HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/2008, 6 - SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT SPECIFICATIONS NO. 90803 Council Mme=Dm 9/16/08
a agenda RepoRt �N
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director 3DW
Prepared By: Manuel Guzman,Engineer I
SUBJECT: SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT SPECIFICATIONS NO.90803
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Senior Center Parking Lot Project Specification No.
90803 with conditions recommended by the Architectural Review Commission with the
exception of the chlorine building removal, bicycle parking, barbeque location, and pavement
material.
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the CAO to award the contract if the
lowest responsible bid is less than or equal to the Engineer's Estimate of$220,000.
3. Approve the transfer of$181,000 from completed projects to fund the project.
DISCUSSION
Background
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 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. Other elements in the park include a bandstand, children's play
area, a flagpole, a memorial at the corner of Santa Rosa and Pismo Streets, various picnic tables,
public art, mature trees and a large open field with crisscrossing pedestrian walkways.
Since 1988, the concern over parking for the seniors who use the facility has been raised 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 City Council. As
part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan, Council established a Major City Goal to improve the Senior
Center. The resultant work program included the renovation of the Senior Center kitchen and
construction of a parking lot in the area behind the Senior Center. The creation of the parking lot
necessitated a revision to the park's master plan.
Although not supported by advisory bodies, the Mitchell Park Master Plan was amended by the
�I
Senior Center Parking Lot Specification No.90803 Page 2
City Council on May 5, 2008, allowing a parking lot to be constructed on the site. The
amendment changed the use of the project site from a specialty garden to a parking lot. The
parking lot layout shown to the advisory bodies and the Council in May is the same layout that
the Council is seeing with this project.
Current Project
In response to the Council's action to amend the Master Plan, Public Works staff prepared plans
and specifications for the Senior Center parking lot. The project site is a partially screened area
behind the Senior Center that currently contains a barbecue, picnic tables, horseshoe pit, and
shuffleboard court. (See Attachments 1 and 2) On August 18, 2008 the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project plan and approved the design with ten
recommended conditions (See Attachment 3). Some of the ARC Conditions would increase the
base cost of the project. Given the current need to reduce expenditures, staff will be presenting
the project with some lower cost options. However, information is provided in the report for the
Council to make individual determinations on cost items.
1. Parking(ARC Conditions 1, 3& 8)
The proposed project will install 14 new parking spaces, three of which will be Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. The three ADA spaces meet the requirements for a parking
lot of this size. The project will comply with the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation
Program as conditioned by the ARC.
Parking lot vehicle traffic is proposed to travel one way through the lot, entering on Buchon
Street and exiting on Santa Rosa Street. This direction of travel provides better visibility of
pedestrians in the vicinity of the rear entrance to the Senior Center for cars entering the lot.
Entering from Santa Rosa would put vehicles right at the rear door area after coming around a
blind comer. In order to install driveway access into the parking lot, two on-street parking spaces
currently located on Buchon Street will be removed. One on-street parking space on Santa Rosa
Street will be removed to allow vehicles exiting the parking lot to see on-coming vehicles. The
parking space being removed on Santa Rosa Street is an ADA space, but does not conform to
current ADA standards.
The parking lot is currently proposed as an asphalt only surface. To comply with the ARC
Conditions, the parking lot's entrance apron from Buchon Street would need to be stamped
adobe colored concrete and the remainder of the parking lot plain adobe colored concrete.
Paving the parking lot with concrete is estimated to cost an additional $60,000. Staff has
evaluated the request and finds no significant advantage to a concrete parking lot, so
recommends that the project specify asphalt surfacing. Parking lot wheel stops will be made from
recycled rubber, instead of the standard concrete wheel stop. The wheel stop performance and
longevity will be monitored by Public Works staff as a test case and depending on performance,
may be used on other projects in the City as a way to include more recycled products in projects.
2. Lighting(ARC Condition 2)
Parking lot lighting is proposed to be supplied by seven decorative pedestrian lights. These
pedestrian lights will be the same style as the new pedestrian lighting being used downtown. The
parking lot lighting brightness is anticipated to be 1.35 foot candles. This is less than the
1 C �
Senior Center Parking Lot Specification No.90803 Page 3
maximum allowable (10 foot candles) by Community Development and within the allowable
range of 1 to 3 foot candles from the draft nighttime sky ordinance. This type of lighting is more
expensive then large single pole traditional parking lot lighting but should provide a lower profile
for the neighborhood and was selected by the Seniors and neighbors as the preferred fixture.
3. Trees, Landscaping& Fencing(ARC Condition 9)
The parking lot installation will require the removal of three non-native trees. The parking lot
has been designed to protect five of the larger trees on the project site, one of which is a heritage
Ash tree. This project will also install eight new trees, two London Plane Sycamore, one Chinese
Pistache and five California Sycamore trees. Additionally, shrubs will be installed along the
perimeter of the parking lot as well as at the entrance on Buchon Street. Boulders, fencing and
trees will provide a buffer between the parking lot area and the remainder of Mitchell Park. Staff
is proposing to install wrought iron fencing in lieu of the originally proposed vinyl clad chain
link at an additional cost of$10,000. This was proposed by the ARC and preferred by the seniors
and neighbors.
4. Trash Enclosure (ARC Condition 5)
Public Works initially sought to relocate the existing garbage enclosure from the north side of the
Senior Center to an area directly adjacent to the parking lot entrance on Buchon Street. This
relocated garbage enclosure would allow easier access for pickup and removal. After concerns
expressed at the ARC meeting, Public Works staff is proposing to leave the garbage enclosure in
its current location, "relocation" in the ARC Conditions context meaning different than the
Buchon location shown on the draft plans. The existing enclosure has a wooden fence and some
landscaping around it now to provide screening.
7 Barbeque (ARC Condition 7)
The parking lot construction will require the removal of the existing barbeque area. Staff
planned to relocate the area into the park. There were concerns expressed about the new location
of the barbeque area and the ARC requested staff to look at placing it nearer the intersection of
Santa Rosa and Pismo, near the play equipment, so as to not interrupt the open view of the park
lawn from Buchon Street. Staff did not find an area suitable for the barbeque area near the play
lot, and has proposed a location near the restroom building. As a compromise, staff has reduced
the proposed barbecue concrete pad area from a previously proposed 40-foot diameter to 28-foot
diameter concrete pad. The proposed location has shifted more towards the Senior Center than
the previously proposed location in the draft plan reviewed by the ARC..
5. Miscellaneous (ARC Conditions 4, 6, & 10)
Chlorine Building Removal. Among the improvements that currently exist behind the Senior
Center is a small outbuilding which houses chlorine equipment. The equipment was originally
designed and built to treat the water that comes from the well in Mitchell Park. It has not been in
use for many years, and the ARC recommended its removal. Because the building is not within
the footprint of the parking lot construction, staff recommends not requiring the chlorine building
demolition with this project. No cost estimating has been completed at this time to do the
removal, and removal of any existing chemicals, testing and abatement of any hazardous material
and abandonment on the existing water well could delay the project from moving forward.
� ' 3
Senior Center Parking Lot Specification No.90803 Page 4
Bicycle Parking. Existing bicycle parking for the park will be reviewed internally, and if
additional racks are needed for park use, they will be installed either with the project or under
separate contract later.
Bio-Swale for Drainage. The gravel area proposed at the edge of the parking lot serves a
combined function of filtering and infiltration for rain. A bio-swale, as suggested by the ARC,
does not provide the same function. However, staff has modified the detail to provide a surface
treatment of mulch to soften the appearance of this element, but not change its essential function.
Next Steps
An alternative to approving the plans and specifications at this time is to delay action until the
Council more comprehensively considers options for addressing our budget shortfalls on
September 30`h. In approving the development of the parking lot on May 6`h, the Council
received a schedule that allowed for contract award in November. Assuming the Council still
views this schedule as important, Council should act on the plans and specifications at this time.
However, it is also reasonable to be concerned about the timing, given the proximity of this
action to our budget decisions on September 30`h. In order to address this concern, staff wishes
to emphasize that the recommended action is only to approve plans and specifications and initiate
the bid process. The Council will fully retain the prerogative of terminating this bid process when
considering the full menu of budget reduction options on September 30l'. While staff will not be
recommending termination (given that the Council established this project as a Major City Goal,
and recently reaffirmed this status through a major public decision-making process), the
Council's ability to do so later is not compromised by bid advertisement.
A Building Permit will be required from the Community Development Department's Building and
Safety Division. The project plans have been submitted to the Building and Safety Division for
review. The project will not be advertised until this permit has been obtained. If the Council
approves the plans and specifications, the next steps for the parking lot include:
Tasks Estimated Date
1. Obtain Building Permit 10-9-08
2. Advertise project 10-11-08
3. Open bids 11-06-08
4. Evaluate proposals and award construction contract 11-30-08*
5. Execute agreement and start construction 01-05-09
6. Complete construction 05-01-09
*assumes the bid amount is within budget and no Council approval is required for award.
CONCURRENCES
1. The Community Development Department has completed an Initial Study and issued a
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Architectural Review Commission has reviewed and recommended that the Council
approve the design with recommended conditions. r
lO�
r1 ��
i
Senior Center Parking Lot Specification No.90803 Page 5
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2007-09 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-345 to 3-351, identifies $210,000 for the
Senior Center Project in the 2008-09 fiscal year. Of that amount, $70,000 was dedicated to
support the construction of the Senior Center parking lot. Based on the Engineer's Estimate, an
additional $181,000 will be needed to fully fund this project. Staff recommends transferring this
amount from the completed projects account, which has a balance adequate to fund this amount.
The project presented to Council in May 2008 had a construction estimate of$195,000. Since
that time, staff has further refined the scope of work, and used recent project bids for similar
work as the basis for the current estimate. Reasons that the project estimate has increased include
revising the driveway on Santa Rosa Street to meet ADA requirements, and including enhanced
features such as.the Pedestrian style lighting and wrought iron fencing.
Estimated Project Cost
Construction: $220,000
Contengencies: $22,000
Archeological Monitoring: $5,500
Material Testing: $2,500
Printing: $1,000
Total for Construction: $251,000
Relationship to Short-Term Actions in Fiscal Heath Contingency Plan
The City's Fiscal Health Contingency Plan was recently activated and as a result all CIP projects
are currently under review for possible deferral or deletion. A report is planned for Council review
in September 2008 that will identify and recommend project deferrals and deletions. While this
review is underway and not yet completed, staff recommends going forward with bidding for this
project at this time for the following reasons:
1. Even if the project became recommended for deletion or deferral, this is only approving the bid
package and authorizing inviting bids: Council could subsequently decide not to award the bid.
2. Plans and specifications have already been prepared and the project is ready to advertise for
bids. The current economic climate is favorable for construction bidding, therefore staff
recommends capitalizing on this investment.
3. The project is part of the City Council's Major Goals.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Delay Approval. An alternative to approving the plans and specifications at this time is to
delay action until the Council more comprehensively considers options for addressing our budget
�,4�
I
4%
Senior Center Parking Lot Specification No.90803 Page 6
shortfalls on September 30`h. This alternative could delay the start of the contract from the
current schedule, depending upon the timing of the Building Permit.
2. Project Cost Options. Because costs are projected to be higher than the amount budgeted for
this project, staff presented a project that did not entirely comply with the recommendations of
the ARC in order to minimize the additional amount needed for the budget. Below is a summary
of the cost options presented in the discussion section.
Concrete paving. If the Council believes that the ARC condition for paving with concrete
should be met, it will require $60,000 in additional funds to be allocated to the project prior to
advertising.
Delete the BBQ area. The Council could choose to delete the BBQ pit from this project and
complete it at some future date. The cost savings for leaving out the barbeque area is estimated
to be $14,000.
Modify Lighting. The Council could choose to reduce the esthetics of the lighting in the parking
lot. There would be a cost savings of approximately$40,000 to go to fewer,larger fixtures.
Chain Link Fence. The Council could choose to install chain link fencing instead of the
wrought iron currently proposed. The cost savings for chain link fence would be approximately
$10,000.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Project Map
3. ARC Meeting Conditions
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Plans and Specifications
G:\StaN-Reports-Agendas-MinuteSLCAR\2008\CIP\90803 Senior Center Parking Lot\90803Advertise.doc
TTACHM T
O
O
PROJ T
LO IONS
� PG
OQ
�o
o � �
0
o�
c�
�.
VICINITY MAP
i' I SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT PROJECT
Public Works Department SPEC NO. 90803
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 V
W
C
O
\� O /
L/I
m
z
1�
I �
m
z
I � n
N
SANTA ROSA STREET
e
W " ; i SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT City/ o y P
l+J
9 p F
e CONSTRUCTION PLAN san Luis oBi spo +.
O
• , . � �' ATTACHMENT 3 PG1_
GI of W UIS OBISPO Department of Community Development
Planning Division
August 27, 2008
TO: File ARC 166-07: 1445 Santa Rosa Street
James David, Planning Technician
FROM: Pamela Ricci, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Review of Mitchell Park Senior Center parking lot design
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of August 18, 2008,
recommended that the City Council approve the design of the Mitchell Park Senior
Center parking lot, based on the following findings, and subject to the following
conditions:
y
u
Findings
i
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.
j
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.
1
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. F
i
J
;ATTACHMENT 3 PG2'
ARC 166-07(1445 Santa Rosa Street)
Page 2
2. The number of light poles shall be reduced to the minimum number required for
public safety and security.
3. The applicant shall reconfigure/restripe the on-street parking affected by the
project, subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
4. The chlorine building behind the proposed trash enclosure shall be demolished to
help clean up the site. The Utilities Department is agreeable to demolition of the
building because it is no longer in operation.
5. The trash enclosure shall be relocated to a less visually-obtrusive and more
efficient location. The exterior of the proposed standard trash enclosure detail
shall be embellished to coordinate with the architectural style of the adjacent
Senior Center building. The enclosure should be screened with berming and
planting if proposed in a visually-prominent street yard.
6. The building plan submittal shall show all required bicycle parking in accordance
with standards contained in the Bicycle Transportation Plan update and
Community Design Guidelines.
7. The barbecue area shall be relocated to preserve the park's grassy area viewed
;j
from Buchon Street. �
8. The surface of the parking lot shall be an alternative to the proposed asphalt
paving.
i
9. The proposed cyclone fencing shall be eliminated. If screening around the
perimeter of the parking lot is desired, then it should be accomplished with
landscaping or a decorative fencing material such as wrought iron. j
10. Consider creating a bio-swale to address drainage needs rather than using river
rock in the detention basin as proposed.
The .action of the Architectural Review Commission is a recommendation to the City
Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public 1
hearing before the City Council on September 16, 2008. This date, however, should be
verified with the City Clerk's Office (Ext. 102).
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office 4
i
City of San Luis Obispo— Public Works City of San Luis Obispo ;1
919 Palm Street Attn: Administration
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 990 Palm Street j
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Manuel Guzman
City of San Luis Obispo- Public Works
b
r
UNCIL urzw�lDD DIR
CAO ( IN DIR
RED FILE ICAO [2rFIRE CHIEF
MEETING AGENDA urATTORNEY 21W DIR
September 16,2008 �LERK/ORIO a-POLICE CHF
DATE �b o8'ITEM ❑ DEPT HEADS *EC DIR
i- Pt 15 3 PL DIR
2'�_-(IU_9UNF LHR DIR
feu uc4 c,
Dear Mayor Romero: /CA-o
/CC,4ellfr_
I am writing to request that you postpone approving and funding the parking lot in Mitchell Park. I think
that this issue is too important to act in haste, and there are several points that I wish'you would
consider.
First,green space is very important to the citizens of San Luis Obispo. That the council supports green
space is evidenced by the work you are doing to create a green belt around the city. Please don't forget
that green space is also needed at the city's core. The downtown residential area is already very dense.
Houses have been divided into apartments. Apartments have been built in backyards. Small residences
house more than one family as people seek availability and affordability in housing.With smart growth,
more housing is proposed or approved for development in high density, multi-use buildings in the city
center. The residents of the city center deserve as much green space as the city can provide.
Destroying even small amounts of parkland does not serve the many people whose only contact with
grass is within a city park.
Secondly, it is not clear why the Ludwick Center can not be used to house the Senior Center. It has been
beautifully renovated, has a commercial kitchen, is ADA compliant,and has parking. Those people who
use the center in Mitchell Park have expressed a desire to stay there and to have a parking lot. Does the
group who use this center represent the desires of seniors city wide? Perhaps more people would take
advantage of programs that could be offered in the larger Ludwick Center. I would think a survey of this
population is in order. The city needs to use its limited resources wisely.
Finally, it appears that budget constraints will not allow the upgrades that would enhance the
appearance of the parking lot. If the city can not afford to build an aesthetically pleasing parking lot, it
should not be constructed at this time.
I know it is difficult to balance the needs of your entire constituency. The members of the senior center
could relocate to the Ludwick Center. The many area residents and visitors, present and future,who
rely on having a city park for walking in the grass and watching gardens grow,have no alternative to
Mitchell Park. Save Mitchell Park for all the city's residents.
Sincerely,
The Lindaman Family
1057 Buchon Street RECEIVED
SEP 16 2006
SLO CITY CLERK
September 16, 2008
Dear Council Member Settle
I am writing to request that you postpone approving and funding the parking lot in Mitchell Park. I think
that this issue is too important to act in haste,and there are several points that I wish you would
consider.
First,green space is very important to the citizens of San Luis Obispo. That thecouncil supports green
space is evidenced by the work you are doing to create a green belt around the city. Please don't forget
that green space is also needed at the city's core. The downtown residential area is already very dense.
Houses have been divided into apartments. Apartments have been built in backyards. Small residences
house more than one family as people seek availability and affordability in housing.With smart growth,
more housing is proposed or approved for development in high density, multi-use buildings in the city
center. The residents of the city center deserve as much green space as the city can provide.
Destroying even small amounts of park land does not serve the many people whose only contact with
grass is within a city park.
Secondly, it is not clear why the Ludwick Center can not be used to house the Senior Center. It has been
beautifully renovated, has a commercial kitchen, is ADA compliant, and has parking. Those people who
use the center in Mitchell Park have expressed a desire to stay there and to have a parking lot. Does the
group who use this center represent the desires of seniors citywide? Perhaps more people would take
advantage of programs that could be offered in the larger Ludwick Center. I would think a survey of this
population is in order. The city needs to use its limited resources wisely.
Finally, it appears that budget constraints will not allow the upgrades that would enhance the
appearance of the parking lot. If the city can not afford to build an aesthetically pleasing parking lot, it
should not be constructed at this time.
I know it is difficult to balance the needs of your entire constituency. The members of the.senior center
could relocate to the Ludwick Center. The many area residents and visitors, present and.future,who
rely on having a city park for walking in the grass and watching gardens grow, have no alternative to
Mitchell Park. Save Mitchell Park for all the city's residents.
Sincerely, J
The Lindaman Family
1057 Buchon Street
RECEIVED ECE0
SEP 16 2000
SLO CITY CLERK
September 16,2008
Dear Council Member Mulholland:
I am writing to request that you postpone approving and funding the parking lot in Mitchell Park. I think
thatthis issue is too important to act in haste,and there.are several points that I wish you would
consider.
First,green space is very important to the.citizens of San Luis Obispo. That the council supports green
space is evidenced by the work you are doing to create a green belt around the city. Please don't forget
that green space is also needed at the city's core. The downtown residential area is already very dense.
Houses have been divided into apartments. Apartments have been built in backyards. Small residences
house more than one family as people seek availability and affordability in housing.With smart growth,
more housing is proposed or approved for development in high density, multi-use buildings in the city
center. The residents of the city center deserve as much green space as the city can provide.
Destroying even small amounts of park land does not serve the many people whose only contact with
grass is within a city park.
Secondly, it is not clear why the Ludwick Center cannot be used to house.the Senior Center. It has been
beautifully renovated, has a commercial kitchen, is ADA compliant, and has parking. Those people who
use the center in Mitchell Park have expressed a desire to stay there and to have a parking lot. Does the
group who use this center represent the desires of seniors city wide? Perhaps more people would take
advantage of programs that could be offered in the larger Ludwick Center. I would think a survey of this
population is in order. The city needs to use its limited resources wisely.
Finally, it appears that budget constraints will not allow the upgrades that would enhance the
appearance of the parking lot. If the city can not afford to build an aesthetically pleasing parking lot, it
should not be constructed at this time.
I know it difficult to balance the needs of your entire constituency. The members of the.senior center
could relocate to the Ludwick Center. The many area residents and visitors, present and future,who
rely on having a city park for walking in the grass and watching gardens grow, have no alternative to
Mitchell Park. Save Mitchell Park.for all the city's residents.
Sincerely,
The Lindaman Family
1057 Buchon StreetRE0r–a a A—
�.. b NOB
i Y CLERK
September 16,2008
Dear Council Member Carter:
I am writing to request that you postpone approving and funding the parking lot in Mitchell Park. I think
that this issue is too important to act in haste,and there are several points that I wish you would
consider.
First,green space is very important to the citizens of San Luis Obispo. That the council supports green
space is evidenced by the work you are doing to create a green belt around the city. Please don't forget
that green space is also needed at the city's core. The downtown residential area is already very dense.
Houses have been divided into apartments. Apartments have been built in backyards. Small residences
house more than one family as people seek availability and affordability in housing.With smart growth,
more housing is proposed or approved for development in high density, multi-use buildings in the city
center. The residents of the city center deserve as much green space as the city can provide.
Destroying even small amounts of park land does not serve the many people whose only contact with
grass is within a city park.
Secondly, it is not clear why the Ludwick Center can not be used to house the Senior Center. It has been
beautifully renovated, has a commercial kitchen, is ADA compliant,and has parking. Those people who
use the center in Mitchell Park have expressed a desire to stay there and to have a parking lot. Does the
group who use this center represent the desires of seniors city wide? Perhaps more people would take
advantage of programs that could be offered in the larger Ludwick.Center. I would think a survey of this
population is in order. The city needs to use its limited resources wisely.
Finally, it appears that budget constraints will not allow the upgrades that would enhance the
appearance of the parking lot. If the city can not afford to build an aesthetically pleasing parking lot,.it
should not be constructed at this time.
know it is difficult to balance the needs of your entire constituency. The members of the senior center
could relocate to the Ludwick Center. The many area residents and visitors, present and future,who
rely on having a city park for walking in the grass and watching gardens grow, have no alternative to
Mitchell Park. Save Mitchell Park for all the city's residents.
Sincerely,
The Lindeman Family ���`� � �f�2,�y�,,,�/� �' y�-�w1✓
1057 Buchon Street (J`" RECEIVED ECEIV
SEP 16 2000
SLO CITY CLERK
September 16, 2008
Dear Vice Mayor Brown:
I am writing to request that you postpone approving and funding the parking lot in Mitchell Park. I think
that this issue is too important to actin haste,and there are several points that I wish you would
consider.
First,green space is very important to the citizens of San Luis Obispo. That the council supports green
space is evidenced by the work you are doing to create a green belt around the city. Please don't forget
that green space is also needed at the city's core. The downtown residential area is already very dense.
Houses have been divided into apartments. Apartments have been built in backyards. Small residences
house more than one family as people seek availability and affordability in housing.With smart growth,
more housing is proposed or approved for development in high density, multi-use buildings in the city
center. The residents of the city center deserve as much green space as the city can provide.
Destroying even small amounts of park land does not serve the many people whose only contact with
grass is within a city park.
Secondly, it is not clear why the Ludwick Center can not be used to house the Senior Center. It has been
beautifully renovated, has a commercial kitchen, is ADA compliant,and has parking. Those people who
use the center in Mitchell Park have expressed a desire to stay there and to have a parking lot. Does the
group who use this center represent the desires of seniors city wide? Perhaps more people would take
advantage of programs that could be offered in the larger Ludwick Center. I would think a survey of this
population is in order. The city needs to use its limited resources wisely.
Finally, it appears that budget constraints will not allow the upgrades that would enhance the
appearance of the parking lot. If the city can not afford to build an aesthetically pleasing parking lot, it
should not be constructed at this time.
I know it is difficult to balance the needs of your entire constituency. The members of the senior center
could relocate to the Ludwick Center. The many area residents and visitors, present and future,who
rely on having a city park for walking in the grass and watching gardens grow, have no alternative to
Mitchell Park. Save Mitchell Park for all the city's residents..
Sincerely,
The Lindaman Family G112-If
�
.1057 Buchon Street (/ RECEIVED
SEP 16 2009
SLO CITY CLERK
council mcmoRandum
RECEIVED
TO: City Council SEP 161008
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO SLO CITY CLERK
FROM: Betsy Kiser, Parks and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Senior Center Parking Lot Project Cost Saving Alternatives
On September 16, City Council is being asked to approve plans and specifications for the Senior
Center Parking Lot Project with conditions recommended by the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) with certain exceptions. Many of these conditions would increase the base
cost of the project, therefore staff identified a number of project cost saving options in the
Alternatives section of the report. I would like to add a bit more information regarding the
option to delete the BBQ area and complete it at some time in the future.
It is important to point out that the group BBQ is a popular amenity in the park which also
generates some revenue for the City. On an almost daily basis, the picnic tables in the group
BBQ area are used by individuals for lunch. Additionally, the area is rented to groups, mostly on
weekends and mostly for birthday parties, and last year saw a total of 34 rentals for revenues of
$2,000. To lose this amenity would have'a significant impact on both the character of the park
and park usage and should be considered with care.
#u COoy &xq-tL
RED FILE COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA W�Ct_NC0 DD
DI
R
DIR� ANE RE HI
EFDA ITEM #_S� UORNEY pwDRCLERWORIG POLICE
CHF
C0 DEP HEADS �EC Dlq
UTIL DtR
� � tYHFt DiA
✓ C talc
COUNOL HEHORANDUH or-CAM
September 16,2008 SEP 161009
TO: City Council SLO CITY CLERK
FROM: Ken Hampian,City Administrative Officer
Bill Statler,Director of Finance & Information Technology
SUBJECT: SENIOR CENTER FACILTY COSTS
Council Member Mulholland requested a comparison of the budget versus current estimated
costs for the Senior Citizen Facility projects approved in the 2007-09 Financial Plan. The
following provides this summary, based on the adopted work program tasks for this Major City
Goal (page B-62 to 65 of the 2007-09 Financial Plan). Staff can provide added information
about the status of these tProjects during the Council meeting, and when the CIP is further
reviewed on September 30 .
Senior Center Faeilities
Original Current
Budget * Budget Variance
Window Replacement 9,000 18,000 9,000
Chair Replacement 9,000 9,000 -
Senior/community Center Needs Study 30,000 30,000 -
Kitchen Remodel 165,000 264,100 99,106
Parking Lot 70,000 251,000 181,000
Total $283,000 $572,100 $289,100
For the parking lot, based on the proposed budget on the September 16 agenda
14W afY _ C�lD1fFIL
COUNCIL Dy DD DIR
RED FILE AO /1FIN DIR
��cc [J[�5, FIRE CHIEF
MEETING AGENDA UATTORNEY o'Pw DIR
�LERK/ORIG 0-POLICE CHF
®AT�ITEM #� 11 DEPT HEADS ErREC DIR
PH
DIA
R DIR