [teresaslo@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thu 3/13/2008 1:13 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Dear Persons;
I urge you NOT to convert Mitchell Park.into a parking lot...a solution for all is for the Seniors to take an alternative form of
transportation or make the curb parking'disabled'.
I live and WALK in the downtown area for many reasons...one being over SSy/o myself I want to be able to ambulate from my car
(not my#1 choice of transportation)to point A to B,saves gas and auto congestion downtown BUT I have many times almost.been
hit by cars doing so!Which leads me to the need for more.traffic officers downtown,not spending$$$on parking lots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Teresa smith
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciUlnbox/Mitchel1%20Park.ENM?Cmd=open 3/17/2008
MAR-17-08 MON 05 :2,�PM BETTE�FRANK $9 9212 P_ 01
i ,'.!. �'i•.
March 17, 2008
l e:' 'M . •T•
To SLO City Council Members
It is not news that the senior Center is sorely in need . :;'
additional parking. They want some on-site parking:.;
On-site parking is consistent with other SLO parks'vyi#h
buildings. Meadow Park has a 17 space lot, Emerson';=:::-Y
Park has about 17 spaces also. Other parks not haavittg
buildings - Laguna, Sinsheimer, Santa Rosa acid Islay:-"N :?Y
all have parking within the site.
The . �. • . �, P :`:
seniors have needed and requested more a'_ Ing"..."
for years. Those that would argue that what they need':;
is a new center that could provide for parking are
clouding the issue. Certainly the seniors would 16-; ;vt
new building with modern facilities. But"it ain't gonna
happen." Funds do not, and are not likely to, exist in the ;'4S `K
near future for such a dream.
The time has come to act upon this
The project is in the two-year goals set by the City' the
money has been allocated. Let's just Do it! now.
Bette Kulp
2362 Meadow Streets
s"v
r F t✓
4•
'i (':'.Lie=•
MAR-17-00 MON 06 :3f 'M HETTE�FRANK . . . '1.92 f2 P. 01 .
March 17;2048
Dear SIA City Council Members:
Please approve the proposed on-site parking spaces for the Senior Cerit�r at .:
Mitchell Park. Senior citizens, of all people, need these nearby parking..'_;
Spots. Despite the naysayers who predict that this "foot-in-the-door,.action t)6._
will lead to the ultimate doom of Mitchell Park, it will do no such thing.''= ; y
Other small parks that have small on-site parking exist with no ground-sw11 .:• `_�:
of pressure to enlarge the parking. Please give our seniors a break!.
.•Ti.V
Yours truly,
• - !rL r.:: r;�';Vie.'.
Frank Little ` ;
2362 Meadow Street, SLO
{tiff.
f! .i
irVr�J-f 1 -77
v.
cQh
J
u O
}
cam. t-'14 - act(
1c� Cru n vA-VIOD �
�fp
Z-1 fT RECEIVED
MAR 18 2008
0 CITY COUNCIL.
San Luis ptil ppMadbury
CA 93401-8244
Page 1 of 1
Hooper, Audrey
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Council ALL; David, James; Dietrick, Christine; Hampian, Ken; Hooper,Audrey; Kiser, Betsy;
Lowell, Jonathan P; Lynch, Barbara; Murry, Kim; Stanwyck, Shelly
Cc: Ehrbar, Barbara
Subject: FW: Save Mitchell Park
FYI.
From: Giniritz@aol.com (mailto:Giniritz@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:57 AM
To: Kser, Betsy
Cc: Hampian, Ken; Romero, Dave; Settle,Allen; Carter,Andrew; Mulholland, Christine; Brown, Paul
Subject: Save Mihdhell Park
City Parks&Recreation Commission:
You are urged to help protect Mitchell park
We are very frustrated that so much time,expense and energy is being wasted on an attempted parking project
that disrespects the Mitchell Park Master Plan and the General Plan which took many hours and many citizens
to create!
Please do not participate in the conversion of a much beloved neighborhood park to a paved lot!
Respectfully,
Gini and Robert Griffin
1436 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
543-3346
Its Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
3/18/2008
Page 1 of I
Hooper;Audrey
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 200810:05 AM
To: Department Heads
Subject: FW: Parks&Rec Commission Action
Other than the 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. session (when we will have two special study sessions, one on
neighborhood police/code enforcement and the other an Economic Development Program
status report), staff should avoid Business or Public Hearing items on this date that are likely
to require more than a few minutes to deal with. If the Master Plan date changes, staff will be
alerted immediately so that we may "re-group'.
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:02 AM
To: Council ALL
Cc David,James; Dietrick, Christine; Hampian, Ken; Hooper, Audrey; Kiser, Betsy; Lowell,Jonathan P; Lynch,
Barbara; Murry, Kim; Stanwyck, Shelly
Subject: Parks&Rec Commission Action
FYI, at the request of several atizens, last night the Parks and Recreation Commission agreed
to place the Mitchell Park parking lot back on their agenda at their next meeting in early April,
when they will be joined by two new Commissioners. This will not alter the rest of the
schedule, and therefore we continue to plan for a May 0 Council meeting to address the
proposed Master Plan amendment. By May 6, the Council will have recommendations from
the ARC, CHC and Parks and Recreation Commission.
3/7/2008
1
J
Hampjan, Ken
From: Matt Ritter[mritter@calpoly.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 10:17 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Kiser, Betsy; Hampian, Ken
Subject: Mitchell Parking Lot Plans
Follow Up Flag:. Follow up
Flag Status: Green
Dear Paul Brown, Christine Mulholland, Alan Settle, Andrew Carter, and Dave Romero,
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed parking lot addition to Mitchell Park. I have
lived near the park, on Pacific Street, for the last seven years. I frequent Mitchell Park with my 3-
year-old daughter and 1-year-old son. I am disappointed with the proposed parking lot plans and
would like you to reconsider your decision to allow the construction of the parking lot. I am also a
botany professor at Cal Poly and have advised the city tree committee and city arborists on a number
of occasions and I am concerned about the removal and/or disturbance of the valuable trees in the
vicinity of the proposed parking lot. It seems likely that problems with parking at the senior center
have been exaggerated and bringing elderly drivers in close contact with areas where children are
playing is irresponsible and possibly dangerous.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, and I sincerely hope that you will re-visit
this issue.
Sincerely,
Matt Ritter
1352 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA.93401
Hampian, Ken
From: Jenn Yost Uennyost@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 9:59 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Kiser, Betsy; Hampian, Ken
Subject: Mitchell Park Plans
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Green
Dear Paul Brown, Christine Mulholland, Alan Settle, Andrew Carter, and Dave Romero,
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed parking lot addition to Mitchell Park. I have
lived blocks away from the park on Santa Barbara St. and Leff St. for the last six years. I frequent
Mitchell Park at least three times a week. I enjoy playing frisbee and bochi ball on the grass. I also
spend a significant amount of time in the playground area with my favorite 3 year old. I have seen
the proposed parking lot plans and I am very disappointed. I am asking that you reconsider your
decision regarding the use of the park. I think converting park space into parking space is, in
general, a bad plan for our city. I think your plan provides a short term and short sighted solution to
what is viewed as a lack of parking problem. I have never encountered a problem trying to find
parking around the park. I am assuming that the parking lot is designed to serve the seniors using
the senior center, but I think we should invest our resources into enhancing the Ride Share program
or, heaven forbid, make someone walk. If a person is incapable of walking two blocks to the park,
then that person is too old to be driving into a parking lot adjacent to a playground.
In addition, I am asking that you mark each tree that will be removed so that I can physically see
your proposed changes prior to the March
4 meeting of the ARC.
I also dislike the proposed BBQ area that will pave over a significant portion of grass.
In general, I am disappointed in your decision and hope that you reconsider the future of Mitchell
Park with the master plan for the park in mind. Why spend our valuable dollars on something that is
not necessarily a good thing for our community?
I look forward to your response.
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter,
Jenn Yost
1703 Santa Barbara St.
San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401
Richardson, April
From: tlindaman@charter.net
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 7:40 AM
To: Romero, Dave; Settle, Allen; Carter, Andrew; Brown, Paul; Mulholland, Christine
Cc: Kiser, Betsy; Hampian, Ken
Subject: Mitchell Park and Parking for the Senior Center
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Green
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
It is commendable that you are working to find a solution to the parking problem at
the Senior Center in Mitchell Park. As you know, the center is located in a densely
populated residential area with a shortage of off-street parking; and senior citizens
frequently have difficulty finding accessible parking. However, we urge you to look
beyond the planned parking lot. According to the currently proposed plan, a part of
beautiful Mitchell Park will be paved for a net gain of only about ten parking spaces.
'Clearly, ten spaces are not enough to meet current, let alone future, needs. It is time to
stop and reconsider.
Putting a _parking lot. in Mitchell Park is an idea that has been visited and rejected
several times in the past. It is an idea that should and probably will be rejected again.
The time and resources that city staff have spent on planning a parking lot should have
been spent looking for environmentally and aesthetically acceptable solutions to meet the
needs of the senior citizens as well as the citizens who enjoy the park.
Putting a parking lot in Mitchell Park would irrevocably change the character of the
park. It is especially irresponsible to do so when long range planning calls for a larger
senior center with plenty of parking to be built away from Mitchell Park. Instead of
paving part of the park, the city should be looking for temporary solutions to a temporary
problem.
Some suggestions to this end include having a trolley or other senior friendly shuttle
go between the parking garages and the Senior Center; reconsidering the suggestion of
moving the Senior Center to Ludwick Community Center with its existing parking; having
more one way streets and putting diagonal parking around the park; marking more of the
street parking as handicapped only; posting the existing parking "by permit only" and
issuing permits to the seniors. We are sure that our dedicated city staff could come up
with even more ideas. Please allow them to solve this problem in a manner that looks to
the future as well as to immediate needs. We can do this without "paving paradise. "
Please let us know what we can do to help you resolve this issue.
Sincerely,
Craig and Trudy Lindaman
1057 Buchon Street
439-0124
1
Page 1 of 1
Richardson, April
From: Jan Marx Danmarx@stanfordalumni.org]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 2:35 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Do Not Pave Over Part of Mitchell Park
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I am writing to urge you to abandon your proposal to pave over any part of Mitchell Park. When I was on City
Council, we rejected this idea as inconsistent with park purposes and historical uses. Instead, that Council
approved a Master Plan with a playground, a bandstand to replace the one built for Teddy Roosevelt's speech in
1903;and a garden behind the Senior Center. Today, both the playground and the bandstand are popular
community amenities. The garden should be developed next. That area should not be paved over.
Has there been an EIR for this project? Has there been a traffic study with alternatives to paving over part of the
park? Having worked hard on Measure Y, I find it especially objectionable that you are considering using
Measure Y funds for this ill-advised purpose.
Paving over the designated community garden area for reserved parking will not begin to solve the problem. Even
if the city asphalted the entire park, there would not be enough parking in that area. Smart growth transportation
solutions are better than sacrificing park land for parking.
If the Council believes that Seniors must park right next to a Senior Center, the City should build them a new
Senior Center with lots of parking, not damage Mitchell Park.
Thank you for considering my input on this vital issue.
Jan Howell Marx
265 Albert Drive,
San Luis Obispo CA 93405
2/19/2008
Page 1 of 1
L�
Richardson, April
From: Jeremy Grodkiewicz geremy.grodkiewicz@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 5:53 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy; Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave;
cmulhol@slocity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: Mitchell Park
Dear San Luis Obispo Political Leaders,
I am a San Luis Obispo resident who lives one block from beautiful Mitchell Park. I was very distraught
and slightly angered when I was informed of the proposed plans of paving over parts of the long
established and always used Mitchell Park. I frequent this park to read, relax, enjoy time with friends,
have picnics, watch other community members play games, and even sometimes to see musical
performances. I would be very disappointed and ashamed of the town of San Luis Obispo to remove a
part of this place to leave a slab of concrete. My disappointment lies within my own enjoyment of this
open space and also for future generations. I urge you all to reevaluate what is most important to the
current community members of San Luis Obispo with a focus on their children and future generations. I
know some of you were at the political round table during Focus the Nation at Cal Poly, many of you
declared your efforts and purposed plans to "green" San Luis Obispo and combat global warming, please
let this be an example of how you can shape the future greening of San Luis Obispo. I look forward to
receiving your thoughts and position on this topic through a personal response.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Grodkiewicz
2119/2008
Richardson, April
From: pbraiotta@charter.net
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 6:55 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy;Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave;
emulhol@slocity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: Mitchell Park Parking Lot
Dear Council Members:
I am a senior citizen residing in San Luis Obispo for many years. I adamantly oppose the
paving of Mitchell Park to creat a parking lot. This park is a beautiful green area for
all to enjoy right in our downtown and it should be preserved for my grandchildren and
future generations. Please build the seniors a new, larger center which they will need for
the growing numbers of baby boomers who will need a new large recreation center in the
near future and leave Mitchell Park the way it is.
Please respond to this email.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Braiotta
539 B Branch St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-541-9402
1
r
Richardson, April
From: Megan Martin [mlmartin@calpoly.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 7:10 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy;Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave;
cmulhol@slocity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: Mitchell Park
To the political leaders of San Luis Obispo,
It has recently come to my attention that there are proposed plans to turn part of
Mitchell Park into a paved parking lot. I want to express my extreme disappointment upon
hearing this, and I STRONGLY urge those of you who are supporters to reconsider. Mitchell
Park has been a large part of my experience in San Luis Obispo, and I can't imagine this
town without it. I live on Johnson and Pismo, so I frequently walk or bike to the park to
do my homework, have picnics with my friends, or listen to music.
Please consider the disappointment community members would feel at the loss of this park.
I hope San Luis will continue to prove its passion and dedication to remaining green and
retain that uniqueness it holds in California.
Sincerely,
Megan Martin
1
Page 1 of 1
Richardson, April
From: bktomasko@gmail.com on behalf of Brittany Tomasko [btomasko@calpoly.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 7:45 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy; Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave;
cmulhol@slocity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: Save Mitchell Park
Members of the City Counsel of San Luis Obispo,
As resident of San Luis Obispo I am writing to voice my concern with the proposed plans to convert the
community garden at Mitchell Park into a parking lot. Mitchell park is a special park to me. I live close
to downtown and often ride my bike to Gus' deli with a friend, pick up lunch and take it over to the park
for a picnic, followed by hours of playing frisbee. Additionally, as an avid Swing Dancer in the San Luis
Obispo community our club and community use the park to play "Lindy Games In the Park" for an event
we host every year attracting people from all over the state of California. We spend hours at the park
working on arial tricks and dancing in the gazebo. Mitchell park is a very special and unique block
located so close to downtown and I want-it see it remain as is, with the community garden, play ground,
bath house, gazebo and expanse of beautiful green lawn and trees for the community to enjoy. I am
against paving the park for a parking lot because I feel this park needs to be kept for generations to come
to enjoy.
A personal response would be nice with your feelings about the current proposition to pave part of the
park for a parking lot. Thank you for your time.
Smiles,
Brittany
Brittany Tomasko
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Administration Student
Natural Resources Management Department
Nutritional Science Student
Food Science and Nutrition Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
e-mail: btomasko@calnoly.edu
phone: (805) 305-0549
2/19/2008
Page 1 of 1
U
Richardson, April
From: Kiersten Anderson [chongo.lovah@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:07 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy; Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave;
cmulho@slocity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: Mitchell Park
I am writing this email requesting that, as a SLO city resident, I DO NOT want to see the parking of
park land at Mitchell Park. Mitchell needs to be safeguarded for the next generation.
I am looking forward to a personal response from you.
Thank you for your time and consideration in hearing a city resident's voice,
Kiersten Anderson
Pace..Frieden..Paz..Vrede..Mir..Sith..Paix..Maluhia..Heiwa..Fred..Sidi..Peace
2/19/2008
Richardson, April
From: Isaac Miller[isaacicap@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 11:56 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy; Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave;
cmulhol@slocity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: the destruction of my beloved mithell park
Hello,
I was very alarmed when i .recently heard that my favorite park in SLO is planned to be
turned into a parking lot. I dont know who would think that destroying such a beautiful
park would be a good idea but its not. I live just a few blocks away and frequent the park
regularly. In the summer mornings on my way to school i even eat my breakfast and drink my
morning coffee in the park. I dont know why anyone would want to destroy this beautiful
landmark.
Please dont. .
Sincerely
Isaac Miller
1
Hampian, Ken
From: David Braun [db2005wave@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:41 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Kiser, Betsy; Hampian, Ken
Subject: Mitchell Park Parking
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Green
Dear Members of the Council,
Please stop the efforts to add parking spaces in Mitchell Park. Parking spaces would neither enhance
the park nor the senior center. As the council charged with guiding the city thoughtfully into the
future based on the best interests of city residents, I urge you to pursue more forward looking public
policies. I'm certain you can develop wiser policies than demolishing park space enjoyed by all to
make way for a few parking spaces.
When I sit in the park enjoying a few minutes respite from the rest of the day, I like looking across
the field, or at the children playing, counting my blessings to live in SLO, where parks still exist for
people. If anything, we would benefit from more park space and fewer parking spaces.
Sincerely,
David Braun
459 N Tassajara Dr.
SLO, CA 93405
1
1 \
Hampian, Ken
From: passionB@earthlink.net
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:22 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Kiser, Betsy; Hampian, Ken
Subject: Pave Paradise
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Green
To all City Council Members,
I wish I could say that I am totally shocked by the initiative to force upon the city the destruction
of Mitchell Park and the addition of one more slab of asphalt as if this was show of some notion of
citizen concern and respect for the inherent beauty and charm of San Luis Obispo. However, in my
opinion, this lunacy inspired by myopia has more sinister undertones than mere thoughtless
disregard.
Mitchell Park is almost like SLO's Central Park. It is a green space where people go for peaceful
lunches away from their offices, where groups gather for more inspired meetings, where mothers
take their kids for a nice run close to shops, where friends play frisbee or pracftice Tai Chi, where
lovers hold hands and talk about matters of the heart. And, it is a gathering place for political and
social activism to manifest in song, concern, and sometimes protest.
To my mind, considering ALL of the beneficial functions Mitchell Park offers to the city each and
every day, I am not convinced that the concerns of a few seniors (who also, by the way, use the
park)in any way can be the overwhelming reason to ramrod the plan for a parking lot through for
approval. To my mind, it must have to do with money - pure and simple. Here I am not talking about
additional parking revenues for the city. Rather, I am talking about the money for the contractors,
the developers and the like to do the dirty deed.
And, in my mind, I think that this is a way for more reactionary council members to shut down a
gathering place for social and political activism.
Destroying Mitchell Park is like ripping out the heart and conscience of San Luis Obispo. It will
leave a hole in the community that no amount of pavement to patch it up will cure. Those behind
this initiative should take a k long and hard lookn at their intentions and see if they are REALLY for
the benefit of San Luis Obispo and the greater community or the self-interests of a few. Before they
make us all bleed in lamentation for one.of our more charming and beloved green spaces, they
should connect with their own hearts - and from that place, consider backing down.
And if they do not, then those of us who lament will become louder and more intent in our refusal
to allow this travesty to happen.
Respectfully Yours,
Robert Sachs
Hampian, Ken
From: tlindaman@charter.net
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 7:40 AM
To: Romero, Dave; Settle, Allen; Carter, Andrew; Brown, Paul; Mulholland, Christine
Cc: Kiser, Betsy; Hampian, Ken
Subject: Mitchell Park and Parking for the Senior Center
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Green
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
It is commendable that you are working to find a solution to the parking problem at the Senior
Center in Mitchell Park. As you know, the center is located in a densely populated residential area
with a shortage of off-street parking; and senior citizens frequently have difficulty finding accessible
parking. However, we urge you to look beyond the planned parking lot. According to the currently
proposed plan, a part of beautiful Mitchell Park will be paved for a net gain of only about ten parking
spaces. Clearly, ten spaces are not enough to meet current, let alone future, needs. It is time to stop
and reconsider.
Putting a parking lot in Mitchell Park is an idea that has been visited and rejected several times in
the past. It is an idea that should and probably will be rejected again. The time and resources that
city staff have spent on planning a parking lot should have been spent looking for environmentally
and aesthetically acceptable solutions to meet the needs of the senior citizens as well as the citizens
who enjoy the park.
Putting a parking lot in Mitchell Park would irrevocably change the character of the park. It is
especially irresponsible to do so when long range planning calls for a larger senior center with plenty
of parking to be built away from Mitchell Park. Instead of paving part of the park, the city should be
looking for temporary solutions to a temporary problem.
Some suggestions to this end include having a trolley or other senior friendly shuttle go between
the parking garages and the Senior Center; reconsidering the suggestion of moving the Senior Center
to Ludwick Community Center with. its existing parking; having more one way streets and putting
diagonal parking around the park; marking more of the street parking as handicapped only; posting
the existing parking "by permit only" and issuing permits to the seniors. We are sure that our
dedicated city staff could come up with even more ideas. Please allow them to solve this problem in a
manner that looks to the future as well as to immediate needs. We can do this without "paving
paradise."
Please let us know what we can do to help you resolve this issue.
Sincerely,
Craig and Trudy Lindaman
1057 Buchon Street
439-0124
i
. Page 1 of 1
� 1
Richardson, April
From: Peter Schwartz[pschwart@calpoly.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 3:26 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Kiser, Betsy; Hampian, Ken
Subject: saving Mitchell Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Green
My daughter and I visit Mitchell Park several times a week. It has become a central part of our lives
together. I am gravely concerned about the plans to put a parking lot in it. It is disappointing to see that
the council has acted in violation of the Master Plan for the city in moving ahead with the parking lot,
particularly when there has been no public forum to discuss whether this should be moved through the
various commissions. As a voting resident of SLO, I see this act as another step in subsidizing the
automobile at the expense of the community. I see it as a policy supported by someone I would prefer
not to have making decisions for my community.
Thank you
Pete
Peter Schwartz
Physics Department
805-756-1220
pschwart@calpoly.edu
2/19/2008
Richardson, April
From: amichaie@calpoly.edu
Sent Sunday, February 17,20081:33 PM
To: Hampian, Ken
Subject: ' Mitchell Park Construction
Hello, My name is Anthony Michaiel. I am a second year Electrical Engineering student at
cal poly. I must say, I am very disappointed to hear of the plan to potentially build a
parking lot over part of Mitchell park, as I am a regular visitor of the park. In fact, i
was just there yesterday playing bocce ball with my friend and his little sister who came
to visit him all the way from San Diego. You see the park represents a part of SLO, and
that is why even when we have visitors from out of town, we take them there to show them
the best of what we have. If we no longer have the same beauty of the park, it could
affect the image of the city itself, let alone the experiences for the youth of San Luis
Obispo. I understand that the senior center is short on parking spaces, and i am not
saying we shouldn't find a solution. I just don't think taking down part of the park is
the best solution. If there is anything you can do to hear my plead and try to represent
me and my friends, I would never forget it. Thank you, and good luck.
Sincerely,
Anthony
1
Page 1 of 1
Richardson, April
From: ponychiquita@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, February 17,2008 11:51 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy; Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave;
cmulhol@slocity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: Mitchell Park
To whom it may concern:
I am a city resident and am strongly against the paving of park land. Please save the park for future
generations.
Thanks,
Morgan McGinnis
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
2/19/2008
Page 1 of 1
C` C
Richardson, April
From: Maeve Blessing [maeveblessing@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17,2008 10:31 PM
To: Hampian, Ken
Subject: Mitchell Park
Dear City Council Member,
I am a San Luis Obispo city resident and I live down the street from Mitchell Park. I was very upset
when I found out that members of the City Counsel were trying to pave over part of Mitchell Park in
order to put a parking lot next to the Senior Center. I think that it is an outrage to put a parking lot in
place of any park land. I often walk to Mitchell park and sit and read under the trees and have picnics
with my friends. It is a relaxing and beautiful sanctuary that should not be destroyed because we need
more parking. We need to first promote alternative forms of transportation before we settle on a parking
lot, there is a bus stop in front of the Senior Center for a reason. I walk and ride the bus everyday, all of
us should be considering our environment and excessive driving should not be something that the city of
San Luis Obispo promotes. This park needs to be safeguarded for future generations. People of all ages
enjoy Mitchell Park, and it is worth much more then just a parking lot for a few. I would like to request
a personal response from you on this matter. Thank you for your time.
Maeve Blessing
SLO Community Member
2/19/2008
Page 1 of 1
C�
Richardson, April
From: Ara K [beardparty@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 6:10 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy; Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave;
cmulhol@slocity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: don't destroy mitchell park!
Hello, my name is Ara Kim and I am a resident of San Luis Obispo. I live on the corner of Santa Rosa
and Islay,just a block away from Mitchell Park. I heard that the park is going to be torn down to create a
parking lot for the senior center. I strongly disapprove of this. I go to the park all the time, I have picnics
there, I enjoy live shows there, I take naps there, I love the park. People are constantly using the park,
children are all over that playground. The park is a very important part of the community. The park is a
beautiful part of my neighborhood and I am very much against the idea of a parking lot on the park.
There is plenty of street parking around Mitchell Park. The street could even be made a white area so the
senior citizens can be dropped off. The bus stops right in front of the senior center. The seniors aren't
even in the senior center all day.
The city should be appreciating and protecting the community's parks. It's really terrible that national
parks are going into decline and community parks are being tom down. It's terrible for the future
generations that won't have recreational areas and nature to appreciate.
Please, PLEASE reconsider the parking lot and please don't tear down my park!
Sincerely, Ara Kim.
2/19/2008
Richardson, April
From: cdunbar@calpoly.edu
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 1:23 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy; Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave;
cmulhol@slocity.org;Settle, Allen
Subject: Mitchell Park
Hello,
I am a San Luis Obispo resident writing in regards to the proposal to pave over a section
of Mitchell park to make a parking lot for the senior center. While I am very supportive
of what a valuable resource the senior center is to our town, I am very concerned with
preserving the precious land of Mitchell park. Although I own a car, the majority of my
transportation comes from either my bike or the transit system. I know that not all people
are able to ride the bus, but I think many seniors are capable of that form of
transportation, which is also open to handicapped access. Other than during farmer's
market, parking in the downtown area has never been a problem for me, it is very easy to
park in a downtown structure and take the bus from the transit center. I have seen
firsthand the beneficial impact a new walking regime has had on my aging grandfather's
health. Humans were not made to have motorized transportation to every door we needed to
reach. City parks are are a section of our town that need special attention, as the
choices we make impact future generations permanently. I think it is very important that
the town of San Luis Obispo set a standard for protecting such precious public land,
especially with the possible closures of state parks in the county. I thank you for your
time; I know this is a hard decision to make, with many influencing factors on each side,
but please consider the preservation of parks for San Luis Obispo. They are on of the
factors that make this town so wonderful, not just another sprawling suburbia.
Christy Dunbar
916.337.3363
1
Page 1 of 1
Richardson, April
From: neeor42@gmail.com on behalf of Neil -Official [neil.bulger@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 1:01 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser; Betsy; Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave;
cmulhol@slocity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: Mitchell Park Vote NO
Dear City Counsel,
I am writing you to address the issue of putting a parking lot in mitchell park. As a member of this
community (1521 Osos St#3) 1 am greatly opposed to this parking lot. I live within a view of the park
and truly believe that paving any part of this park, big or small, would be a detriment. Mitchell park is
one of the few parks based in the downtown area and is already only one square block.
I am to understand the senior citizens center is arguing that they need parking for their members, but all
around the park on the streets there is free parking, unlike all the meters one block closer to down town.
And further; if they would like better access to their facility, they can take the bus with me. The#4,
drops off right there on the comer, less than 20 ft from their front door. They take all types and are nice
friendly people.
Further, paving more green open space is just continuing the traditional ways of societal growth. If we
are heading towards sustainable growth and affecting the way our globe and climate is changing, we
need to take steps, even small steps, on issues like this so we can take the larger steps down the line.
If the senior citizens need a new location or facility, maybe this is the issue and they should find an
existing building to move to, but taking a piece of the publics common space is such a terrifying thought
to me.
Please vote no.
Neil Bulger
Mechanical Engineering Student, Cal Poly
Empower Poly, Public Relations
Green Campus Program, Intern
Renewable Energy Club, President
707.363.3954
2/19/2008
Page 1 of 1
U '
Richardson, April
From: Chad Worth [chadnworth@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17,2008 12:53 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Ricci, Pam; Kiser, Betsy; Brown, Paul; Carter, Andrew; Romero, Dave;
cmulhol@slocity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: NO PARKING LOT IN MITCHELL PARK!
SLO City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to putting a parking lot in Mitchell Park. I
live on Buchon St. and can see the park from my front porch. Building parking lots
is not the solution for a more accessible senior citizen center. A new senior
citizen center is the solution.
Mitchell Park is one of the gems of San Luis Obispo's downtown area. Paving over
the already small park instead of a community garden is taking a step backward in
terms of promoting environmental stewardship, responsible planning, and long
term sustainability.
Please don't build a parking lot in Mitchell Park.
Respectfully,
Chad Worth
---------------------------------------------------
Chad Worth
Empower Poly Coalition, President
Focus the Nation, Co-Director
Hydrogen Energy Club, Vice President
Green Campus Intern
Industrial Engineering Student
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
925.595.5539
---------------------------------------------------
"Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one." — Malcolm
Forbes
2/19/2008
Page 1 of 2
Richardson, April
From: Mark Johnson [mark93401 @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 3:56 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Hampian, Ken; Kiser, Betsy
Subject: Please SAVE Mithcell Park...say"No"to Paving!
Dear SLO City Council Members,
My name is Mark Johnson and I live at 1208 Pismo Street.
I have lived less than 350 yards from Mitchell Park for the last 17 years. My children, now in college,
spent countless hours enjoying Mitchell Park.
We all realize that you are extremely busy serving our wonderful community so please permit me to
efficiently list a few important bullet points addressing why paving Mitchell Park is an extremely bad
idea:
.0 San Luis Obispo has only a very tiny amount of city-owned flat, green, grassy parkland. Every
square foot of such land is precious.
. In the current era, this is the ultimate "Green Issue." Creating this parking lot not only destroys a
rare and treasured resource that is alive and physically green, but it also does nothing to encourage
appropriate Green practices such as carpooling, bicycling, walking or the use of other alternate
forms of transportation.
. Even if paved, the parking lot would merely be a "band aid" on a much more serious problem. Our
aging SLO community of 'Boomers" will in no time need a much larger Senior Center, and such a
center must be built in a more convenient, appropriate location.
. On a related point, the 'Boomer Generation" has re-defined everything it has touched and
experienced. SLO Boomers now approaching 60+ years of age will certainly find the current
Mitchell Park facility inadequate for their emerging needs, regardless of the parking situation.
e A parking lot discourages walking, and San Luis Obispo is one of the worst counties in the state
when it comes to walking for transportation, health and fitness. (SLO Tribune, 9 Feb 2008).
e Old Town is an inappropriate location for a city-wide Senior Center. The current facility is
obviously best viewed as a localized, Old Town gathering place, not a city-wide resource.
. There are a significant number of SLO Seniors themselves opposing the paving of Mitchell Park.
o There is strong evidence that this Parking Lot is squarely in violation of the SLO Master Plan, and
this Parking Lot is being inappropriately fast-tracked without appropriate levels of public review
and comment.
Please, Save Our Park for future generations.
2/19/2008
Page 2 of 2
Thanks,
Mark Johnson
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
2/19/2008
February 18, 2008
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to oppose the idea of paving over part of Mitchell Park for parking.This idea was
proposed years ago during the Mitchell Park Master Plan update, and was rejected as a bad idea
which was inconsistent with the park purposes for which the land was originally donated to the
city.
As a resident of San Luis Obispo since 1971, and a parent of a young child, I have to tell you that
the playground at Mitchell Park is utilized every day by many families, schools and church
groups. With the addition of the bandstand, the park attracts many groups for events, and
families with children use the playground during these community events. Through Parks and
Recreation, the picnic table nearest the play structures can be reserved for a birthday party, and it
is used often in this manner by local families. Mitchell Park is an easy bike ride from many
neighborhoods in San Luis, and is located right along the bikeway through downtown. Having a
public playground adjacent to the bike route is surely a wonderful boon to any city. In addition,
this playground is the only one with substantial play equipment and a public restroom within
easy walking distance of downtown, which makes it accessible.to tourists with children. I bet the
Chamber of Commerce has it on their list of things families can do with young children while
visiting downtown SLO.
In terms of the parking problem for the seniors who use the Senior Center, they are right—there
is not designated parking, and this limits the ability of some to attend events there. However,
adding a few parking spaces restricted to users of the Senior Center will not solve the parking
problem in that area. The playground area is small for a parking lot, and this would not solve the
problem. Creative solutions for parking must be sought: perhaps adding more 4 hour zones and
improving bus and shuttle service. It is also time to look at.creating a larger, more modern Senior
Center that has its own designated parking. Sacrificing the playground, used by so many families
and groups, and destroying the lovely character and aesthetics of Mitchell Park, is a short-sighted
solution.
I strongly urge you to vote against this ill-advised proposal, when it comes before the Council. I
question the fact that this issue seems to be pushed along by city staff at the request of only
three council members. This appears to be a violation of public trust,and definitely goes
against the established Master Plan for Mitchell Park. I also request that the proposed
park space that will be violated be marked and any trees tagged for removal identified in a
very visible and clear way well prior to the March 4 meeting of the ARC so we all can
visually see the degree of the park violation.
Thank you for considering my opinion and the opinion of other members of the public on this
issue as you make this very important decision.
Laura Cooper(541-1854) 173 Chorro St., SLO 93405
Page 1 of 1
Richardson, April
From: VFENDRES@cs.com
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:34 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Subject: Paving Mitchell Park
Dear Council Members, It is hard for me to believe that the crazy idea of paving over historic Mitchell Park has
gotten this far! The neighborhood has expressed its dismay,the cultural heritage committee has recommended
against it, and it is so clearly a bad idea that surely reason must reign and it must be banished from your schedule
of things to attend to before more of your precious time is wasted on it.
Hours and hours of community effort were spent on creating a Master Plan for Mitchell Park. One should need to .
say no more than, 'Read this Plan,' and expect the matter to end there. But evidently not. One must beg you to
consider the future, (coming up pretty fast) when the tiny, cramped quarters in Mitchell Park will no longer serve
the needs of our burgeoning senior population (if, in fact, they do now).
Or, you could look at the housing plan for the city, which encourages infill, especially in the downtown area. Does
it make sense to pave over a section of one of the very small park areas in that downtown area while increasing
density of housing?
Perhaps you could consider exactly who wants this parking and who wants the park preserved. By and large, it is
the neighbors, those who use the park week in and week out, who oppose its being paved, and those who drive in
from elsewhere who want to park in it. Can these drivers not drive to another location to park?
It is my understanding that the parking situation for these drivers is particularly accute on one day of the week
when they pick up food from that site. A much easier and more palatable solution, then, seems to be to set up
another food distribution center for the few hours a week that this is needed, perhaps one that already has
adequate parking.
Please start thinking creatively here. I am certain that if you are willing to do so, and really serve your citizens,
you will be able to find a solution that is less expensive and serves more people than simply providing more
parking (along with less open space). Do it now! Appoint a committee!
Sincerely yours,
Valerie Endres
790 Islay St.
2/19/2008
Page 1 of 1
Richardson, April
From: Polly Mertens[pollymertens@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:21 PM
To: Hampian, Ken
Subject: Please don't pave Mitchell Park
Hello,
I am a local member of the community here in San Luis Obispo and attended the Cal Poly event this weekend
where I heard of the proposal to expand the parking lot of Mitchell Park. I ride my bike on weekends to Mitchell
Park because it's one of the nicest parks in all of San Luis Obispo—in my humble opinion. When I was there last
weekend there were no less than two dozen people who visited the park in a matter of an hour—some for
exercise,some walking their dog,some just sitting on the lawn and talking.
I would love to see the Senior Center have the parking it needs, but not at the expense of what little natural life
we have in our central downtown. Please reconsider paving the park and instead look at an alternative to the
current center....I think with the growing number of seniors we are due for a new center all together.
I hope you will listen to your heart and trust you know what's right for future generations of this area to keep
their connection with nature.
Sincerely,
Polly Mertens
1435 Galleon Way
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
805-441-3904
2/19/2008
Page 1 of 1
Richardson, April
From: Calvin Wilvert[cwilvert@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Kiser, Betsy; Hampian, Ken; PamRicci@slocity.org
Subject: Save Mitchell Park
Dear Mayor and City Council:
Mitchell Park is a treasure which is enjoyed by countless thousands of children and adults each year.
Even though my family and I do not live in the neighborhood near the park, we have attended many
community events there during the 35 years it has been our privilege to live in this beautiful city. Parks
enable urban dwellers to find peace, renewal, and a sense of community.
I am concerned that part of the park might be paved to provide more parking spaces for the Senior
Center. Rather than encouraging more driving at the time that world oil production is peaking, I urge
you to publicize alternatives.
Recently, for a period of six weeks, I could not drive because of a temporary medical issue. As a result,
for the first time in all the years I have lived here, I started taking the bus when I needed to go
downtown. I found it to be a pleasant, economical experience. I suspect that many of the seniors who
are advocating paving part of the park have never taken the bus. Bus routes 4 and 5 pass next to the
center.
I urge that the city promote bus use among attendees of the Senior Center. Perhaps there could be prizes
for those who take the bus. However you do it, enticing people to take the bus could solve the parking
problem.
Sincerely,
Cal Wilvert
603 Al-Hil Dr,
SLO, CA
544-8365
2/19/2008
r
07 q^d
�-I
S
1 �
yl�o S
I 1
I�
I' Pam
II ��
ii C-Lo J rZ ?!�,t
II �
I
I
F
i
I
II
I�
II
c
. 1 "q. V u-- MY �(.CJ
Page 1 of 1
Hooper, Audrey
From: Kiser, Betsy
Sent: Wednesday, February 06,2008 5:09 PM
To: Council ALL; David, James; Hampian, Ken; Hooper, Audrey; Kiser, Betsy; Lynch, Barbara;
Murry, Kim; Stanwyck, Shelly
Subject: Typical week at the lUTi6c I Park Senior:Cente ,
to
Attachments: Senior Center use report 7.8.07.pdf
Per the request at DOC on Monday, attached is a schedule of a typical week at the Senior Center. Aside from the
scheduled activities, seniors come and go all day long from 9am-4pm to visit, volunteer, stuff envelopes, work on
the newsletter, distribute bread to the needy, etc.
I've just completed a history of Mitchell Park memo for Council with 15 attachments ranging from leases, deeds,
agreements, Council agenda reports, memos, Commission reports,etc. that support the memo. Tomorrow, Marti
and I will figure out a way to organize the materials and put them on the web. VM let you know when completed,
so you have access to the info.
Betsy Kiser
Parks and Recreation Director
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.781.7294
bkiser@slocity.org
Creating Community Through People, Parks and Programs
2nr2008
page 1 of 2 20
Reservation Master Rep02/06!200
oi__ 04:52
By Dame
PM
Setup Event/ Attendance
Date Ready Fadllty/Center/Type Event Type Contact Information ScheduleType
07/08/2007 10:00 AM Senior center Main Room soidety,of Friends Weekly Serv.2nd Half Central toast Friends Meeting 0
Sunday 1:00 PM 10:00 AM-1:00 PM (Non-profit/Public)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4795(NORMAL) Emily Howard Rental
Large Meeting Room Home:(805)481-6940
10:00 AM Senior Side Conference Society of Friends Weekly Serv.2nd Half Central Coast Friends Meeting 0
1:00 PM 10:00 AM-.1:00 PM (Non-profit/Pubfic)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4795(NORMAL) Emily Howard Rental
Conference Rooms Home:(805)481-6940
1:30 PM Senior Center Main Room New Life Ministries Weekly Srv.2nd Half New Liffe Ministries Church 0
5:00 PM 1:30 PM-5:00 PM (Non-profit/Public)
Senior Citizens Center Perrot#:4934(NORMAL) Joshua Lopez Rental
Large Meeting Room Home:(805)801-5109
07/09/2007 9:00 AM Senior Center Main Room Duplicate Bridge Parks and Recreation 0
Monday 4:00 PM 9:00 AM-4:00 PM (Non-profiVPublicj
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4820(NORMAL) internal
Sheridan Bohlken
Large Meeting Room Work:(805)781-7282 Home:(805)
781-7282
07/10/2007 10:00 AM Senior Side Conterence Excerrase Group Parks and Recreation 0
Tuesday 11:00 AM 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (Non-profit/Public)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:5623(NORMAL) Internal
Sheridan Bohlken
Conference Rooms Work:(805)781-7282 Home:(805)
781-7282
11:00 AM Senior Center Main Room Party Bridge Parks and Recreation 0
3:30 PM 11:00 AM-3:30 PM (Non-proWublic)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4822(NORMAL) Sheridan Bohlken Internal
Large Meeting Room Work:(805)781-7282 Home:(805)
781-7282
4:30 PM Senior Center Main Room Martial Arts Parks and Recreation 0
8:00 PM 4:30 PM-8:00 PM- _ (Non-proft Public)
Senior Citizens Center Permit 4:4823(NORMAL) Internal
Sheridan Bohlken
Large Meeting Room Work:(805)781-7282 Home:(805)
781-7282
07H 1/2007 8:00 AM Senior Center Main Room Bingo Parks and Recreation 0
Wednesday 11:30 AM 8:00 AM-11:30 AM (Non-profitIPublic)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4824(NORMAL) Internal
Sheridan Bohlken
Large Meeting Room Work:(805)781-7282 Home:(805)
781-7282
6:00 PM Senior Center Main Room Duplicate Bridge Parks and Recreation 0
9:00 PM 6:00 PM-9:00 PM (Non-profif/Public)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4820(NORMAL) Internal
Sheridan Bohlken
Large Meeting Room Work:(805)781-7282 Home:(805)
781-7282
Pave 2 of 2 Reservation Master Repoi =% 02/06pM0
M By Date/Time
Setup Event/ Attendance
Date Ready Facility/Cent erMAX Event Type Contact Information ScheduleType
07/122007 10:00 AM Senior Side Conference Excenase Group Parks and Recreation 0
Thursday 11:00 AM 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (NorfprofitlPublic)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:5623(NORMAL) Sheridan Bohiken Internal
Conference Room Work:(805)781-7282 Home:(805)
781-7282
11:00 AM Senior Center Main Room Party Bridge Parks and Recreation 0
3:30 PM 11:00 AM-3:30 PM (Non-profit/Public)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4822(NORMAL) Internal
Sheridan Bohlken
Large Meeting Room Work:(805)781-7282 Home:(805)
781-7282
4:30 PM Senior Center Main Room Martial Arts Parks and Recreation 0
8:00 PM 4:30 PM-8:00 PM (Non-profit/Public)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4823(NORMAL) Internal
Sheridan Bohlken
Large Meeting Room Work:(805)781-7282 Home:(805)
781-7282
07/132007 8:00 AM Senior Center Main Room Bingo Parks and Recreation 0
Friday 11:30 AM 8:00 AM-11:30 AM (Non-profiVPublic)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4824(NORMAL) Internal
Sheridan Bohlken
Large Meeting Room Work:(805)781-7282 Home:(805)
781-7282
12:30 PM Senior Center Main Room Duplicate Bridge Parks and Recreation 0
4:00 PM 12:30 PM-4:00 PM (Non-profit/Public)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4820(NORMAL) Sheridan Bohlken Internal
Large Meeting Room Work:(805)781-7282 Home:(805)
781-7282
4:00 PM Senior Center Main Room Mozart Festival Dinner Slo Mozart Festival 0
10:00 PM 4:00 PM-10:00 PM (Non-profiVPublic)
Senior Citizens Center Permit*5346(NORMAL) Came WahlRental
Large Meeting Room Work:(805)781-3009 Home:805
07/152007 10:00 AM Senior Center Main Room Society of Friends Weekly Serv.2nd Half Central Coast Friends Meeting 0
Sunday 1:00 PM 10:00 AM-1:00 PM (Non-profiVPublic)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4795(NORMAL) Emily Howard Rental
Large Meeting Room
Home:(805)481-6940
10:00 AM Senior Side Conference Society of Friends Weekly Sent.2nd Half Central Coast Friends Meeting 0
1:00 PM 10:00 AM-1:00 PM (Non-profiVPublic)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4795(NORMAL) Emily Howard Rental
Conference Rooms
Home:(805)481-6940
1:30 PM Senior Center Main Room New Life Ministries Weekly Srv.2nd'Half New Life Ministries Church 0
5:00 PM 1:30 PM-5:00 PM (Non-profit(Public)
Senior Citizens Center Permit#:4934(NORMAL) Joshua Lopez Rental
Large Meeting Room Home:(805)801-5109
Page 1 of 3
n
Hooper, Audrey
From: Hooper,Audrey
Sent Friday, February 01,200811:58 AM
To: O'Connor, Julie
Cc: Cano, Elaina- Craig, Karen
c .
SubjeBE:
Please scan and send them to the e-mail group Barbara set up. Then please set up a very temporary folder for
the hard copies-perhaps Elaina can do this-until this matter comes back to Council on March 18th -at which
time we'll just file them in that agenda packet.
Once the agenda packet has been distributed for that meeting, I'll talk to Ken about whether he wants any new
ones to become"red file" items.
Thanks,
Audrey
From: O'Connor,Julie
Sent- Friday, February 01, 2008 11:48 AM
To: Hooper, Audrey
Cc Cano, Elaina; Craig, Karen
Subject: RE: Mitchell Park
Audrey,
I received a letter in the mail today. Per Elaina's email below how would you like us to handle these?
Julie
From: Cano, Elaina
Sent Wednesday,January 30,2008 12:02 PM
To: Hooper,Audrey; O'Connor,Julie; Craig, Karen
Subject RE: Mitchell Paris
Audrey,
If we receive any letters by hand or mail, should we then scan them and then send it out? Do
we need to save them anywhere?
Elaina
From: Hooper, Audrey
Sent Wednesday,January 30, 200811:56 AM
To: Cano, Elaina; O'Connor,Jula'; Craig, Karen
Subject FW: Mitchell Park
Ladies,
2/4!2008
Page 2 of 3
i v �
Barbara is setting up an outlook(for everyone)e-mail group for Mitchell Park. As soon as that is ready, I'll let you
know. Then, if our department gets any e-mails,from the public regarding this matter, they should be forwarded to
that group address.
You folks will not be included in that group address and we don't need to save those e-mails. I'll be included so
will see all of them.
Once we put out the agenda that this item appears on, we can talk about red files....
Audrey
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent:Wednesday,January 30, 2008 8:45 AM
To: Hooper,Audrey, Kiser, Betsy; Mandeville,John; Davidson, Doug; Counal ALL; Lowell,Jonathan P; Stanwyck,
Shelly; David, James- Ehrbar, Barbara; Walter,Jay; Lynch, Barbara
Subject: : Mitchell Pa
In addition to forwarding such correspondence to Council members, I have asked Barbara to
put together a "Mitchell Park Staff Group" so that all such emails (which are flying all over the
place) and consistently shared with the same people me, by others who are receiving them.
Please advise Barbara who should be included in the group from your areas.
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent: Wednesday,January 30,2008 8:40 AM
To: 'Alun Hinz'
Subject: RE: MWiell Park
Dear Alona
I will pass on your comments to the City Council and other staff members, who will make a
final decision on the Master Plan on March 18, 2008 during their scheduled meeting. You may
keep your eye on that meeting and join in the discussion, if you wish.
Ken Hampian, CAO
San Luis Obispo
From: Alona Hinz [mailto:ahinz805@charter.net]
Sum Tuesday,January 29, 2008 9:35 PM
To: Hampian, Ken
Subject: Mitchell Park
Putting parking in Mitchell Park will cause many problems. How will you police who parks
there? If it is free parking, everyone will want to park there — It is so close to down town,
people will happily park and walk. If you make it metered parking, you make seniors pay more
from foxed incomes.
Parking by seniors next to where small children play raises the hairs on the back of my neck.
And it will be ugly! Just don't do it.
2/4/2008
Page 3 of 3 .
I am a senior of 70 plus, by the way.
Alona Hinz
2/4/2008
CC C ou,L�c. C Ccr/� RECEIVEDPage 1 of )
�,4 0 A s ;
ACS v MAY--0 812008
477-Y SLO CITY CLERK
Councal,SloCify
From: Michelle Tasseff[mtasseff@cl.santa-maria.ca.us] Sent: Wed 5/7/2008 1:27 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Attending last night's meeting I left sadden by the fact that three members of the City Council would again show
that SLO is a city without a heart. For many years I have been a staunch supporter of Mayor Romero, Andrew
Carter and especially Paul Brown. Sadly last night I witnessed all of these individuals put a knife to what little
was left of this city's heart. I was disappointed that these same individuals earned my vote by convincing me
and the community that they felt a strong commitment to addressing the needs and concerns of the families of
the city. Clearly last night they all showed their true colors. I am mostly deeply disappointed by Paul Brown and
his clear disrespect for the people who attended last night's meeting. A man who I always felt a deep respect
because of his commitment to the city and its residents. Mr. Brown allowed his emotions and his inability to
deal with angry citizens clouded his judgment. I have never seen Mr. Brown lash out at the public as he did last
night, making it obvious to many of us that his decision was based on his anger at some of the unfortunately e-
mails he had received. Last night I lost all respect for Mr. Brown and Mr. Carter, people who I had hoped would
be able to give this city back its heart and its sense of family and community. I apparently was wrong.
Mr. Brown I was personally bothered by your comment regarding the lack of participation at the Economic
Report presented earlier in the evening. Unfortunately, I have a regular job (requiring me to work 8-5). My
priorities are always my family first and my employer(the City of Santa Maria). I have on two previous days
this year used vacation time to attend what I refer to as the"Super Secret Meeting." I noticed you were in
attendance at the last meeting just long enough to listen to a police officer discuss the graffiti. This meeting is
held on Wednesday afternoon in the library at 12:00. This meeting appears to be clearly scheduled (as they
did the Economic Report) so that no one attends. I found both times that the staff has no real interest in
dealing with the issues presented to them during this brief discussion nor did they appear the least bit receptive
to any suggestions. I and others have requested that this forum be changed to a more appropriate time and
that it be announced to the public to allow greater participation. Clearly the city has no real interest in actually
addressing its growing problems regarding graffiti,junk cars,trash and the ever growing homeless population.
I like many of the city's residents have attended numerous meetings and have been left with the impression
that the majority of the City Council and the city staff really don't care. The lack of attendance at many of these
meetings (and the city council meeting) is due to people's frustration with the city's dismissive attitude regarding
their concerns.
I would like to thank Christine Mulholland for taking the time to address my concerns regarding the growing
homeless population. Unfortunately, Christine I will continue to give 110%to my boss Gil Trujillo and the
wonderful people of Santa Maria. Yes, I will continue to chase the homeless of the lovely streets I call home.
Previously I was not a big supporter of Christine, but after our conversation (the only council member who
actually responds) I felt that someone was actually listening. I would say 99%of time I disagreed with her
views. Last night I acquired a new found respect for someone who proved to me that she can deal with an
issue fairly and professionally. Thank You Christine.
I would also ask that the city council explain how they plan to make for the additional expense that will be
incurred when this parking lot is actually installed. Clearly the cost has far exceeded the allotted$70.000.
I also request clarification regarding the use of the parking lot. I hope that this parking lot will be accessible to
the general public daily just as the other park lots. It appeared too many of us that the lot would be built
exclusively for the use of the Senior Center excluding the general public. I already foresee the seniors stopping
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Mitchell%20Park-93.EML?Cmd=open 5/7/2008
Page 2 of 2
1 J
local residents from using the parking lot when attending activities and just general use. I believe that since this
lot is being installed in public park using public funds everyone should have equal access to the lot.
Michelle Tasseff
65 Mariposa Dr. (located near the sewage treatment plant not the park).
SLO
(805) 783-1460
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciUlnbox/Mitchell%20Park-93.EML?Cmd=open 5/7/2008
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Greg]PM@aol.com [Greg]PM@aol.com] Sent: Wed 5/7/2008 7:58 AM
To: Council,sloCity RECEIVED
Cc: Kiser, Betsy
Subject: Mitchell Park MAY 0 8 2008
Attachments: SLO CITY CLERK
Dear Council Members,
As a former Chairperson and ten-year member of the Parks and Recreation Commission for the City of San
Luis Obispo, and one who worked vigorously to strengthen the city parks, I am dismayed at the disregard of
the council to follow the
recommendations and common sense of the Master Plan and the recommendations of three commissions.
Despite the williness of both parties to compromise,the pre-determined will of three council members to make
a statement has overturned the well thought out master plan. I was shocked by the inarticulate and rambling
rationale from Mr. Brown, (e.g., I think the park will look nicer with a parking lot?), and the weak rationale from
Mr. Carter(because I don't want a parking lot I don't respect the elderly?). Shame on the two of you for
destroying a beautiful park.
Greg Macedo
Former Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight?Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.coMdinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncii/Inbox/Mitchell%2OPark-92.EML?Cmd=open 5/7/2008
Page 1 of 1
J
Council,SloCity
From: Elise Wheeler[e.wheeler@charter.net] Sent: Wed 5/7/2008 8:05 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Paving Mitchell Park
Attachments: RECEIVED
I am apalled by the SLO City Council's vote to approve a parking lot in MAY 0 8 2008
Mitchell Park.
As a member of one of the three advisory committees that advised against SLO CITY CLERK
this project and having served for the past several years on two advisory
bodies, I am now feeling somewhat devalued and am questioning whether the
time and energy involved in serving the city is wasted.
Further,the blatant disregard of the opinion voiced by a substantial
majority of the members of the public speaking on this issue raises the
question of exactly who is represented by the three council members who
approved the lot.
The council is charged with making decisions that are in the best interest
of the majority of the residents of this city. In this instance three
members clearly did not act accordingly. Shame on them.
Elise Wheeler
https:Hmai 1.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Paving%20Mi tchel l%20Park.EML?C... 5/7/2008