HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/2009, B 1 - SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT SPEC NO. 90803 council " January 6 2009
j acEnba Report Nmb. ,
CITY O F SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Public Works Direct w
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch, City Engineer
SUBJECT: SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT SPEC NO. 90803
RECOMMENDATION
1. Award a contract and authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with lowest responsible
bidder Speiss Construction in the amount of$194,328 for the Senior Center Parking Lot,
Specification No. 90803.
2. Direct staff to execute a contract change order as the first order of work to reduce the size
of the lot avoiding the dripline of the Heritage Tree, eliminate the relocation of the
barbeque pit and picnic tables, and eliminate the driveway exit to Santa Rosa Street,
thereby resulting in an approximate contract cost of$150,000.
DISCUSSION
Project Background
After a lengthy discussion and review, the Mitchell Park Master Plan was amended by the City
Council on May 5, 2008, allowing a parking lot to be constructed on the site. 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 horseshoe pit and shuffleboard court..
Current Project Status
On September 16, 2008 Council approved plans and specifications and authorized advertisement
for bids for the construction of the Senior Center Parking Lot in Mitchell Park. The Council also
authorized the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid was less than or
equal to the Engineer's Estimate. The City received 15 sealed bids with the apparent low bidder
being Spiess Construction of Santa Maria, with a bid of $194,328. Of the 15 bids, 10 were
below the Engineer's Estimate of$235,000.
The results of the November 4, 2008 elections changed the makeup of the City Council, and the
two incoming Council Members expressed an interest in reconsidering the project, the City
Manager determined it would be in the best interests of all concerned to bring the matter back to
the City Council for award. On December 2, 2008 the new City Council reviewed the potential
award of the construction contract. At that meeting the Mayor provided the City Council with a
concept which would address some of the concerns raised regarding the parking lot, mainly by
avoiding any impact to the Heritage Tree in the park, yet still providing some spaces on site for
seniors. After deliberation, the City Council directed staff to further investigate the possibility of
-aI — l
Senior Center Parking Lot—Spec No.90803 Page 2
a reduced size lot and to inform the apparent low bidder of the Council's intent to pursue a
smaller version of this same project. Staff has completed the necessary review and discussions
and believes the reduced lot size is a viable alternative within the existing bid proposal.
City Award Procedures
After the bids were opened on November 13, 2008, the City had 60 days in which to act upon the
award before the contractor had the right to rescind his bid. Since the Council is taking action
within that timeframe, and the work contemplated is simply a reduction of the item quantities
contained in the current project, staff is recommending that Council award the original contract
amount to the low bidder and give direction to staff to issue Contract Change Order 1, which
would revise the quantity amounts to match the smaller project. Staff will execute the agreement
and the Contract Change Order with Spiess. Construction. Thereafter, construction can begin
after all necessary documentation is in place.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2007-09 Financial Plan, Appendix B, pages 3-345 to 3-351, identifies $70,000 for the Senior
Center parking lot in the 2008-09 fiscal year. An additional $181,000 was transferred from the
Completed Projects account at the time the Council authorized the advertising for bids. There is
currently$244,712 available in the account to support this project.
Engineer's Est. Award Est.with Change Order
Construction: $220,000 $194,328 $150,000
Contengencies: $22,000 $20,000 $20,000
Archeological Monitoring: $5,500 $5,500 $5,500
Material Testing: $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
Printing: $1,000 $1,000 $100
Total for Construction: $251,000 $223,328 $178,100
Based on the bid amounts submitted for the work, staff estimates a Contract Change Order issued
to reduce the size of the lot and the exit to Santa Rosa Street will save approximately $43,000.
Because the agreement with the contractor has not yet been signed, the final revised amount will
need to be negotiated with the Contractor after the award.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Reject all bids and request staff to revise the project to address Council and public
concerns. If the Council decides that some parking should be included on the site, but does not
believe the proposed reduced project, or some other minor variation of the reduced project is the
correct approach, the Council could opt to revise the size or scope of the project in some other
way. Specific direction will be needed for staff to proceed with that work. The current bids
would have to be formally rejected by Council, and staff would bring forward the alternative
project for approval to advertise when it was ready.
Senior Center Parking Lot-Spec No. 90803 Page 3
2. Reject all bids and eliminate the project from further consideration. If the Council decides
that no further project work should be undertaken at this location, then the bids should be
formally rejected and the budgeted amount would be available for Council to use on some other
CIP.
ATTACHMENT
Concept Change Order Plan
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Revised parking lot plans
\\chstore2\PublicWorks\Staff-Reports-Agendas-Minutes\_CAR\2008\C[P\90803 Senior Center Parking Lot\90803 Award 1-6-09.doc
'' f - 3
ATTACHMENT
gig p ij ItIg
Aox09
Nil
Fri
B].0 / � Y
I �
I x�
O
I
oaTa
A
MO
z O
� a
i n f
I m �
z �
SANTA ROSA STREET
W 3 SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT 0 a sF
g y f
R
$� p�§ �� CONSTRUCTION PLAN SIU S OBIS OR ]e � '
p
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
TEM # ��
council McMORar uff/6 I f
711
December 30, 2008
#A-2 COPY i—
TO: City Council 1 s CT�COUNCIL 1=---CDD D I R
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Manager ►pJys dQAGCrrh m`e L FIN DIP
DIAGAOAS'rreN/w4Z---FIRE.CHIEF
FROM: Betsy Kiser, Parks and Recrea ion Director p ATTORNEY [r"Pw DIP
Prepared by: Linda Fitzgerald, Recreation Manager ETCLERKIORIG TIPOLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS 2'REC DIP
Er'12L3 L-UTIL DIP
SUBJECT: Follow-up to Senior Center Questions P mi/;5 FIR DIP
—� n� �orL
In response to several questions asked by Council Member Marx regarding usage and cost ,a rV hi61L
associated with programs offered by the Senior Center and senior organization, the staff has C c c�erc
prepared this memorandum. Outlined below is information regarding programs, participants,
residency and cost.
Senior Center Budeet
The annual operating budget for the Senior Center program in the Parks and Recreation
Department is $5,100 for newsletter costs and materials and supplies. Approximately 200 hours
of Recreation Supervisor Sheridan Bohlken's time is allocated to Senior programming. The
Supervisor serves as the City's liaison to the Senior Center Executive Board, attends general
membership meetings and coordinates instructional programs and social events for the Seniors.
The Building Maintenance Division in Public Works spends $25,000 annually towards the
maintenance of the Senior Center facility. Their costs cover contract janitorial services, utilities,
and supplies for maintenance and repairs. This cost is an estimated annual cost for the entire
building and all of its programming, which includes programs not affiliated with the Senior
Center organization, such as recreational classes and facility rentals by the community.
Senior Center Membership
As of September 22, there were 349 Senior Center members. Of those, 42 people are not
residents: 4 are "snowbirds" who stay in San Luis Obispo temporarily during the summer, and
have joined the Senior Center and use it while they are here. The remaining 38 non-resident
members are primarily those who play Duplicate Bridge, a very serious game of Tournament
Bridge. Players come from throughout the county to participate in this activity. In reviewing the
2007 Bylaws for the Senior Center, there is not a resident clause, so these people have paid their
membership dues in order to participate in this program.
With regard to attendance at specific activities, the following information has been gathered
related to Senior Services:
Bread give-away 5 volunteers collect bread for multiple recipients
within the Senior Center
Socials 70-80 people per event; 3 events per year
n
t Executive Board meetings 8 members meet once a month
Office and computer work 1-2 people volunteer during hours of operation per
week (20 total)
Bingo over 30 members participate twice a week
Bridge, Duplicate Brida and Party Bride approximately 50. eo le play 6 times per week
Computer Partners 6 members per 5 week session; 2 on-going sessions
(classes held at the Ludwick Center)
Craft-Sew Group 8 people per meeting once a_week
Exercise Group 4-12 seniors per session twice a week
Fit Feet Walking Group 5-10 members once a week (takes place at Laguna
Lake Park)
Food Give Away 16 volunteers distribute food, serving 60-70 people
Gem and Mineral Club 25 members meet once a month
Pinochle and other games 4-8 seniors daily
Roundtable Readers 10 members meet once a month
Senior Luncheons 40-70 members meet once a month with a
scheduled program
Silver Streaks 20-22 volunteers, who will serve any organization
that needs assistance
The Seniors also serve as ombudsmen for each other and provide activities for the community on
the Old Fashioned Fourth of July.
Scooters
Betsy Kiser spoke to Mr. Jud in early December, who had suggested at a Council meeting the
idea of providing electrical hook up areas at the Senior Center for the use of"scooters" by the
seniors as an alternative means of transportation to automobiles. His definition of"scooters"
were both the two and three wheel.scooters that are powered electrically and used by anyone to
travel around town and the mobility scooters used by people with disabilities. He
did acknowledge that the mobility scooters most likely would be used within the facility by those
who can't physically get around. Roughly, there are five members who use motorized
wheelchairs at the Senior Center, with less than this number presently using scooters. At least
one of the seniors uses a scooter to drive to and from his home to the Senior Center. He parks his
scooter near the bushes out front of the center, so an area in the new lot may be useful.
Traffic Studies
Council Member Marx also asked about the extent of traffic studies completed relative to the
parking lot. Per the Initial Study, the anticipated project impacts did not rise to the threshold that
would trigger a classic traffic study. However, our Transportation Division has been involved
throughout the many months of project planning and design input. While staff does not
anticipate significant circulation issues in the neighborhood associated with either the past or
present project design, there are traffic studies being conducted as part of the PismoBuchon
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. The Senior Center is part of this study area and staff
has been very involved with the neighborhood in identifying issues. The studies are about 75%
complete and neighborhood traffic improvements could come out of this effort.
RED FILL e..�uNCIL Z`CDDDIR
-. MEETING AGENDA E'-G ACrra't64 E"FIN DIR
DAT 111-1A0 ITEM �`r 1�G�C'n3/�&Z2-FIRE CHIEF
ElATTORNEY ErPW DIR
QlC LERK/ORIG ErPOLICE CHF
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council ❑ DEPT HEADS 151REC DIR
FROM: Jan Howell Marx, Council Memberf Cit%DIR
1A I
RE: Off Street Mitchell Park Parking for Center-`Memb C- HR DIR
DATE: January 6, 2009 _-�ctry eouvalz_
/Crry//LGA
CGG�e.(L
This memo serves to summarize 8 reasons Council should reject the bid before us.. It
also proposes a budget-wise alternative to providing off street parking reserved for Center
members in Mitchell Park.
1. NO TRAFFIC STUDIES SUPPORT THE NEED. The only evidence before
the Council supporting the need for a Parking Lot is anecdotal, i.e. members of
the Center say that they want it and cannot walk to the Senior Center from
where they park. Before the city would even put in a new Stop sign, a detailed
traffic analysis would be required,but in this case, none has been done. A
comprehensive traffic study for the entire historic downtown neighborhood is
underway, and we should not go ahead with this project without that objective
data. To do so would be unfair to neighbors, as well as arbitrary and capricious.
2. ACCESS,NOT MORE PARKING SPACES, IS THE GOAL.
As pointed out by Professor Jud in his view point and red file report,the Center
can be made more accessible by utilizing alternate parking strategies and
transportation. These should be utilized before paving over part of the park, out
of fairness to all city residents. Members of the Senior Center may need to
change some habits and start carpooling, taking the bus, or Ride-On Shuttle. A
trolley or Dial-a-Ride system or other innovative access strategies could be
implemented. To go ahead with this project without trying alternative strategies
first would be arbitrary and capricious. We need hard facts before we spend this
kind of money.
3. FLEXIBLE SCHEDULING WOULD DEPRESS PARKING DEMAND.
Members of the Senior Center could do a lot to alleviate the perceived traffic
problem by restricting membership to residents as they did originally, and by
relocating and/or rescheduling their activities. It does not make sense that the
City allows a non-profit to schedule activities willy-nilly, admit non-residents as
members, and takes anecdotal evidence as fact that this results in a parking
shortage, which can only be alleviated by paving over part of the park to give
members reserved parking.
The city should instead require that they schedule activities to spread out
parking demand. According to the city's Winter/Spring Schedule page 17,there
are 13 activities for"Active Adults"which take place in the Old Kindergarten
building. As shown by Attachment #1, Center Usage chart, Food Distribution
on Tuesdays at 9:00 am generates the most traffic, up to 86 people. This
activity could be relocated to the Ludwick Center, which has lots of parking.
1
The second largest traffic generator is Bridge, schedule unstated, which brings
48 people to the Center, only 10 of whom are city residents. We need to ask
- ourselves whether the people who voted for us regard providing reserved
parking for nonresidents in our downtown park more important than providing
green space for all city residents? Bridge should not be scheduled at the same
time as Food Distribution and could be scheduled for the afternoons, when the
Center is barely utilized except for 4-8 pinochle players. Tuesdays host Food
Distribution, Sewing, Exercise and possibly Bridge, and some of these activities
could be rescheduled or relocated to help ease parking.
4. ONLY ADA PARKING AND LOADING ZONE ARE ECONOMICAL. In
an era when we have to cut around$10 million out of our budget each year for
the next five years, providing reserved parking for a favored non-profit in an
inner city park is a luxury, not a necessity. The project should be considered as
part of the upcoming budget process, and not be allowed to cut to the front of
the line. The city already spends approximately$30,000 a year on the Senior
Center plus about 200 hours of staff time, and free rent, according to Betsy
Kiser's December 30, 2008 memo. Can we also afford to give them the added
"perk"of reserved parking?
The only economically justifiable need surfacing so far is for 3 ADA approved
parking spaces and an on and off loading zone. For rough sketch of how this
could work, see Attachment#2 This far less expensive alternative would allow
disabled people access to the park and accommodate car or van pooling and
deliveries.
5. THE PROJECT IS UNFAIR AND UNSMART. Replacing scarce inner city
green space with a parking lot for the use of a favored few is bad precedent. It
reduces neighborhood park land to the detriment of all other park users. It is the
exact opposite of"Smart Growth," which calls for providing more park and
garden space as we make the center of the city more dense. For years, the city
has been systematically replacing our Downtown surface lots with parking
structures and commercial and mixed use development,but not building more
parks. And now,we are seriously considering turning scarce green space into
parking lots. As new projects bring more people and cars into the Downtown,
the city has an obligation to provide MORE green space, and preserve what we
already have.
6. THE CITY NEEDS MORE DOWNTOWN GREEN SPACE. Replacing the
community garden in the Park's previous Master Plan with reserved parking for
a favored few is bad policy, especially in these economic times when people
need the opportunity to grow their own food. There is a long waiting list, 80 city
residents on it, for community garden space. A specialty garden, or
demonstration garden by the Botanical Garden would also provide needed inner
city green space. Green space also helps counter global warming and reduces
our carbon footprint, which we are being required to do by state law. As
2
recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, any loss of green space
in the Park should be mitigated with more park space downtown. The Council
should not go ahead with this project until it first sets aside downtown space for
more parks and community gardens.
7. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE HISTORIC DESIGN OF THE PARK
Previous Councils since 1988 and three advisory bodies recently recommended
against the project for, among other reasons,historical integrity of the park. The
old Kindergarten is on the Master List of Historic Resources. As cited in the
Attachment#3, the agenda report dated April 1988 "loss of open space in an
area of town identified in the Parks and Recreation Element as being deficient in
park area."The project would result in loss of historical resources and loss of
the town square atmosphere. The park was designed to be within walking
distance of the neighborhood and downtown businesses. It was not designed to
be used as a receiver site for automobile traffic for a growing Senior Center.
8. THE PROJECT JEOPARDIZES A FUTURE SENIOR/COMMUNITY
CENTER. Mitchell Park has always been regarded as the temporary home of
the Senior Center. The project makes it more likely that the Senior Center will
be there for years, and that the parking lot could be further expanded as the
Senior population grows. The City does not need to convert Mitchell Park into a
Senior Center, it needs to plan a modern, updated Senior/Community Center
with adequate parking. We need to do the Senior needs assessment study that
was postponed and find a better site for the Center, perhaps on land the City
owns already, or perhaps donated by as part of a new commercial development.
A new Senior Center would.garner tremendous community support, especially
as our Senior populations grows.
3
/
Z
o �w
V 3 � - / Lt � S •..g. .0 J
tl 'I r• 9�s, M
• Y ',, t® 3 (1 8 } .... F�'dp�Y( R
4 1}o:.D
853 { oMr \
IL �a
� � n
1 t T v e
13
fl _
�
LSA CC FFT a i
W s 3@ C SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT
city of
8a f
N �� CONSTRUCTION PLANW S OBIS
pO •� ,'�
WZD copy G r�
• - 'COUNCIL G!DD DIR
FILE GAn9 cM+Mgt 2-FIN DIR
MEETING AGENDAZ`A��r°rrynr,a_G"PIRE CHIEF
D�ATTORNEY ET-PW DIR
DATE > b o ITEM # $I 3''QLERKiORIG Q'POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS El"FIEC DIR
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council ; a PI 6 E!';i UTIL DIRi_--:reAEu,L—
La,HR DIR
FROM: Jan Howell Marx, Council Member Uc�J y7m&s /C/l�l��erc-
RE: Off Street Mitchell Park Parking for Center Members Crry
DATE: January 6,2009 �61�
�-EreC.
This memo serves to summarize 8 reaso -Ccil should reject the bid before us. It
also proposes a budget-wise alternative to priing off street parking reserved for Center
members in Mitchell Park.
1. NO TRAFFIC STUDIES SUPPORT THE NEED. The only evidence before
the Council supporting the need for a Parking Lot is anecdotal, i.e. members of
the Center say that they want it and cannot walk to the Senior Center from
where they park. Before the city would even put in a new Stop sign, a detailed
traffic analysis Would be required,but in this case, none has been done. A
comprehensive traffic study for the entire historic downtown neighborhood is
underway, and we should not go ahead with this project without that objective
data To do so would be unfair to neighbors, as well as arbitrary and capricious.
2. ACCESS, NOT MORE PARKING SPACES,IS THE GOAL.
As pointed out by Professor Jud in his view point and red file report,-the Center
can be made more accessible by utilizing alternate parking strategies and
transportation. These should be utilized before paving over part of the park,out
of fairness to all city residents. Members of the Senior Center may need to
change some habits and start carpooling, taking the bus, or Ride-On Shuttle. A
trolley or Dial-a-Ride system or other innovative access strategies could be
implemented. To go ahead with this project without trying alternative strategies
first would be arbitrary and capricious. We need hard facts before we spend this
kind of money.
3. FLEXIBLE SCHEDULING WOULD DEPRESS PARKING DEMAND.
Members of the Senior Center could do a lot to alleviate the perceived traffic
problem by restricting membership to residents as they did originally,and by
relocating and/or rescheduling their activities. It does not make sense that the
City allows a non-profit to schedule activities willy-nilly, admit non-residents as
members, and takes anecdotal evidence as fact that this results in a parking
shortage, which can only be alleviated by paving over part of the park to give
members reserved parking.
The city should instead require that they schedule activities to spread out
parking demand. According to the city's Winter/Spring Schedule page 17,there
are 13 activities for"Active Adults"which take place in the Old Kindergarten
building. As shown by Attachment#1, Center Usage chart, Food Distribution
on Tuesdays at 9:00 am generates the most traffic, up to 86 people. This
activity could be relocated to the Ludwick Center, which has lots of parking.
1
The second largest traffic generator is Bridge, schedule unstated,which brings
48 people to the Center, only 10 of whom are city residents. We need to ask
ourselveswhether the people who voted for us regard providing reserved
parking for nonresidents in our downtown park more important than providing
green space for all city residents? Bridge should not be scheduled at the same
time as Food Distribution and could be scheduled for the afternoons, when the
Center is barely utilized except for 4-8 pinochle players. Tuesdays host Food
Distribution, Sewing, Exercise and possibly Bridge, and some of these activities
could be rescheduled or relocated to help ease parking.
4. ONLY ADA PARKING AND LOADING ZONE ARE ECONOMICAL. In
an era when we have to cut around$10 million out of our budget each year for
the next five years, providing reserved parking for a favored non-profit in an
inner city park is a luxury, not a necessity. The project should be considered as
part of the upcoming budget process, and not be allowed to cut to the front of
the line. The city already spends approximately $30,000.a year on the Senior
Center plus about 200 hours of staff time, and free rent, according to Betsy
Kiser's December 30, 2008 memo. Can we also afford to give them the added
"perk" of reserved parking?
The only economically justifiable need surfacing so far is for 3 ADA approved
parking spaces and an on and off loading zone. For rough sketch of how this
could work, see Attachment#2 This far less expensive alternative would allow
disabled people access to the park and accommodate car or van pooling and
deliveries.
5. THE PROJECT IS UNFAIR AND UNSMART.Replacing scarce inner city
green space with a parking lot for the use of a favored few is bad precedent. It
reduces neighborhood park land to the detriment of all other park users. It is the
exact opposite of"Smart Growth,"which calls for providing more park and
garden space as we make the center of the city more dense. For years,the city
has been systematically replacing our Downtown surface lots with parking
structures and commercial and mixed use development, but not building more
parks. And now, we are seriously considering turning scarce green space into
parking lots. As new projects bring more people and cars into the Downtown,
the city has an obligation to provide MORE green space, and preserve what we
already have.
6. THE CITY NEEDS MORE DOWNTOWN GREEN SPACE. Replacing the
community garden in the Park's previous Master Plan with reserved parking for
a favored few is bad policy, especially in these economic times when people
need the opportunity to grow their own food. There is a long waiting list, 80 city
residents on it, for community garden space. A specialty garden, or
demonstration garden by the Botanical Garden would also provide needed inner
city green space. Green space also helps counter global warming and reduces
our carbon footprint, which we are being required to do by state law. As
2
recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, any loss of green space
in the Park should be mitigated with more park space downtown. The Council
should not go ahead with this project until it first sets aside downtown space for
more parks and community gardens.
7. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE HISTORIC DESIGN OF THE PARK.
Previous Councils since 1988 and three advisory bodies recently recommended
against the project for, among other reasons, historical integrity of the park. The
old Kindergarten is on the Master List of Historic Resources. As cited in the
Attachment#3,the agenda report dated April 1988 "loss of open space in an
area of town identified in the Parks and Recreation.Element as being deficient in
park area."The project would result in loss ofhistorical resources and loss of
the town square atmosphere. The park was designed to be within walking
distance of the neighborhood and downtown businesses. It was not designed to
be used as a receiver site for automobile traffic for a growing Senior Center.
8. THE PROJECT JEOPARDIZES A FUTURE SENIOR/CONE%IUNITY
CENTER. Mitchell Park has always been regarded as the temporary home of
the Senior Center. The project makes it more likely that the Senior Center will
be there for years, and that the parking lot could be further expanded as the
Senior population grows. The City does not need to convert Mitchell Park into a
Senior Center, it needs to plan a modern, updated Senior/Community Center
with adequate parking. We need to do the Senior needs assessment study that
was postponed and find a better site for the Center, perhaps on land the City
owns already, or perhaps donated by as part of a new commercial development.
A new Senior Center would gamer tremendous community support, especially
as our Senior populations grows.
3
SENIOR CENTER USAGE
Until very recently,no data regarding the use of the Senior Center has been presented to
Council. Where and when high attendance Senior activities are scheduled impacts
demand for parking, as shown in the chart below. Instead of building off-site,reserved
parking for Center members in Mitchell Park, the City should direct the Center to
relocate or reschedule high attendance activities to ease the parking"crunch" in the area.
Time M T W Th F #
8:40am Bingo Bingo 30
9:00 Bridge? Bridge? Bridge? Bridge? Bridge 48/10 res.
9:00 Silver Strks 20-22
9:00 Food Distrib. 76-86
9:30 Sewing 8.
10 Exercise Exercise 20-22
10 _Monthly Board 8
12 Cards Cards Cards 4-8
12-1 MonthlyLunch 40-80
1-4 Cards Cards Cards 4-8
2
3
4
5
6
7 Monthly Gem "filled"?
7 Monthly Book 10
Miscellaneous Socials(2 or 3 a year) 70-80
-
Q � �
C
'� v;� • 1,
47
• s-- e
,
t �L •� c
2 l
o o
f « 4�j r11 t
0
�a ��o
iF
0 1R4
SENIOR CENTER PARMNG LOT r"�plW city
nQ
p p nY nn cc 5 f
CONSTRUCTION PLAN san �.ui s oBis ® :
Attachm
CI'GY O� ,An LUIS OBISPO
:NU=MB M
SPIECIALREPORT "
w FROM. Recreation - Stockton
sump.
Report on Senior Center Expansion and Request fo
Design Funds to Proceed wir Increase in
th Rehabilitation of Existing Center. '
CAO RECOMMENOA770N:
Approve an increase in desiga:funds of $9,000 due to
expanded workscope.
BACKGROUND:
The Senior Center Project was originally envisioned as a two phase
project, an expansion of the physical facilities and rehabilitation of the
existing center to bring it into compliance with current codes, During
the "study" phase of-this project, a number of concerns arose that put the
expansion portion of,-the project.in jeopardy. These concerns included:
1. The size ofaddition necessary. to serve Senior needs for the next•
five years.
2. Development of off-street parking for the expanded Center.
, 3. Demographics of current and future senior population.
4. Currently available resources to accomplish the expansion.
Addressing these concerns produced these findings:
1. A 2500 to 3000 square foot addition would be necessary to
adequately serve the 5-year projected senior needs for service offices,
diagnostic rooms and expanded recreation space.
2. The addition noted above would require on-site parking to .
accommodate in excess of 50 automobiles.
3. A study of current users of the SIA Senior Center indicates that .
over 808 reside within 1/2 to 3/4 radius .of the Mitchell Park'site.
Little use is made of this center by seniors living outside this radius.
Housing that is most available to seniors is not within this radius.
4. Estimated costs for construction of the proposed addition, the
renovation of the existing center and construction of necessary parking
far exceeds CIF and grant funds currently available for the total project.
From these concerns and findings, the following conclusions were drawn.
1. The Mitchell Park site will not accommodate the proposed
expansion and necessary off-street parking.without causing negative
impacts that could not be effectively mitigated. Negative impacts
include:
a. Loss of open park space in an area 'of town identified in
the Park and Recreation Elemeh-E as being deficient in park acreage.
'(Thi addition, with parking, would build over or pave approximately
1/5 of the open park space..
Attachmer.
City o� San tins•oBIspo
C. A. O n SPEC IAL REPORT
- 2 -
b. 'Loss of historical resource. Mitchell' Park-is one of• the'
Oldest parks in the City and has been maintained through the years
to retain the "town square" atmosphere.
c. Change in neighborhood character. The Mitchell Park area
is mostly single family residential with old-town flavor that
surrounds a town-square. or park. The proposed project would
effectively change this 'character to a neighborhood surrounding a
landscaped parking lot.
2. A new site should be selected for a Senior 'Center, possibly in
conjunction with the preparation of the new Park.and Open Space Element.. .
3. Rehabilitation of the existing. center continues to be a viable
project. In addition to bringing the Center into compliance with current
codes, revising the current. room layout will accomplish the following:
a. A 15 percent increase in useable space for senior activity.
"b. Expanded kitchen facilities with commercial appliances.
c. Accessible restrooms.
d. Enlarged recreation and reception area.
e. Enlarged meeting/diagnostic room.
This rehabilitation will not alter.the exterior.of the Center and will,
therefore, not require Architectural Review. A new entry will be provided
making use of existing stepr and ramp. The current senior users of the
center as-well-as the club Board of Directors favor this rehabilitation
even though they understand that their programs will be disrupted during
the rehab project.
The expanded study phase of this project, including numerous design
scenarios for an addition to the center, a number of parking.design
alternatives and a beginning demographic study,of possible senior users,
'has increased the initial cost of study/design by $9000 over original
estimates. As 'such, to continue with the Rehabilitation Phase of the
project an additional $9,000 will be necessary to complete working plans
and specifications, bid .packages and for construction management. These
funds are available in the current CIP and are reimbursable through grant.
funds from Senior Center Bond Act. Administrative approval is necessary
and requested to continue this phase of the project unless an expanded
report is deemed necessary for- Council reconsideration.
Director'of Finance
APPROVED : :DISAPPROVED
Ci<y Ad4istrative Officer. .
.'. .-ir.' :.v,.•: ....".r� - .:.\.. �%i •'•/•,,-fir l.' ':l: 'Y.$: Y:C' .lt !t
:'r ':.k�.. y,9:..• �•+':`• .21 < ��^r•:. w'('.d.. _ ':ii.';'°'r'..'.jT;�:::.i:,�i:�w.:.�=...:.t;.
p
�j
ROBERT E. GRIFFIN
1436 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
December 14,2008
Mayor&City Council members:
I write in opposition to the Mitchell Park panting lot recently proposed by Mayor Romero and
Council member Ashbaugh. Here are my reasons:
• The Proposed Project Expense is Nonsense. The national economy has been in a severe
recession for overs year, The Governor has declared a State Budget"Armageddon°; and major
local retailers are dosing — all factors that will have a deep impact upon the City's revenue
potential for the coming fiscal cycle.
Obligating nearly $200,000 just one week before the City begins its 2009.11 Financial
Planning process raises this question: Even assuming the proposed parking lot has any
merit' what priority would such a project gain against other competing community needs
In the FY 2009-11 Budget?
Parking Lot is a Solution in Search of a Problem. There appears to be no more than
anecdotal evidence in the public record justifying the proposed panting lot.
The Mayor has said the seniors have been requesting a small lot for about twenty years. I
was a Council member twenty years ago and I recall only a shared understanding that the Senior .
Center was a very limited facility. Would not the need for such a parking lot show up in
specific plans supporting the General Plan over the intervening years?
A number of "soft' and less capital-intensive aftematives have been proposed. These have
either been discarded outright or dismissed based upon the same kind of anecdotal facts used to
explain why a panting lot is the solution. If the City has the kind of pubic funds to pay for
paddng lot midst Mitchell Park, why not first put a NO into some hard trafiicIpa►king data
that could better define the true nature and extent of the problem and point toward more
sound action?
• Mitchell Park is More Than Just a park. The neighborhoods surrounding Mitchell Park
(unlike many other in town) are under assault from noise, traffic and parking congestion, and
nonresidential intrusions. These threats will only increase unless our City Fathers adopt strong
policies and act on the inherent value of these neighborhoods to the well being of the Community.
Mitchell Park is the surviving public amenity for easing neighborhood threats. Is chipping away
at Mitchell Park's k tegr/ty to Invite more vehicles and noise sound policy or warranted
decision making?
At the January a Council meeting I will be watching and listening closely to your deliberations
and action on this issue.
fit' T09P 4,
2COUNCIL 1!CDD DIR
Er&AGAClrynl7/ E FIN DIR
C�AE�48/%rcrrr/gcQGFIRE CHIEF
EIS ORNEY p'PW DIR
Robert E.Griffin ff CLERK/ORIG Cf POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS 2REC DIR
ET--AS Z'UTIL DIR
RED FILE / 2�.6�eJ� 2-HR DIP,
- MEETING AGENDA 60140-104e-
DATE-A& ITEP0 # -23 _ i�.� 14612
-�e-t-c-rz,t
Page 1 of I
Council, SloCity
From: Stephany Hollabaugh [sholler2l@yahoo.com] Sent: Mon 1/5/2009 2:06 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
My name is Stephany Hollabaugh. I am not able to attend the meeting tomorrow, 1/6, but wanted to express my concern over
turning ANY part of Mitchell park into a parking lot. I am astonished that this city is even considering something like that. Please do
NOT take away from any of our precious green space to build an area for parking.
Sincerely,
Stephany Hollabaugh
RED FILE
- MEETING AGENDA E'rCOUNCIL 2'CDD DIR
2rGA6C[M1W-&— <�IN DIR
DATE/k/01 ITEPlI # dAGAO k5r-471 14q-CTFIRE CHIEF
C�' TTORNEY CPW DIR
CLERK/ORIG 2'POLICE CHF
O DEPT HEADS Z REC DIR
i 2f T2 14 /E Q'UTIL DIR
i -PI PL_ 21HR DIR
Chi 4p6Ae--
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Mitchell%2OPark-3.EML?Cmd=open 1/5/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Chris McBride [chrispmcb@gmail.com] Sent: Mon 1/5/2009 12:59 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Once again,we.would like to voice our opposition to the creation of a parking lot in Mitchell Park,behind the Senior Center. We
believe there are reasonable options that have not been researched,discussed or considered. We agree with each point outlined in
the editorial by Eugene Jud that appeared in this weekend's Tribune. Link here: hitp://www.sanluisobispo.com/letters-to-the-
editorJstory/575691.html).
We are unable to attend the meeting tomorrow night.We ask you to reject the parking lot proposal and look at more economical
feasible,flexible and less impactful solutions.
The McBride Family
Sterling, Chris, Emily and Peter
1633 Santa Rosa,San Luis Obispo
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Mitchell%2OPark-2.EML?Cmd=open 1/572009
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Paula Zima [pz@paulazima.com] Sent: Mon 1/5/2009 12:35 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject. Save Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Dear City Council,
I hear that there is an actual consideration of the idea of turning
Mitchell Park into a parking lot. Do any of you guys recall Joni Mitchel?
It seems she had a song,about taking Paradise, and turning it into a....
I agree there needs to be more parking, but let's focus on finding a solution,
other than more asphalt. San Luis Obispo is so unique,and kids,that park is part of that.
The obvious solution is creating more parking spaces in one of the few pieces of land
that doesn't have anything else on it....
How about a countywide contest for ideas?
This is the New Age after all, going from greed and green backs to just plain Green.
SLO was a leader in the no smoking in public places issue, remember?How about using
that foresight on this issue.
I happen to be very fond of San Luis Obispo,and would be very sad if I discovered
you had agreed to pave Mitchell park and put white diagonal stripes all over it.
You have a town with a great appreciation for Art and Architecture, be creative!
I know you will,
Sincerely,
Paula Zima
Paula Zima + Painting& Sculpture + 10 Blue Raven Rd. + Santa Fe, N.M. 87508 +
ph:505-424-2207 + cell.•505-629-2838 + pzQpaulazima.com + htip-lAwww.paulazima.coml
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Save%2OMitchell%2OPark.EML?Cm... 1/5/2009
Page I of 1
Council,SloCity
From: vermelda@aol.com [vermelda@aol.com] Sent: Mon 1/5/2009 12:09 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc: Vermelda@aol.com
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Hello,
My name is Vernanne Cohen and I live in San Luis Obispo. I do believe that the seniors in our area need a better way to access the
senior center but I am NOT in favor of putting a parking lot in the place of Mitchell Park. I am sure with the economy the
way it is there are other buildings that are more accessible that already have parking lots nearby. Also, another idea is to have a
shuttle service run by volunteers, perhaps the fraternities and.sororities might be interested. It is such a lovely and mature park in
our down town. Please relocate the center,don't pave the park.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Vemanne Cohen
358 Broad St.
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Get a tree MP3 every day with the Spinner.com Toolbar. Get it Now.
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInbox/Mitchell%2OPark.EML?Cmd=open 1/5/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Terry Mohan [catsdad@sbcglobal.netl Sent: Mon 1/5/2009 12:40 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject• Senior Parking-Agenda.Item 1
Attachments:
Senior Center Parking
I have to agree with Eugene Jud's suggestion that there be an analysis of the number
of seniors actually in need of parking at the senior center and not just spend this
money willy nilly to feign support for senior services. When my inlaws came into town
before Christmas I looked into activities at the senior center. For one thing they are
only open from 9:30 AM to 4PM Monday to Friday, 33 hours per week. The parking
facility would eliminate the shuffle board court and the horseshoe pits, the only
physical activity at the center. To spend even $150,000 on an abbreviated lot to
support three days of card playing and a few lunches isn't an equitable investment.
Mr. Jud's suggestions that senior transportation discounts from Ride.On were a better
investment for the city was right on.
Street parking should be limited during the week from 9-5 on the west side of Santa
Rosa Street between Pismo and Buchon and half of the north side of Buchon Street to
vehicles displaying a Senior Center members window sticker. I still like my idea of
placing modular building in Sinesheimer Park near the new therapy pools and exercise
facilities at the YMCA. This way seniors could take advantage of all the amenities of
that area with plenty of parking and bus service, without causing animosity and
conflict in the neighborhood. Since the school distict owns the park maybe they
would pay half the modular price to utilize the rooms at night.
Terry Mohan
2416 Santa Clara
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
https:/lmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Senior%20Parking%20-%20Agenda... 1/5/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Jennifer Thomas Werner l]wemer@calpoly.edu] Sent- Mon 1/5/2009 2:33 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park RE: John Ashbaugh
Attachments:
Dear Mr. Ashbaugh,
I am writing to you in regards to Mitchell Park.
For what it is worth, parks in an urban setting are important to the members of its' society. They provide
nature in an organized fashion and a place for urban dwellers to seek serenity in the world we live in.
I understand the need for parking in the town of San Luis Obispo, but can't an altemative plan be devised to
satisfy both sides?If not, maybe a compromise?
I urge you to argue for the greater good. San Luis Obispo is a historic town, and if Mitchell Park becomes a
slab of asphalt, the word "historic" looses its meaning. Lets preserve what we have!
Thank you,
Jennifer Werner
Cal Poly 4th Year Student
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Mitchell%20Park%20RE:%20John%... 1/5/2009
RED FILE RECEIVED
Eugene Jud MEETING AGENDA JAN Q 9 (Liu
665 Leff Street DATE � (� U9ITEM # 1'_, SLO CITY CLERK
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone Home 549-8185 _
Office 756-1729 San Luis Obispo,December 30, 2008
Council Meeting January 6,2009: Agenda Item 1, Senior Center Parldng
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members
I respectfully suggest that you do not award a big contract now,but instead proceed
according to Alternative 1 of the staff report"Rejecting all bids and request staff to revise
the project".
I include my ten page report containing"A Real Compromise Solution" shown in maps
and perspectives. I propose that we immediately address the undisputed short term need
of some safe ADA compatible spaces,two of them in bays along Santa Rosa Street and
two along Buchon Street as shown in Plan A on page 3 of the report. This may be
possible for$25.000: Sooner or later we have to follow the new ADA norms anyway.
I further propose that we use the tremendous opportunities for less commuter oriented
,parking management around the park, which will certainly free many spaces for
seniors. If this clearly does not solve the problem, paving alternatives can be discussed as
shown in Plan B and C.
It will be hard for me to explain all this in three minutes,even with the use of overheads.
If you feel ten minutes would be appropriate,please let me know.
Thank you for your consideration.
With my best wishes for the New Year SpcouNCIL FCDD DIR
CAO FIN DIR
1eAMFIRE CHIEF
ATTOTTO RNEY PW DIR
VCLERK/019IQ POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS Ht c 01A
PIA --- IUX bin
Eugene Jud I 7918aAIC HR bIR _
Enclosure: My Study Report of December 30, 2009 )z e°UeW c`L
vz- airy IV/;R-
MITCHELL PARK
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
To Pave or Not to Pave or How Much?
A Study
about Parking Management
and Access to the Senior Center
by
Eugene Jud P.E.
Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers
v� f
a, f
0 41
io
+� 1
•• f
7� '• '• 1
Ja
Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks go to the many persons from public and private agencies as well as
professionals and citizens from San Luis Obispo and surroundings who gave very
valuable input. A special bouquet is handed to Cal Poly student Gabriel Kaprielian
for his excellent perspective drawings.
December 30, 2008
a
Mitchell Park: A True Compromise Parkin Plan for Seniors Exists!
The goal the SLO City Council should have adopted is: "To provide access to the Senior
Center based on statistics using first smart parking management around the park and then
construction of parking as needed". Unfortunately the current proposal contains only
construction -and this in our precious downtown park.
The short term needs of seniors - illustrated by Plan A and three perspectives- are:
1. One loading zone set back from Santa Rosa Street with space to load wheel chairs
2. Three parking spaces for persons with disabilities set back from Santa Rosa and
Buchon Streets compliant with the newest ADA norms. All four of the above spaces
should be parallel to the street with practically no loss of greenery.
3. Some smaller spaces for personal mobility devices such as scooters and Tricruisers
The intermediate needs are:
4. Parking spaces for other seniors.
I am 70 and a member of the Senior Center. I still teach at Cal Poly as a Fellow of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) with 46 years of professional experience.
After three weeks of research about Mitchell Park I conclude that we do not have the
necessary statistics normally used by the parking industry or ITE to support the official
12-space $200.000 parking project:
- The most basic statistics about parking occupancy,parking durations and trip purposes
around Mitchell Park do not exist.
-Vital information about the Senior Center is unavailable:By which means of transport
do we access the Center? There are at least 10 possibilities. How many seniors can still
drive?How many have the disabled placard?How many can walk how far?
A staff report of May 6, 2008,mentions some"senior input"but contains none of the
above data. The City has never published a parking management plan with its effects for
the Center. The current paving project may be more the result of political dogma than of
systematic planning.
My rough analysis of the 48 parking spaces surrounding Mitchell Park indicates how to
solve the Center's problems through smart parking management at zero cost instead of
paving. Approximately 70 percent of the above spaces,namely 33, are used by long-
parking commuters who can easily be relocated through metered parking,two-hour
parking zones, or other measures. Instead of 33 commuter cars we can now accommodate
132 cars per day,each one for two hours, whereof half could belong to seniors. These
could serve 70 seniors with the majority closer than 350 feet to the center. This is more
than the Senior Center needs. For overflow we have 43 parking stalls across the streets
surrounding the park, and just one block further south there are always empty parking
spaces on Islay Street - long term and free of charge.
1
1 \
I will show plans in Council and I propose a REAL COMPROMISE:
- Answer the short term needs immediately by building the above spaces for safe loading,
ADA and special mobility at a possible cost of$25.000.- See Plan A with three
perspectives.
- Answer the intermediate needs by implementing a flexible smart parking concept in
summer 2009 as a one-year trial and have the Senior Center collect its statistics. After
that the effect of smart parking can be checked against the proven needs of the Center.
For the case that paving were really needed, two more plans were developed. Both
impact the park less than the official project and still allow for a small specialty garden.
They are Plan B "The Esplanade Drive-Up" shown with Perspective 1, and Plan C "The
Crowded 8 Spaces" without drive-up. All this is posted on www.savemitchellpark.com,
I hope that many citizens show up for the Council Meeting of Tuesday, January 6,2009.
The official project is an overkill, inflexible, unfair, unneeded, too expensive and must be
rejected. San Luis Obispo can do better. For more info contact Dave Kuykendall,
dave(&slo5.com.
Eugene Jud P.E.
OWN Nodw
San Luis Obispo,December 30, 2008
Jt
:y. J
f
1 � � iFg�f� Q� r• 3+ i
A • 1 :..
r.
2
A Real Compromise at Mitchell Park
PLAN A: THE UNDISPUTED SHORT TERM NEED
Four "safe" spaces:
One multipurpose loading zone and
three ADA compatible parking spaces
lQ / 1 bike t,14ovle
l/t r/- ier 5e T tQ 3-ll�fre P/S
l0ark
� I s
Fv
Special{Y
GardeH Sca� Ur �2yreY I a
r ,
I ,
J �
� Illfll
o so fj
Illlllf
/D 20 3o QD
S 20W
i r
Remarks
°Safe° spaces are set back from street according to ADA Build Manual Parking
Loading zone may also be used for deliveries
At least 5 spaces for bikes, scooters, 3-wheelers etc. with one electric plug
Greenery of park practically untouched Ju,Dec.30,2008
3
CD
c
o
Cl)
o
m \ a
� o
C
• j' U
a�
CL) co
co
a a.
y
i
a
(0
C-j d
U
4
_ m
r
e;
f• �1M��Ltr1f �.: 1
.,r r��� � � Li re � •
r0
4v �
n �1
r
1
_ n Iib.41'n
� Y
t�
r, `k 3
f I! Q
N
Lr� y ' a
p o A I
I
A Real Compromise at Mitchell Park
d
PLAN B: THE ESPLANADE DRIVE-UP
Excellent driveability
Three to four ADA compatible or normal parking spaces
1
PrI I
Mi�cti�11 :><Q ye T e fr S
Ra rA L I I
4� n o
1
� o j
� o
4 c
2
3 4 SeH/or Ceh�er
I �
iui „ HNMIJ.t- – I I III i l l
�arir�;nq new PQr�lh9 .._. . —
tvr6 Gvf curb coi
BvGNOh .S� —�
�orltiM9 f
-- - II IIIiiIi
o so ft
I111103f410 1
S Ito /5 Zorn
Remarks
ADA or normal parking spaces: #1, #2, #3 and #4, one of them van-accessible
#4 can also be used for deliveries.
An alternative with just 3 parking spaces is possible.
At least 5 spaces for bikes, scooters, 3-wheelers etc. with one electric plug
Park has less greenery than in Plan A Ju,Dec.30,2008
7
ry
r �r.
• �rf
ti
%T i
1.
to
1} rM ���•~
r r
1,
�f
n �
i
A Real Compromise at Mitchell Park
PLAN C: THE CROWDED EIGHT SPACES
Low driveability
Eight parking spaces, whereof four ADA compatible
If needed expandable to twelve "official" spaces
/en /,cx�x r/
I
Gardehffr (��e
A DA APA�4DA /SDAIII
II
- - - 7 I
D so f+
/0 Zo 3G �0 I Go 70
Remarks
At least 5 spaces for bikes, scooters, 3-wheelers etc. with one electric plug
Same amount of greenery as Plan B but small specialty garden still possible.
Ju,Dec.30,2008
9
Page I of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Eric Meyer[356@charter.net] Sent: Mon 1/5/2009 7:56 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Senior Center parking lot motion points
Attachments:
Mr. Mayor, Members of Council.
The smaller Senior Center Parking lot concept is better than the original plan but it can be even better. I would
like to suggest that any motion to approve this plan include the following:
1. Eliminate the old chlorine storage shed and it's access concrete... replace it with turf:
2. Eliminate the north driveway and curbcut between the Senior Center and the playground. This would
eliminate the need for the landscape barricade between the driveway and the playground... opening up a 30' x
100' area for recreational use of some sort. It would also allow one more on street parking spot where the
driveway curbcut used to be. (this could be a 15 minute metered spot... usable by any legally handicapped
placard owning person for as long as needed and skirting the handicapped legal space size requirements)
Trash relocates adjacent to the new parking lot. City maintenance vehicles use the new lot.*
My motion... were I a councilmember... would read.
'The City Council moves to approve the plan for the new revised smaller lot... and directs staff to negotiate
with the highest bidder for the removal of the chlorine shed and associated concrete(which shall be replaced
with turf) and for the removal of the driveway and landscape on the north side of the Senior Center(which
shall be replaced with turf accessible from the children play area). The current trash facility shall be relocated
adjacent to the new lot and the current curb cut shall be removed and replaced with a 15 minute parking spot"
Between these two changes... you gain almost as much useable green as you are giving up.
Thanks,
Eric Meyer
COUNCIL u CDD DIR
F1ED FILE o' c�r+,vn�� En FIN DIR
Q' 4sSrcrry,st�¢p'1=1RE CHIEF
— MEETING AGENDA �g. ORNEY 2-PW DIR
C CLERK 0AlG E'1 POLICE CHF
DATE Ya ITE111 ;``-'._ ❑ DEPI HEADS IrAEC DIR
C'I-- ZUTIL DIR
E HR DIR
!✓�n pct�s �c,ozc�crc.
�[L�K
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Senior%2OCenter%20parking%201ot... 1/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
Settle Allen
From: Agatha Reardon [agathar@charter.net] Sent: Tue 1/6/2009 11:08 AM
To: Mayor Dave Romero; John B.Ashbaugh; Carter,Andrew; Marx,Jan; Settle,Allen
Cc:
Subject:. Senior Center Parking Lot
Attachments:
Dear Mayor Romero and Members of the City Council,
I am looking at some of the data that has appeared in the tribune
and some other data that has been submitted regarding the Senior
Center for this evening's City Council Meeting. Some ask questions
about issues that we have answered more than once over the past two
years, and is a matter of record. I do not know where some of the
newer comments and information were gathered, but the data contains a
lot of innacurate information. The longer we wait to decide this
issue the more controversy and new "solutions" will be offered.
On behalf of the Senior Center Members. I urge you to approve Change
Order 1 tonight, and begin the process to build the Senior Center
parking lot.
Thank You for all the time and effort that you and all the staff have
put into this project.
Agatha Reardon
1275 Manzanita Way
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
https://mail.s locity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/S enior%o 20Center%20Parking%20Lot-2.EM... 1/6/2009
Page 1 of 1
®You forwarded this message on 1/6/2009 1:14 PM.
Council, SloCity
From: Eric Meyer[356@charter.net] Sent: Mon 1/5/2009 8:09 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Close a street... create a garden...
Attachments:
"Close a street... create a Garden". I can't believe I didn't think of this before....
The elimination of the Community Garden was the major controversy with the Senior Center Parking lot.
Those that want garden plots are primarily downtown renters with no open space near home... and often they
do not have a car. They are some of the poorest among us, yet often the most creative. We need to
encourage them. We need gardens where they will get used (in the neighborhood) rather than miles away in
Meadow park... or off Calle Joaquin.
So... Lets close the portion of Leff... where it meets Toro... and make a garden. If we have to pave the park...
to make a parking lot... than the perfect solution is to close a st. to create a garden.
Nobody would complain about closing these streets... and the street location in question is surrounded by low
income Housing Authority property or the RR tracks.
I think you all can REALLY WIN by suggesting we "close a st. to create a garden". Especially if you. begin the
process simultainiously with the approval of the creation of the parking lot in the park.
IF this location isn't right... then find another. (this is THE best location... I already looked!)
It would generate city wide respect for our Council... and if managed right....nationwide publicity for SLO. This
is the type of PR our city needs. Itis Sunset magazine stuff:.. LA Times stuff... Coastal Living stuff...
This is the SLO we all know... and want. it will make a fantastic story in the press... and I think could start a
trend nationwide. This is what you all want... I know it is. Go with it!
Call it Eric's Garden... (actually we should call it the George Moylan (sp?) Memorial garden)
Best of luck Tuesday.
Eric Meyer
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInbox/Close%20a%20street...%20create%2... 1/6/2009
• 12-02-08
James Millenaar
1444 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Dear Mayor and City Council Members;
I have this to say about spending $200,000 for a parking lot behind the Senior Center;Ridiculous!I find it
absolutely disgusting to give up park-open space to cars.This is even more disgusting when it goes against
the wishes of the park donor when the"Real"problem lies with the continued developer giveaways and a
refusal to create policy whereby the developers pay for and/or provide adequate parking for their
developments as they would have to outside of downtown.
Parking was not an issue until the completetion of 4 major developments that all resulted in HUGE
LOSSES of net parking downtown.We are now looking at more major developments,that once again result
in huge losses of parking.I'm seriously offended as a taxpayer when you sell taxpayer owned parking lots
at below market value and we don't get adequate parking replacement in return.
To continually try to foist the problem of parking(the leading complaint in city services)into our
neighborhoods is what has led us to our current debacle.There would be plenty of parking for seniors if the
County Government Center,The Court Street Center,The Downtown Center had been forced to provide
parking for their employees and patrons.Downtown sprawl belongs in a parking garage,y'all...It doesn't
belong in our neighborhoods all day,every day,7 days a week, 16 hours a day like it does in my area This
doesn't foster community in any way shape or form.
Neighborhoods are for neighbors,their guests,and service contractors.When I come home from work or
wish to run an errand;I would like to be able to return to my home and park in front of it or at least nearby.
I cannot do that,nor can most of my neighbors,given current conditions.I might add I have no off-street
parking where I reside.As a25 year resident here,I've watched my neighborhood turn into a nightmare.
Overrun with cars,noise,unattended car alarms,trash,cigarettes,cars parked in front of your garbage cans
or blocking your driveway,etc.I've seen it all,it disgusts me,and the city continues to turn a blind eye.
A parking district would be much cheaper than building a parking lot behind the Senior Center.It would
give us back our neighborhoods and provide what I see to be as nothing but positives for the city and
community as a whole.A parking district would generate revenue through increased garage and meter user
fees;along with parking violation fees.It may cause an increase in bus ridership,cycling and/or car pooling
reducing CO2 emissions.More trees and shrubs in the park to filter pollutants.
I feel that the survey regarding forming a parking district was flawed from the outset.From the date that it
was mailed on(before Veterans Day Weekend and due back after Thanksgiving);to including businesses
on Pacific Street(residential conversations with inadequate parking);to the lack of permits limit 2)issued
to homes and rentals with 3 or more residents and/or cars.I outlined other issues in previous letters to the
council.Get staff out for a door to door.Get real results.Lets get past the BS.You are asking a lot,when
you are trying to get people to take time out of their busy lives to respond,because response takes effort and
I think you play that card knowing that transitional rental households are not likely to respond and yet it is
something that effects us all and is a common source of friction and topic of discussion for all who five
within the downtown perimeter.
I also wish bitch loud and clear on another previous council vote regarding the Phase 2 of the Morro Street
Bike Blvd.While I am ardent supporter of most cycling projects,the Traffic Diverters you wish to place at
Morro and Buchon,and at Morro and Leff Streets will again result in the loss of 4 additional parking places
in each intersection.This is on top of 4 spaces already lost switching the stop signs to meet new sight
visibility requirements.This is a loss of 8 parking spaces!...in an already seriously impacted neighborhood
without any mitigations for the residents that live here.Unacceptable!...
We suggested over a year ago to put in drain swales(2 per intersection)to control speeding cars along
Monro Street with NO LOSS of PARKING and no loss of functional navigation for traffic and fire/safety
services.We do have a speeding problem by a few people on Morro Street but I cannot say that I have ever
seen any kind of traffic enforcement by police for the few violators that actually exist.
Losing an additional 4 spaces at my intersection along with a space at the Avila House,more spaces for the
development at the comer of Chorro and Pismo can only impact our neighborhood more negatively.It's a
travesty.When does it end?Other pending developments downtown have me worried as well as this is no
way to live without some type of mitigation.Downtown(s)NOT our neighborhood; and no it doesn't make
a good neighbor when people are parked in front of your house all day,every day.
Please reconsider the idea of parking district for both the Senior Center area and the area I live in.Some
kind of mitigation is definitely warranted if the Traffic Diverter project moves forward.Thanks for leading
an ear.
Sincerely Yours,
James Millenaar
Page 1 of 1
Attachments can contain_viruses that may harm,your computer.,Attachments may not display correctly.
Council,SloCity _
From: Bob Banner[info@hopedance:org] Sent: Tue 1/6/2009 12:44 AM
To: caucus@lists.riseup.net; hd-I@hopedance.net
Cc:
Subject: Fwd:,Mitchell Park in Council on Tue]an. 6, 7pm
Attachments: ! j Mitchell Park letter. df{ f(1MB) ,I ATT75597.htm(2656) 1-6-8 Marx MemQ..doc 5 KB D ATT75598.htm
2656 11) FieidAgenda Mo3an5.doc(30KB) D A7Tm55g9.htm(23KB)
97KD COPY Ow L
2fIC0UNCIL ErCDD DIR
Begin forwarded message: Ole t6 ctrrtttl6L 2-FIN DIR
0'AGAGA56rcry)&L2"FIRE CHIEF
From: Eugene Jud <eud@calpoly.edu> ET'ATTCRNEY 3'-PW DIR
Date: January 5, 2009 11:09:25 PM PST CIICLERK/ORIG aPOLICE CHF
To: Eugene Jud Cal Poly <eiud@calpoly.edu> O DEPT HEADS CTREC DIR
Subject: Mitchell Park in Council on Tue Jan. 6,7pm C�Pi/3 Ef-LITIL DIR
rtZt[iuN� 21HR DIR
Dear friends, / C rrz j
CLC�Zg
So many people have phoned or written to me following my letter to the New Times and my View Point in The
Tribune of last Friday.Thank you, not a single negative reaction! 1110K ^ Liyl�tCL/�TE�J1S
If you want to see the whole project I will present tomorrow, please go onNj�t f'rV6 ,t-��1/� q6 126* y
www.savemitchellpark.ord 5 8171 rTL4 /N
fit LC--S .
and speak up for Plan A rejecting the official project. We do not want to pave Mitchell Park!
Do not be afraid to fill out the yellow card before the meeting and bring it to the clerk.in front. You will later be
asked to speak by the Mayor(max.3 minutes). If you have questions about procedures or what you should say, let
me know. Attached are a summary of my proposal,]an Marx's 8 points and some more hints about possible
questions or remarks you might present. You can also write or send email to cocouncil(a slocity.org
The point is not necessarily to"win", but.to support our case in a dignified way,also for the files for future
generations.This is a historic vote!
Thanks a lot
FLED FILE
Eugene — MEETING AGENDA
-- DATE 6 ITEC/1 #f i
Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute. of Transportation Engineers
At:
Faculty civil and Environmental Engineering
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0353
Phone:. (805) 756-1729
www.ceenve.calpoly.edu/jud
Or:
Jud Consultants
POB 1145
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1145
Phone and Fax: (805) 545-5919
www.judcons.com
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Fwd:%2OMitchell%2OPark%2Oin%2... 1/6/2009
I
More Questions
1. Parking Management Plan Mitchell Park and Surroundings:
When available? Contents? How much will it relieve the perceived parking shortage of
the Senior Center?
2. Senior Center "needs": Basic statistics such as
- number of disabled placards?
- How many do not want to get a placard, but have a walking
disability?
-how many have no drivers license?
-how many use bus lines 4 and 5?
-how many use Ride-on, Runabout or taxi?
-how many walk or come by scooter or wheelchair?
- Why do volunteers need space right near the Center?
3. Staff report of May 08: Are "feelings of staff" about the"P-needs" a real basis for
such a project?
4. Could it be that we actually serve only a vocal minority of seniors with the proposed
parking? How about the really disadvantaged seniors who can not drive anymore? Give
money for the senior ride-on shuttle to continue instead of for concrete!
5. Is this a real priority in times of heavy recession?
6. Doesn't this procedure set an unfortunate precedent for other organizations?
7. In case of construction, would a removal clause make sense, such as
"The need for this parking must be reevaluated in 10 years, or if the seniors leave earlier
at the time of their relocation"?
8. Why pypass the budget process, this is unfair!
9. How about a"Before/after study" for$3000.- to measure the "success" of the project?
10. Remember: When they changed the General Plan in May in favor of this Not, all
three consulting committees said no unanimously!
11. Why do volunteers need parking right near the center?
12. Stress the need for pedestrian and wheelchair friendly striping at the four intersections
around the park. Stop bars for cars set back from zebra crossing by 5 to 10 feet.
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Linda Groover[slolag@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tue 1/6/2009 2:44 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mitchell Park
Attachments:
Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members,
I am recouperating from surgery so I can not attend the meeting tonight and speak.
Please accept this e-mail as my protest against the parking lot behind the Senior Center.
I ask you all to consider some common sense on this subject. The city budget is straining,this project is too much money for too
little a gain. Why put in a few parking
spaces Which in the process takes parking away from Buchon Street.
The Senior Center was the first kindergarden in SLO. It was built,around 1928. Maybe
It is time for a new center. It does not matter if Mayor Romero promissed some seniors..
Time has changed. Lets vote NO to a paveover, keep our green space.
By the way,there Is a designated"Heritage Tree" in that.space. Why designate
"Heritage"and then ignore it? Digging and paving will kill the tree as it injures the roots.
I hope this new council will start to listen to the Cultural Heritage Board, Planning Commission and Historical Committee.
Sincerely, Linda Groover
P>S> You have.my permission to read this at the meeting, L..Groover
Li OU OIL [TCDD DIR
RED FILE - e1qMir�e TIFIN DIR
AAr�— MEETING AGENDA _/�B 1NEY -PIKE CHIEF
�TTCRNEY Q'PW DIR
DATE / 0 ITEl11 iF CLERIVCRIG aPOLICE CHF
�— ❑ DEPT HEADS Z,-AEC DIR
Qr�-- O UTIL DIR
C-I'RR DIR
Nl�r/rn�s �c�u v�L
�eIT"Y �rG2
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Mitchell%2OPark-4.EML?Cmd=open 1/6/2009
From Michael C. Sullivan .,,City of San Luis Obispo (Council)for council hearing of 06 Jan 2009
regarding potential on-site parking at Mitchell Park . Page 1 of 4
To:
City of San Luis Obispo
for Council hearing of 06 Jan 2008 regarding Mitchell Park parking proposal
From:
Michael C. Sullivan
1127 Seaward St.
San Luis Obispo, C A93405
(805) 545-9614
Members of City Council:
I strongly encourage the Council to find an alterative solution to parking and accessibility needs
of persons using Mitchell Park,especially for senior citizens. This is not just a parking problem,it
is also a problem for senior recreation opportunities at Mitchell Park, which would be adversely
impacted by such an on-site parking area.
If the proposed parking lot is built,it would conflict with the General Plan in various ways.And
It would remove park land which could be used for new, improved recreational facilities for seniors,
such as for a bocce ball court, for a small community garden and greenhouse,or perhaps other kinds
of recreation opportunities such as a practice putting green,outdoor aerobic exercise area,
shuffleboard, and so on. Please work to find an alterative solution which preserves this park land
and places parking and passenger loading spaces near the senior center while avoiding,as far as
feasible,the conversion of park land area to parking area.
Parks and Recreation element of General Plan
Page(in Parks and Direction of the city(goals,policies, Comments/Inconsistencies
Recreation programs,etc.)
element
7-8 2.6-Statement of overall Department The 12-space parking lot at
policies Mitchell Park,as proposed
currently,is not economical. Other
2. Recreation facilities shall be developed and parking solutions exist which are
operated,and services delivered in the most cheaper.
efficient and economical methods possible.
Substitution of a parking lot for
9. Open space(which includes parks) shall be open park land does not maintain
managed in such a manner as to allow for the park land for appropriate public
habitat conservation uses,for appropriate uses nor does it maintain and
public uses and to maintain and enhance its enhance environmental quality.
environmental quality.
7-12 33 Neighborhood parks. The goal for neighborhood parks is
Opening statement.... Neighborhood parks primarily to provide active and
may include on-site parking." However,the passive recreation. On-site parking
main goal,as stated in the opening statement is listed as one of the various
of section 33(Neighborhood Parks)is that options for such parks. However,
neighborhood parks are areas which are on-site parking is in competition
"convenient and accessible for active and with other suggested park facilities
Passive recreation to residents within a such as playing fields,playground
prescribed service area." equipment, landscaped
icnic/seatin area,hard surfaced
From Michael C. Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo(Council)for Council hearing of 06 Jan 2009
regarding potential on-site parking at Mitchell Park Page 2 of 4
Page(in Parks and Direction of the city(goals,policies, Comments/Inconsistencies
Recreation programs,etc.)
element
courts,restrooms,group barbecue,
or natural or cultural features."
7-17 3.12-Unmet needs 10. Bocce ball facility
10. Bocce ball facility (Such a use would be ideal for
Mitchell Park,and it is the type of
use which may be popular with
seniors.
7-17 The Park System. Policy 3.13.2-Parks shall Proposed on-site parking lot
be maintained in such a manner that priority conflicts with this policy. The
will be given to the preservation of the natural parking lot would cover an area of
beauty and safe use of the land within the the park which has natural beauty
system. (such as large trees). The pig
lot would eliminates gathering
place(lawn,patio,picnic area).
The parking lot would eliminate an
existing recreational area which
has potential for additional uses
such as community garden or
bocce ball court.
7-19 Neighborhood Parks. Policy 3.15,2-The Has this consensus been
designs of neighborhood parks shall be accomplished?
consistent with the needs and preferences
determined from a consensus of neighborhood
residents.
7-20 Playgrounds and.Special Recreation Areas. The land at Mitchell Park proposed
Policy 3.19.2-Needed special facilities are for an on-site parking lot could
identified as oto leash dog area(already at serve as a site for a small
Laguna Lake park),disc golf,lighted tennis community garden and perhaps for
courts,bicycle motocross, bocce balL a bocce ball court.
community¢aMen,and sand volleyball
courts.
7-20 Playgrounds and Special Recreation Areas. The land at Mitchell Park proposed
Policy 3.19.4-The City will make available for an on-site parking lot could
communitvgardens in appropriate park serve as a small community
locations. garden,perhaps with a green house
as well. Also,the strip of land
adjacent to the ration building,
and adjacent to Buchon Street,
could become part of such a small
garden area.
l'
j I
From Michael C. Sullivan City of San Luis Obispo(Council)for council hearing of 06 Jan 2009
regarding potential on-site parking at Mitchell Park Page 3 of 4
Page(in Parks and Direction of the city(goals,policies, Comments/Inconsistencies
Recreation programs,etc.)
element
7-22 Parks and Recreation Activities. 4.1 -Unmet Seniors need the opportunities for
needs-At this time,the unmet activity needs activities at Mitchell Park. The
include: land at Mitchell Park in the area
-Prevention and intervention programs proposed for on-site parking should
-Teens,particularly high school age be preserved to be used for senior
- Special needs individuals activities.
-Senior citizens
7-24 Policy 43.5-Programs will be designed to Examples of"active lifestyles"
meet the needs of seniors pursuing active include gardening and bocce ball,
lifestyles. which would be possible at
Mitchell Park site of proposed
parking lot.
7-25 Activities-Policy 5.1.1-The Parks and If there are cheaper solutions than a
Recreation Department shall maintain $200,000 on-site parking lot;they
financial practices that are consistent with the should be followed. Adequate
City policy and the Financial Plan. senior parking can be made
available,for example,along
Buchon Street adjacent to Mitchell
Park,along Pismo Street adjacent
to Mitchell Park,or in other nearby
streets,with.minimal loss of park
land. The money saved can be
used for senior activities,as well as
for a senior shuttle e. . RideOn .
t
From Michael C. Sullivan .;ity of San Luis Obispo(Council)for uracil hearing of 06 Jan 2009
regarding potential on-site parking at Mitchell Park Page 4 of 4
Article from New Times of San Luis Obispo,CA-25 Dec 2009 "Ride off" by Kyle Mendonca
Rift Off
Ride-On,a countywide shuttle which caters to News from page s
seniors and people with disabilities,announced which is funded entirely from the state funds.
that it will likely have to end the discounted senior Shaffer said for many seniors,the bus is too
shuttle service.The service was forced to raise prices hard to ride,so they depend on the shuttle for
earlier this year to three dollars for a one-w%trip, such basic errands as buying groceries.
citing higher gas prices.Now with the state budget Shaffer is encouraging seniors to write to
crisis,Ride-On executive director,Mark Shaffer said, local lawmakers to stress the importance of
the program will likely be abandoned altogether. the program.
According to the governor s proposal to balance —Kylie Mendvnca
the budget,the state could pull more than 75
percent of its funding for local transportation
F
Transportation Assistance,or STA
funding.
STA cuts would have an impact on both regional
and city transportation systems,but probably not
so dramatically as they would for the senior shuttle,
K! continued on page 8
YYWW.n6WUrCA fE10.00n1• December 28, 2008-January 1,2008 P TkR a