The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-07-2019 PRC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Agenda PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Parks and Recreation Conference Room 1341 Nipomo Street San Luis Obispo, CA CALL TO ORDER Chair Greg Avakian ROLL CALL : Commissioners Kari Applegate, Keri Schwab, Robert Spector, Adam Stowe, Vice Chair Rodney Thurman, Vacant, Andrew Webber and Chair Greg Avakian PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1.Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Committee of May 1, 2019. CONSENT ITEMS 2.Prop 68 Grant Opportunities Recommendation: Receive a report on the Proposition 68 grant application and proposed Emerson Park site improvements. BUSINESS ITEMS PACKET PAGE 1 Parks and Recreation Committee Agenda for May 1, 2019 2 | P a g e 3. Mission Plaza Restroom Project (Burde 30 minutes) Recommendation: Receive presentation on the Mission Plaza Restroom Replacement. Provide review/comment on the Mission Plaza Restroom Replacement concept plan and recommend City Council acceptance of the plan. 4. Update on Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan Project (Stanwyck/Scott – 30 minutes) Recommendation: Review, discuss, and provide feedback on public input received in association with the June 2019 Community Needs Assessment Workshop and next steps. SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS 5. Subcommittee Liaison Reports (Chair Avakian – 15 minutes) a. Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Spector b. Active Transportation Committee: Commissioner Webber c. City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Vacant d. Jack House Committee: Commissioner Schwab e. Tree Committee: Commissioner Thurman f. Youth Sports Association: Commissioner Stowe 6. Directors’ Report (Stanwyck - 5 minutes) 7. Communication ADJOURNMENT To the Public Workshop of the Parks and Recreation Commi ttee as approved by the PRC to Wednesday , September 4 , 2019, at 4:00 p.m., Ludwick Community Center, 864 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, California. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the Parks and Recreation Department at (805) 781-7300 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. Meeting audio recordings can be found at the following web address: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/fol/61014/Row1.aspx PACKET PAGE 2 City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Minutes PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Wednesday, May 1, 2019 5:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Parks and Recreation Conference Room 1341 Nipomo Street San Luis Obispo, CA CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Rodney Thurman ROLL CALL : Commissioners Keri Schwab, Robert Spector, Adam Stowe, Vice Chair Rodney Thurman, Vacant, Andrew Webber ABSENT: Chair Greg Avakian PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. Public Comment: Gary Havas: Sharing information for Bike Month in May and check out SLOShift.org for the calendar of events. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Committee of April 3, 2019. ACTION: APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR APRIL 3, 2019. CARRIED 6:0:0:2 to approve the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Body for the regular meeting of 04/03/19 as motioned by Schwab and second by Spector. PACKET PAGE 3 Parks and Recreation Committee Minutes_DRAFT for May 1, 2019 2 | P a g e AYES: SCHWAB, SPECTOR, STOWE, THURMAN NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: AVAKIAN, WEBBER CONSENT ITEMS 2. SLO Swim Center Solar Project Recommendation: Receive the current site plan and project description for the SLO Swim Center Solar Project. Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided information for the SLO Swim Center Solar project providing shade, energy and 2 EV Charging Stations. During construction about 50-75 parking spaces will be displaced. At the completion of the project there is no net loss of spaces. Commissioner Comment Commissioner Schwab: What are the overall ongoing maintenance costs. Commissioner Spector: Address the need now for the need for additional EV stations. Commissioner Stowe: Any risk of foul balls damaging the units. And confirming the two EV charging stations for the 75 spaces. Can they add additional EV stations to the project after completion or would be beneficial to add them now. Commissioner Thurman: Will the EV stations pull from the pool. During construction when the parking spaces are displaced, how will that be addressed. Staff Hyfield indicated that the time of project construction was chosen during the slow time of pool programming (Nov-Dec 2019). Public Comment NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Sinsheimer Park Diamond Fields Improvement Project (30 minutes) PACKET PAGE 4 Parks and Recreation Committee Minutes_DRAFT for May 1, 2019 3 | P a g e Recommendation: Receive a presentation from community members representing a non- profit foundation interested in the restoration and renovation of Sinsheimer Stadium and Stockton fields, located at Sinsheimer Park. Ed Gravell presented the Sinsheimer Project and improvements at Sinsheimer Stadium and Stockton Field. The proposed project is a privately funded project to restore and renovate and enable year-round use for baseball at both facilities. There is a proposed plan with a phased approach; a three-year program. 1) Artificial Turf and LED lighting, 2) Common Area Improvements (including restrooms) 3) Seating Renovation & ADA issues, and LED Scoreboard; 4) Beautification of area around the Stadium, Player Clubhouse, and Addition of three youth fields. Commissioner Comment Commissioner Schwab: What will be the purvey of the City Council. What are the City resources that are needed. I think it is a perfect project for the Master Plan as it could be used for community classes and events. Commissioner Spector: What is the price tag and timeframe. Does this project include the viewing deck, previously presented at the PRC last year. What happens when other community members would like to use the facilities for other uses. What is the value proposition and what happens mid-way if the fundraising is short for the proposed project. Commissioner Stowe: Recused Commissioner Thurman: How many months would baseball use the facilities, is it year- round. The turf is an obvious choice for sustainability, including all upgrades what is the longevity for all the improvements. We obviously we need buy-in from the community. I would like to see it incorporated into the June Workshop. Commissioner Webber: The artificial turf does seem to be a big priority from the Needs Assessment. I would like to see more uses and the inclusion of more groups beyond the baseball community. Mr. Gravell indicated the first phase is $2 million, second phase $2-4 million and third phase is $1 million, the final phase is hard to gauge. The total price tag is $8-10 million and a three- year project timeframe. The viewing deck is not part of this project. Director Stanywck advises that the PRC is the advisory body to the City Council, and the PRC would make advisory recommendations. The donation agreement and the cost out the lifecycle of the project and the neighborhood engagement would all be included in City resources moving forward; there is a prescribed process. It sounds like the PRC is interested in the project and the value proposition of the project to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Public Comment Gary Havas: How did the stadium get in this state and how do you prevent this from happening in the future. How do we keep it in great shape to prevent this from happening again. PACKET PAGE 5 Parks and Recreation Committee Minutes_DRAFT for May 1, 2019 4 | P a g e Kari Applegate: It sounds like Phase 2 is the most important and what the community needs, and the common area improvements could be swapped with Phase 1. Ryan Miller: Youth Baseball is in full support and would advocate for all group uses and collaboration. 4. Update on Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan Project (Stanwyck/Scott – 30 minutes) Recommendation: Review, discuss, and approve the Community Needs Assessment to be used for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update (Attachment 1). Review, discuss, and provide feedback on the proposed framework for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update Public Workshop (Attachment 2). Senior Planner Shawna Scott asks for consideration of recommendations presented by WRT for the Needs Assessment and specific considerations for the June Workshop and focus needed for the community. Are there any other recommendations that were missed or are there recommendations put forward by WRT that should be removed from consideration. Discussion on station topics for the June Workshop. What are more specific topics for each station to consider. Commissioner Comment Commissioner Schwab: Have you seen the local survey from Greg Brown that was a drag/drop icons map survey of what is liked in the community for recreation. I will get a copy of the survey results, there was about 300 responses. Should there be mention in the Sustainability section regarding latex allergies. I like the idea of using priorities and indicating we heard you at the workshops and now we want to know your priorities for the Master Plan. The Jack House is great for downtown events but I not sure the house as it is operated now is right for activation, but the Gardens is. More direction on remodel of Ludwick Community Center. Commissioner Spector: Rethinking park acreage standards, and I like Laguna Lake Park revisioning and merits consideration. The pickleball and tennis courts seem to be competing interests. I want to push for neighborhood buy-in for what they want in their own neighborhoods. Viewing park space as a new venue, such as parking lot roof spaces. How can parks and recreation impact in their daily life at community parks. For the stadium go beyond and offer multi-use for improvements. I would like to see the Senior Center, include inter-generational mention of uses. Commissioner Stowe: In the past, Laguna Lake Park was enjoyed by the community as an underdeveloped park. With the expansion of open space acquisition, the park needs have changed. Where would more vehicle parking occur at Laguna Lake Park. Question about the exercise pathways that currently exist at the Laguna Lake Park. Gauge interest on remodel of Ludwick Community Center. Have you considered disc golf at the golf course. Do we need to set the park standards before we do anything else. PACKET PAGE 6 Parks and Recreation Committee Minutes_DRAFT for May 1, 2019 5 | P a g e Commissioner Thurman: Alternative park spaces should be used by all and not just private use by HOA’s. Defining park acreage, is that an important goal for the plan. In the Sustainability section, is there mention of the turf dust triggering some cluster adverse effects. I would like to ask the question whether the City should own and run the Jack House. The focus should be on the Jack House Gardens and activation. Including inter- generational at the golf course and the Senior Center. Is it necessary to mention the creation of community. Commissioner Webber: I question the wording “high quality and design”, isn’t that assumed that all projects follow that standard. “Expanding Programs and Services”, Sun ‘n Fun and Club Star do not fall in this category more of a need for the community not a leisure activity, as swim lessons or yoga. I would like to create its own paragraph on after school care in the recommendations as it is a need and not an activity. Offer other uses for the stadium, and not just a yes/no for baseball. Indicate activities that you might not know about or could exist at these parks. Director Stanwyck indicates if park acreage important than indicate it as aspirational in the Plan. Please change wording to reflect “implement high quality design projects” and remove “emphasize”. Permission to wordsmith the community events and activati on of parks. Remove Data Collections and Analysis as this is something staff currently captures. As clarification, Mission Plaza has its own Master Plan and it is also incorporated in the Downtown Concept Plan. Policy change could direct that Laguna Lake Park becomes a more active park and change the distinction of a natural park. Clarification that the focus can be activation of the Jack House Gardens. Offer looking at various uses of the golf course, walking, other programming that staff will be experimenting with during the summer. We have the 10-acre standard but does that limit the aspirational goals. Public Comment Kari Applegate: Offered information on a Town Hall on May 29 for Childcare in the Community at Congregation Beth David. The golf course is great, and I am taking my daycare and the Golf staff are providing lessons and a tour that will highlight new users to the course. Gary Havas: Will you wordsmith Management of Contract Services Management. Will you provide the background at the Workshop for Laguna Lake Park that indicates the natural park distinction. SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS 5. Subcommittee Liaison Reports (Vice Chair Thurman – 15 minutes) a. Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Spector: The Seniors are continuing their classes and programming. Their members are looking at using their membership card to access discounts for Parks and Recreation classes and events. b. Active Transportation Committee: Commissioner Webber: No report. PACKET PAGE 7 Parks and Recreation Committee Minutes_DRAFT for May 1, 2019 6 | P a g e c. City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Vacant Staff Hyfield indicates that Damon Garcia is closed until July. Jack House Gardens has reopened for event season. The Swim Center is gearing up for Summer and a new recreational swim for Friday nights. Parks and Recreation is purchasing an inflatable obstacle course for the SLO Swim Center. The Golf Course is working on Foot Golf programming. Jr Giants is now open. North Broad Street Park input session is on Wednesday, May 8th at Lincoln Deli. d. Jack House Committee: Commissioner Schwab: Meeting next week to review ADA recommendations and the Bylaws. e. Tree Committee: Commissioner Thurman: Arbor Day was last Saturday at Mitchell Park. No committee meeting. Urban Forest Day at Mission Plaza on May 25th. f. Youth Sports Association: Commissioner Stowe: No report. 6. Directors’ Report (Stanwyck - 5 minutes) Egg Hunt at Laguna Lake Park and a concert at the Skate Park, Monster Skate through May. Early bird registration for after school care. Monday, May 6th is the first day for Summer Registration. Busy season is upon us! 7. Communication ADJOURNMENT at 8:06 p.m. To the Public Workshop of the Parks and Recreation Commi ttee as approved by the PRC to Wednesday , June 5 , 2019 , at 4:00 p.m., Ludwick Community Center, 864 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, California. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the Parks and Recreation Department at (805) 781-7300 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. Meeting audio recordings can be found at the following web address: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/fol/61014/Row1.aspx PACKET PAGE 8 City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Parks and Recreation Commission DATE: August 7, 2019 FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Recreation Director Prepared By: Devin Hyfield, Recreation Manager SUBJECT: PROP 68 GRANT OPPORTUNITIES RECOMMENDATION Receive a report on the Proposition 68 grant application and proposed Emerson Park site improvements. DISCUSSION Background In May 2019, the Parks and Recreation Department was contacted by the Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) within the California Department of Parks and Recreation regarding an upcoming grant opportunity for Proposition 68. Since then, Parks and Recreation staff have been working with a grant consultant and City staff to complete the necessary grant documentation for the submission grant deadline. Due to the time constraints and August 5th deadline accompanied with the June PRC public meeting and cancellation of the July PRC meeting, City staff were unable to present the Prop 68 Grant Opportunities to the PRC prior to presenting the opportunity to Council for approval. As this project relates to potential grant funding for park improvements, this report will provide the background of Prop 68 and the selected park project. The Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office is the largest park related grant program in California’s history, with over $1 billion in funding between the 2018 Prop. 68 and 2006 Prop. 84 Bond Acts. The SPP helps communities invest in parks, increasing recreational opportunities. The competitive grant program was made possible through the passage of Proposition 68: California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018, the State’s largest investment in grant funding history targeted for underserved communities in California. The bond also provides funds for aging infrastructure, amenities and improvements to parks that will help attract new and diverse visitors. Council Direction On July 16, 2019, the City Council authorized City staff to pursue grant opportunities made possible through Proposition 68 for City Park and Recreational facilities while authorizing PACKET PAGE 9 the City Manager or designee to execute the necessary grant documents and appropriate the grant amount into the Parks and Recreation Department’s budget upon grant award. Why Emerson Park was Selected Emerson Park was chosen for the grant application as the park location met the criteria of an area with a critical lack of park space and meet the grant’s poverty level criteria. As conceived, the project will focus on new recreation features and amenities to enhance Emerson Park including: 1. Restroom 2. Bike Pump Track 3. Zen Garden 4. Educational Garden 5. Shade Structure 6. Black-top re-pavement 7. ADA upgrades and sustainable features 8. Updated Fitness Equipment City staff developed this initial project plan based off the public’s input collected at the Bright Ideas Public Workshops. If awarded the grant, City staff will work with community partners on the below activities: 1. Plant selection by San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden for the drought tolerant landscaping 2. Incorporating public art installations in conjunction with Arts Obispo into the new recreation features 3. Collaboration with the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health on selection of fitness equipment 4. Ongoing maintenance of a Bike Pump Track by community volunteers The grant application for the SPP was submitted by the August 5, 2019 deadline with the anticipation of award recipients being notified of selection by December 2019. Next Steps If awarded the Prop 68 for Emerson Park staff will follow standard City project timelines, advisory body review, and public engagement. The PRC will review draft designs and provide feedback. Per the requirements of the grant application, all projects that receive grant funding must be completed by March 2022. ATTACHMENT Emerson Park Prop 68 Site Concept PACKET PAGE 10 PACIFIC ST NIPOMOSTBIKE PUMP TRACK EXERCISE EQUIPT. BASKET- BALL COURT RESTROOMS RESURFACE BLACKTOP PARKS & REC OFFICEPLAY GROUND SHADE STRUCTURE ZEN GARDEN COMMUNITY GARDENS DROUGHT TOLLERANT lANDSCAPING EDUCATIONAL GARDEN New Amenities Permeable Pathway DIMENSIONS OF AMENITIES SHADE STRUCTURE: 30’X30’ BIKE PUMP TRACK: 40’X20’ MOVE & UPDATE WORKOUT AREA RESTROOMS: 16’ 8” X 24” - 400 sq ft HYDRATION STATION COMPOST BIN RAIN BARREL BOCCE COURT Updated Amenitiesbeach STpismo ST picnic tables parking lot Existing Amenities PACKET PAGE 11 Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Report Meeting Date: August 7, 2019 Item Number: 3 FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Richard Burde, Engineer III SUBJECT: Mission Plaza Restroom, Café, and Murray Adobe Improvements – Preliminary Site Plan RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive a presentation on the “Mission Plaza Restroom, Café, and Murray Adobe Improvements – Preliminary Site Plan”. 2. Identify which improvements being proposed are preferred for the Murray Adobe’s patio area. 3. Make recommendation to the City Council on the preliminary plan and provide feedback on the preferred concepts proposed. DISCUSSION Background In 2017 the City Council reviewed and adopted the Mission Plaza Concept Plan (Attachment 1) prepared by RRM Design Group. The Concept Plan was developed during a 24-month process involving numerous stakeholder meetings, community workshops, and input from the Parks and Recreation Commission, Cultural Heritage Commission, Architectural Review Commission, and Planning Commission. Council has identified the replacement of the existing restrooms in the Mission Plaza as a needed capital project and appropriated Local Revenue Measure funds in FY 2018 to support work for a project plan on this site. In June of 2018 RRM Design Group was hired to prepare a Preliminary Site Plan which includes options for site improvements on the Mission Plaza as well as building plans for a restroom and café. In addition, one option presented in the Preliminary Site Plan includes operating space for food trucks in-leu of a café in case constructing and operating a café on the plaza is not deemed economically viable. Mission Plaza Restroom, Café, and Murray Adobe Improvements – Preliminary Site Plan The Mission Plaza Restroom, Cafe and Murray Adobe Improvements – Preliminary Site Plan developed by RRM implements many features identified in the previously adopted Mission Plaza Concept Plan. These features include: 1. Increased Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility around the Mission Plaza restrooms and Murray Adobe patio area 2. Activate the Mission Plaza by increasing positive activities in order to deter unlawful activity 3. Replace rain canopy over trellis PACKET PAGE 12 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Mission Plaza Restroom Replacement Page 2 4. Installation of Public Art 5. Increased restroom capacity 6. Improved lighting 7. Increased security 8. Provide opportunities for vendors to operate on the Plaza, such as food trucks. 9. Better signage – wayfinding maps, etc. 10. Better lines of sight; to open the area up resulting in better lighting and unobstructed sight paths 11. Leave open the opportunity to integrate with the planned Museum of Art and adjacent sculpture garden. 12. Provide seating for dining activities Prior Community Engagement In October of 2018 Staff delivered a presentation to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) to convey the intent and scope of the project and receive feedback regarding the City’s project development plan. The result was the formation of a CHC sub-committee which included interested community members. Staff coordinated several meetings and brainstorming sessions with sub-committee members, during which they proposed alternative ideas for the Plaza’s future, including reconstructing a clapboard section of the Murray Adobe that was demolished in the early 1970’s and constructing the new restroom in the near-by History Center’s parking lot in order to free up landscape on the Plaza. Since this vision for the Plaza differed from the previously approved Concept Plan, the sub-committee was encouraged to present their ideas to Council, which they did at an April 2019 Council meeting. Council ultimately decided not to deviate from the approved Concept Plan and directed City staff to continue working with RRM on the project as previously defined, with the restroom to be replaced at its current location. Design Considerations Balancing the peak needs for events held on the Plaza with further implementation of elements presented in the Mission Plaza Concept Plan has resulted in a proposed restroom design with an increased capacity of 50%. This was achieved by adding an additional stall for each the men’s and women’s facilities and does not negatively impact further Mission Plaza Concept Plan implementation. The restroom proposed in the Preliminary Plan is sized to meet the day to day needs of the Mission Plaza, but the continued reliance on portable restrooms for larger special events will still be required. In addition to the proposed restroom, the Preliminary Site Plan includes several options for improvements adjacent to the Murray Adobe. The previously adopted Concept Plan includes a café in the Plaza between the Murray Adobe and replacement restrooms, however Parks and Recreation staff have researched this type of use and found that it is rarely successful in smaller sized cities. Input received from the consultant team developing the Parks and Recreations Master Plan suggests that operating a café in the plaza might not be viable and would be a significant cost with high financial risk. Staff has suggested an alternative; providing space for food trucks (of which there are varied size, some very small for coffee and ice cream) as a more practical alternative to help activate the space as was proposed in the Mission Plaza Concept Plan. PACKET PAGE 13 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Mission Plaza Restroom Replacement Page 3 NEXT STEPS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Date Action Details 9/16/2019 Architectural Review Commission Presentation 1. Present Conceptual design 2. Receive input from Commission 10/28/2019 Cultural Heritage Committee Presentation 1. Present Conceptual design 2. Receive input from Committee 12/3/2019 City Council Presentation 1. Present Conceptual design and input received from Committees 2. Receive direction from City Council Questions to Consider The Parks and Recreation Commission is asked to provide feedback on the activation and use of Mission Plaza, a City Park with focus on the design features and amenities of the Mission Plaza Restroom, Café, and Murray Adobe Improvements – Preliminary Site Plan: 1) Does the PRC favor the Murray Adobe Improvements of a Café option or flexible space for “Food Trucks” or similar uses option presented in the Preliminary Plan? 2) Does the PRC have any significant concerns regarding the general site layout, plaza design, proposed recreational facilities or uses? 3) What other types of active or passive recreation would the PRC like to see incorporated on-site? ATTACHMENTS 1. Mission Plaza Concept Plan (Previously Adopted by Council) 2. Mission Plaza Restroom, Café, and Murray Adobe Improvements – Preliminary Site Plan PACKET PAGE 14 LIMIT OF MASTER PLAN AREAMISSION SAN LUIS OBISPO de TOLOSA HISTORY CENTER MUSEUM OF ART Private Residence BROAD STMONTEREY ST MONTEREY ST Luna Red CHORRO STPALM ST BROAD STSAN LUI S O BI S P O C R E E K Creeky Tiki SLO Brew The Network Mission Mall Celadon Frog & PeachNovo Warden Building History Center Future Expansion Metro Brewing Company WARDEN BRIDGEMAIN PLAZACENTRAL PLAZA SCULPTURE GARDEN ADOBE PATIO KEY to FEATURES 1. Scramble Crossing 2. Main Entrance 3. Performance Platform 4. Interactive Recirculating Water Feature (at-grade) 5. Trellis 6. Flag-Poles 7. Reconfigured Steps 8. Bear Fountain 9. Emergency Access 10. Bench, typical. 11. Murray Adobe Interpretive Center 12. Creek Overlook 13. Pedestrian Bridge 14. Picnic Table, typical. 15. Living Holiday Tree 16. Interactive Art Node - Native Animals 17. Cafe 18. Restroom 19. Maintenance Storage 20. Moon Tree Interpretive Exhibit 21. Elevated Boardwalk to Creek 22. Woonerf (with option for full street closure) 23. Bollard for Traffic Control 24. Lawn 25. Bike Racks 26. Interpretive Exhibits 27. Potential Future Creek-Walk Connection Underneath Broad Street Bridge 28. Relocated El Camino Real Bell 29. Bus Stop / Pedestrian Drop-Off 12456 7 8 9 10 12 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 3 NOTES A. Museum of Art building shown reflects the approved renovation/expansion design. B. History Center complex shown reflects a potential future expansion vision, and not an approved design. C. Vehicular access across Warden Bridge will be preserved. D. Lighting and electrical service (240V) will be upgraded and distributed throughout plaza. E. Murray Adobe will be rehabilitated subject to further technical studies. 14 1126 27 25 29 MISSION PLAZA SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 0’40’20’10’60’ AUGUST 1, 2017SCALE 1” = 20’DRAFT CONCEPT PLAN PACKET PAGE 15 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS T1#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1/4” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 2 4 8 0 4 8 16 1/8” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)TITLE SHEET MISSION PLAZA RESTROOM, CAFE, AND MURRAY ADOBE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER:CITY OF SAn LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECT:RRM DeSIGn GROUP 3765 S. HIGUeRA STReeT, SUITe 102 SAn LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 COnTACT: PAT BLOTe PHOne: (805)-543-1794 eMAIL: PLBLOTe@RRMDeSIGn.COM PROJECT ADDRESS:989 CHORRO STReeT APN:002-423-006 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of San Luis Obispo proposes to improve the outdoor restroom area in Mission Plaza. This effort includes replacing the existing restrooms and constructing a cafe buiding and planning for future Murray Adobe Reuse. The café component will be accompanied by an outdoor patio. General improvements to the site include improving accessibility (ADA), increasing restroom capacity, and enhancing safety. SHEET INDEXPROJECT STATISTICS ZONING PF-H [PUBLIC FACILITY [WITH A HISTORIC PReSeRVATIOn OVeRLAY] PROJECT SIZE:1.35ACReS (58,806 SF) MAX LOT COVERAGE:60% (58,806 SF) PROPOSED COVERAGE:0.01% (165 + 500 = 665 SF) KIOSK GROSS FOOTPRINT:165 SF RESTROOM GROSS FOOTPRINT:500 SF LANDSCAPE AREA ... SF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE:...SF MAX. ALLOWED HEIGHT:35’-0” FT. MAX. PROPOSED HEIGHT:12’-6” FT. PF-HMonter e y StBroad S t Chor ro S t ZONING MAP T1 TITLe SHeeT A2 ILLUSTRATIVe SITe PLAn A3 FLOOR PLAnS A4 ReSTROOM eLeVATIOnS A5 KIOSK eLeVATIOnS A6 COnCePT SKeTCH 1 A7 COnCePT SKeTCH 2 A8 MATeRIALS AnD FURnISHInGS - SITe A9 COLORS AnD MATeRIALS - BUILDInGS A10 SITe PLAn WITH FOOD TRUCK OPTIOn A11 FOOD TRUCK OPTIOn - COnCePT SKeTCH 1 A12 FOOD TRUCK OPTIOn - COnCePT SKeTCH 2 A13 SITe PLAn WITH OPen PLAZA OPTIOn A14 OPen PLAZA - COnCePT SKeTCH 1 A15 OPen PLAZA - COnCePT SKeTCH 2 PACKET PAGE 16 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A10256-02-UR18 FEBRUARY 27, 2019 (24X36 SHeeT) (12X18 SHeeT)SCALe 1”=20’ 10 20 40 60SITE PLAN 0 SCALe 1”=10’ 10 20 305 0 36” ReDWOOD TReeS TO ReMAIn FUTURe SCULPTURe GARDen 36” OLIVe TRee TO ReMAIn BenCHeS & PLAnTeR POTS eXISTInGBRICKPATHWAY MOVeABLe BISTRO TABLeS PROPOSeD CAFe/ KIOSK 165 SF BROAD STREET 3’ SQ. PLAnTeR POTS WITH TReeS STRInG LIGHTS OUTLIne OF FUTURe CAFe BUILDInG STABILIZeD DeCOMPOSeD GRAnITe PATIO eXISTInG ADOBe MOVeABLe BISTRO TABLeS 10” & 12” SYCAMORe TReeS TO ReMAIn 24” OLIVe TRee TO ReMAIn IMPeRVIOUS SURFACeS eXISTInG 1,750 SQ. FT. PROPOSeD 3,770 SQ. FT. ACCeSSIBLe RAMP WITH HAnDRAILS AnD LOW STOne WALLS (2) STePS WITH HAnDRAILS eXISTInG LAWn TO ReMAIn FUTURe PATIOeXPAnSIOn + + CLAY BRICKPAVeRS eXISTInG SIDeWALK TO ReMAIn PROPOSeD TReeS SPeCIeS QUAnTITY OLeA eUROPAeA ‘WILSOnII’ eXISTInG SIDeWALK TO ReMAIn LIMIT OF IMPROVeMenTS 18” OLIVe TRee TO Be ReMOVeD WOOD BenCHeS AROUnD TRee WeLLS BIKe RACKS WAYFInDInG SIGn PLAnTeR AReA 6” & 12” JACARAnDA TRee TO Be ReMOVeD TRASH ReCePTACLeS POLe LIGHT RIGHT-OF-WAYSAWCUT LIne (LIMIT OF IMPROVeMenTS) PROPOSeD ReSTROOM 500 SF SCULPTURAL PLAY FeATURe 6 (4 In POTS, 2 In GROUnD) MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A2#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1” = 10’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 5 10 20 0 10 20 40 1” = 20’-0” (12X18 SHEET)ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN PACKET PAGE 17 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A3#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1/4” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 2 4 8 0 4 8 16 1/8” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)FLOOR PLANS 3 A-201 2 A-201 4 A-201 1 A-201 A A D D 1 1 22 B B C C 18' - 0"26' - 0" 11' - 0"4' - 0"11' - 0"18' - 0"26' - 0" 11' - 0"4' - 0"11' - 0" MEN'S CHASE WOMEN'S EXTERIOR- 5 1/2" WOOD STUD W/ PLYWOOD SHEATHING AND STUCCO, ONE LAYER GYPSUM WALL BOARD INTERIOR. INTERIOR- 5 1/2" WOOD STUD W/ONE LAYER GYPSUM WALL BOARD EACH SIDE. C 2 6 9 7 36.30.19NOELNARG REN. DATE TDRA ATCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOFCALIF ORN I NO . REVISION DATE PROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2017.RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.N:\0201\0256-02-UR18-Mission-Plza-Restroom-Cafe-MurrayAdobe-Imp\Architecture\Model\Restroom.rvt2/18/2019 1:06:13 PMFLOOR PLANMISSION PLAZA RESTROOM0256-02-UR18 A-101 1/4" = 1'-0"A-201 A-101 GROUND FLOOR PLAN1 GENERAL NOTES KEYNOTES LEGEND 1. REFER TO STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 2. REFER TO ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 3. REFER TO MECHANICAL PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 4. REFER TO PLUMBING PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 5. ALL FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT IS BY OWNER AND IS SHOWN FOR COORDINATION PURPOSES ONLY. 6. REFER TO FINISH PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR INTERIOR WALL, CEILING AND FLOOR FINSH INFORMATION. 7. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FRAMING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE. 8. PROVIDE ADEQUATE BLOCKING IN WALLS FOR CABINETS AND OTHER WALL MOUNTED ACCESSORIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HANDRAILS, SHELVING AND BATHROOM FIXTURES. 9. PROVIDE FIRE BLOCKING FOR WALL CAVITIES THAT EXCEED CBC HEIGHT LIMITATION. 3 A-201 2 A-201 4 A-201 1 A-201 A A D D 1 1 44 B B C C 13' - 6"13' - 6" 3' - 0"7' - 6"3' - 0"13' - 6"13' - 6" 3' - 0"7' - 6"3' - 0" KIOSK 22 333' - 0"7' - 6"3' - 0"3' - 0"7' - 6"3' - 0"EXTERIOR- 5 1/2" WOOD STUD W/ PLYWOOD SHEATHING AND STUCCO, ONE LAYER GYPSUM WALL BOARD INTERIOR. INTERIOR- 5 1/2" WOOD STUD W/ONE LAYER GYPSUM WALL BOARD EACH SIDE. C 2 6 9 7 36.30.19NOELNARG REN. DATE TDRA ATCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOFCALIF ORNI NO . REVISION DATE PROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2017. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.N:\0201\0256-02-UR18-Mission-Plza-Restroom-Cafe-MurrayAdobe-Imp\Architecture\Model\Kiosk.rvt2/12/2019 3:05:22 PMFLOOR PLANMISSION PLAZA KIOSK0256-02-UR18 A-101 1/4" = 1'-0"A-201 A-101 GROUND FLOOR PLAN1 GENERAL NOTES KEYNOTES LEGEND 1. REFER TO STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 2. REFER TO ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 3. REFER TO MECHANICAL PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 4. REFER TO PLUMBING PLANS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 5. ALL FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT IS BY OWNER AND IS SHOWN FOR COORDINATION PURPOSES ONLY. 6. REFER TO FINISH PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR INTERIOR WALL, CEILING AND FLOOR FINSH INFORMATION. 7. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FRAMING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE. 8. PROVIDE ADEQUATE BLOCKING IN WALLS FOR CABINETS AND OTHER WALL MOUNTED ACCESSORIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HANDRAILS, SHELVING AND BATHROOM FIXTURES. 9. PROVIDE FIRE BLOCKING FOR WALL CAVITIES THAT EXCEED CBC HEIGHT LIMITATION. RESTROOM FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHeeT)1 KIOSK FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHeeT)2 WALK-UP COUnTeR WALK-UP COUnTeR WORKInG COUnTeRSHeLVeS SHeLVeSSHeLVeSSHeLVeSPACKET PAGE 18 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A4#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1/2” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHeeT) 0 1 2 4 0 2 4 8 1/4” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHeeT)RESTROOM ELEVATIONS 0’-0” 0’-0” 8’-4” 8’-4” 12'-6” 12'-6” GROUnD LeVeL GROUnD LeVeL T.O.P. T.O.P. MAX HeIGHT MAX HeIGHT EAST ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHeeT)1 NORTH ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHeeT)3 WEST ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHeeT)2 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHeeT)4 PACKET PAGE 19 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A5#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019KIOSK ELEVATIONS 0’-0” 0’-0” 9’-4” 9’-4” 11'-3” 11'-3” GROUnD LeVeL GROUnD LeVeL T.O.P. T.O.P. MAX HeIGHT MAX HeIGHT NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHeeT)1CORNICE/TRANSOM DETAIL (RESTROOM SIMULAR) n.T.S.3 BASE DETAIL (RESTOOM SIMULAR) n.T.S.4 EAST/WEST ELEVATIONS 1/2" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHeeT)2 1/2” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHeeT) 0 1 2 4 0 2 4 8 1/4” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHeeT) metal cornice detailing metal corner finials accent metal signage metal brackets opaque glass transom metal wood look soffit roll-up security doors wood menu sign roll-up security doors 36” high serving counter metal paneling inspired by mission door detailing three course brick base PACKET PAGE 20 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A6#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1/4” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 2 4 8 0 4 8 16 1/8” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)CONCEPT SKETCH 1 PACKET PAGE 21 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A7#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1/4” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 2 4 8 0 4 8 16 1/8” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)CONCEPT SKETCH 2 PACKET PAGE 22 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A20256-02-UR18 FEBRUARY 27, 2019 (24X36 SHeeT) (12X18 SHeeT)SCALe 1”=20’ 10 20 40 60MATERIALS AND FURNISHINGS - SITE 0 SCALe 1”=10’ 10 20 305 0 WRAP AROUND BENCHES AT TREE WELLS WOOD AnD STeeL LOW CURBS AROUND TREE WELLS Re-PURPOSeD GRAnITe CURBS FROM CITY OF SLO BRICK PAVERS HERRINGBONE PATTERN COLORS FADInG DARK TO LIGHT Mountain Rose DECOMPOSED GRANITE COLOR: CALIFORnIA GOLD MOVEABLE BISTRO TABLES STeeL STONE WALLS Re-USe eXISTInG MATeRIAL FROM eXISTInG RAISeD PLAnTeRS PLANTER POTS FOR TREES MATeRIAL: GFRC LIGHTWeIGHT COnCReTe COLOR: BROnZe BENCH WOOD & STeeL PLANTING BEHIND RESTROOM MAHOnIA SPP./OReGOn GRAPe nATIVe SHRUB WITH SPIneS. SCULPTURAL PLAY ELEMENT TURnInG STOne Dusty Rose Summer Wheat Sutter Gold eXISTInG ADOBe PROPOSeD CAFe/ KIOSK PROPOSeD ReSTROOM MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A8#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1/4” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 2 4 8 0 4 8 16 1/8” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)MATERIALS AND FURNISHINGS - SITE PACKET PAGE 23 WOOD LOOK MeTAL SOFFIT HUnTeR DOUGLAS FARM MAPLe-8458 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A9#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1/4” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 2 4 8 0 4 8 16 1/8” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)COLORS AND MATERIALS - BUILDINGS A B C A D A B B C D e F G D e F G ASPHALT SHInGLeS GAF - CAMeLOT II - ROYAL SLATe ACCenT SIGnAGe GOLD MeTAL FInISH BRICK BASe - THIn WAInSOT H.C. MUDDOX - SUTTeR GOLD DeCORATIVe TRAnSOM BAnD OPAQUe GLASS WITH MeTAL MeTAL PAneLInG & STOReFROnT DARK STeeL FInISH PAInTeD SMOOTH STUCCO SW 7003 TOQUe WHITe PACKET PAGE 24 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A10256-02-UR18 FEBRUARY 27, 2019 (24X36 SHeeT) (12X18 SHeeT)SCALe 1”=20’ 10 20 40 60SITE PLAN 0 SCALe 1”=10’ 10 20 305 0 36” ReDWOOD TReeS TO ReMAIn FUTURe SCULPTURe GARDen 36” OLIVe TRee TO ReMAIn BenCHeS & PLAnTeR POTS eXISTInGBRICKPATHWAY MOVeABLe BISTRO TABLeS PUBLIC ART eLeMenT BROAD STREET 3’ SQ. PLAnTeR POTS WITH TReeS STRInG LIGHTS OUTLIne OF FUTURe CAFe BUILDInG STABILIZeD DeCOMPOSeD GRAnITe PATIO eXISTInG ADOBe MOVeABLe BISTRO TABLeS 10” & 12” SYCAMORe TReeS TO ReMAIn 24” OLIVe TRee TO ReMAIn IMPeRVIOUS SURFACeS eXISTInG 1,750 SQ. FT. PROPOSeD 3,770 SQ. FT. ACCeSSIBLe RAMP WITH HAnDRAILS AnD LOW STOne WALLS (2) STePS WITH HAnDRAILS eXISTInG LAWn TO ReMAIn FUTURe PATIOeXPAnSIOn + + CLAY BRICKPAVeRS eXISTInG SIDeWALK TO ReMAIn PROPOSeD TReeS SPeCIeS QUAnTITY OLeA eUROPAeA ‘WILSOnII’ eXISTInG SIDeWALK TO ReMAIn LIMIT OF IMPROVeMenTS 18” OLIVe TRee TO Be ReMOVeD WOOD BenCHeS AROUnD TRee WeLLS BIKe RACKS WAYFInDInG SIGn PLAnTeR AReA 6” & 12” JACARAnDA TRee TO Be ReMOVeD TRASH ReCePTACLeS POLe LIGHT RIGHT-OF-WAYSAWCUT LIne (LIMIT OF IMPROVeMenTS) PROPOSeD ReSTROOM 500 SF SCULPTURAL PLAY FeATURe 6 (4 In POTS, 2 In GROUnD) FOOD TRUCK PARKInG MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A10#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1” = 10’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 5 10 20 0 10 20 40 1” = 20’-0” (12X18 SHEET)SITE PLAN WITH FOOD TRUCK OPTION PACKET PAGE 25 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A11#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1” = 10’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 5 10 20 0 10 20 40 1” = 20’-0” (12X18 SHEET)FOOD TRUCK OPTION - CONCEPT SKETCH 1 PACKET PAGE 26 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A12#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1” = 10’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 5 10 20 0 10 20 40 1” = 20’-0” (12X18 SHEET)FOOD TRUCK OPTION - CONCEPT SKETCH 2 PACKET PAGE 27 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A10256-02-UR18 FEBRUARY 27, 2019 (24X36 SHEET) (12X18 SHEET)SCALE 1”=20’ 10 20 40 60SITE PLAN 0 SCALE 1”=10’ 10 20 305 0 36” REDWOOD TREES TO REMAIN FUTURE SCULPTURE GARDEN 36” OLIVE TREE TO REMAIN BENCHES & PLANTER POTS EXISTINGBRICKPATHWAY MOVEABLE BISTRO TABLES PUBLIC ART ELEMENT: INLAID IRON CAST-ING IN PAVING BROAD STREET 3’ SQ. PLANTER POTS WITH TREES STRING LIGHTS OUTLINE OF FUTURE CAFE BUILDING STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATIO EXISTING ADOBE MOVEABLE BISTRO TABLES 10” & 12” SYCAMORE TREES TO REMAIN 24” OLIVE TREE TO REMAIN IMPERVIOUS SURFACES EXISTING 1,750 SQ. FT. PROPOSED 3,770 SQ. FT. ACCESSIBLE RAMP WITH HANDRAILS AND LOW STONE WALLS (2) STEPS WITH HANDRAILS EXISTING LAWN TO REMAIN FUTURE PATIOEXPANSION + + CLAY BRICKPAVERS FOOD TRUCK PARKING EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN PROPOSED TREES SPECIES QUANTITY OLEA EUROPAEA ‘WILSONII’ EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN LIMIT OF IMPROVEMENTS 18” OLIVE TREE TO BE REMOVED WOOD BENCHES AROUND TREE WELLS BIKE RACKS WAYFINDING SIGN PLANTER AREA 6” & 12” JACARANDA TREE TO BE REMOVED TRASH RECEPTACLES POLE LIGHT RIGHT-OF-WAYSAWCUT LINE (LIMIT OF IMPROVEMENTS) PROPOSED RESTROOM 500 SF SCULPTURAL PLAY FEATURE 6 (4 IN POTS, 2 IN GROUND) MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A13#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1” = 10’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 5 10 20 0 10 20 40 1” = 20’-0” (12X18 SHEET)SITE PLAN WITH OPEN PLAZA OPTION PACKET PAGE 28 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A14#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1” = 10’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 5 10 20 0 10 20 40 1” = 20’-0” (12X18 SHEET)OPEN PLAZA - CONCEPT SKETCH 1 PACKET PAGE 29 MISSION PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS A15#0256-02-UR18 03 JUne 2019 1” = 10’-0” (24X36 SHEET) 0 5 10 20 0 10 20 40 1” = 20’-0” (12X18 SHEET)OPEN PLAZA - CONCEPT SKETCH 2 PACKET PAGE 30 Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Report Meeting Date: 08/07/2019 Item Number: 4 DATE: August 7, 2019 FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager Community Services Prepared By: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner, Community Development SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update RECOMMENDATION Review, discuss, and provide feedback on public input received in association with the June 2019 Community Needs Assessment Workshop and next steps. DISCUSSION Background In 2017, the City Parks and Recreation and Community Development Departments initiated the update to the City’s Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and the Master Plan (the “Update”). The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed and provided feedback on the Project Plan for the Master Plan and Element on September 6th and October 4th of 2017 and recommended the City Council approve the Project Plan. On November 7, 2017, the City Council approved the Project Plan, and a consultant team led by WRT was selected in February 2018 to support the Master Plan and Element Staff team. Since that time, the team has implemented the foundational stages of the Project Plan by conducting extensive initial community outreach pursuant to the approved Community Engagement Plan1 and as summarized in the Community Needs Assessment Engagement Memorandum2 approved by the PRC in December 2018. In addition, the results from the statistical survey conducted by ETC Institute are available for review in the Needs Assessment Survey Findings Report3. A PRC Workshop Series was held in January, February, and March of 2019, which consisted of focused discussions and public input related to the community’s values and priorities, unmet needs, and hopes and dreams. Following the Workshop Series, a Draft Community Needs Assessment Report4 prepared by WRT was presented at the May 2019 PRC meeting and feedback from the Commission was provided regarding 1) the Draft Report and 2) the topics and format of the June 2019 Community Needs Assessment Workshop. A summary of the June 2019 Workshop and feedback received is provided on the following page. 1 Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission in April 2018, available here. 2 Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission in December 2018, available here. 3 Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission in December 2018, available here. 4 Reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission in May 2019, available here. PACKET PAGE 31 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 2 Actions completed and ongoing include: Date Action October 2017 PRC approves Update Project Plan November 2017 Council approves Update Project Plan April 2018 PRC approves Community Engagement Plan Spring/Summer 2018 Staff hosts pop-ups promoting September Workshop September 13, 2018 Bright Ideas Public Workshop August-October 2018 ETC – Needs Assessment Survey December 2018 Community Needs Assessment, Engagement Memorandum and Needs Assessment Survey Findings Report approved by the PRC January 2019 PRC Workshop on SLO Swim Center and Events February 2019 PRC Workshop on Parks March 2019 PRC Workshop on Community Centers, Youth Services and Programs, and Fields and Facilities May 2019 Draft Community Needs Assessment; WRT & PROS June 5, 2019 Community Needs Assessment Public Workshop Ongoing Comment cards and email interested list gathering Ongoing E-Newsletter/Email blasts Ongoing Social media: education, meeting announcements Ongoing Neighborhood meetings (staff available for) Ongoing Public input and communications to staff Ongoing Open City Hall COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP The Community Needs Assessment report (Updated June 2019) prepared by WRT and PROS Consulting is the culmination of community engagement, public input, Staff assessments, and PRC guidance and direction that has occurred since April 2018 (available for view here: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=23356). On June 5, 2019, a Community Needs Assessment Public Workshop was held at the Ludwick Community Center from 4:00 to 7:00 PM, and was conducted in three one-hour segments, as follows: 1. Top of the hour presentations by WRT and Staff on the findings and recommendations of the Community Needs Assessment. 2. Public input and engagement at themed stations, including: a. Welcome and Information Station b. Community Parks: Laguna Lake Park c. Community Parks: Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Stadium, and SLO Swim Center d. Fields and Facilities: Damon-Garcia Sports Complex, Ludwick Community Center, Laguna Golf Course, SLO Senior Center, and the Jack House Gardens e. Building Community and Enhancing Neighborhoods PACKET PAGE 32 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 3 Feedback Received at the Public Workshop 1. Laguna Lake Park (Excluding Open Space Areas). Based on the responses received at this workshop station, 27 people indicated a preference for a natural park, and 60 people indicated a preference for an active park, inclusive of nine responders who identified a preference for both natural and active. Community members were asked to rank their priorities for natural and active park amenities, with the results shown in Tables 1 and 2, below, noting that not all responders ranked all amenity options. The tables show how many people ranked an amenity at a certain level (i.e., eight persons ranked “nature interpretive center/classroom” as priority 1). Table 1. Priorities for Natural Amenities Amenity Number of Persons per Priority Ranking Number 1 2 3 4 5 Nature Interpretive Center/Classroom 8 9 4 4 10 Botanical Garden 9 8 11 6 3 Cultural Education Kiosks 3 4 7 9 5 Meditative Garden 5 5 5 7 7 Additional Picnic Areas 6 9 4 10 7 Note: Priority Ranking: (1 = most important, 5 = least important) Table 2. Priorities for Active Amenities Amenity Number of Persons per Priority Ranking Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 Exercise Walking Pathway 19 10 13 9 2 8 Multi-use Sports Fields 7 9 11 10 12 7 Lighted Multi-use Sports Fields 5 7 5 9 11 8 Bike Pump Track 30 10 12 6 4 4 Basketball Courts 1 2 6 7 11 16 Adventure Playground/Obstacle Course 9 29 18 6 3 2 Note: Priority Ranking: (1 = most important, 5 = least important) 2. Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Stadium. At this station, participants were asked to mark their support or opposition to identified amenities at specific parks and facilities; results are shown in the tables below and on the following page, noting that not all participants provided a response to each option. Table 3. Sinsheimer Park Support and Oppose Tally Amenity Support Oppose Multi-Use Sports Fields 61 10 Bike Pump Track 69 8 Stadium and Stockton Field Lighting 52 13 Additional Tennis Courts 25 34 PACKET PAGE 33 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 4 Lights at Tennis Courts 48 16 Table 4. Sinsheimer Stadium Support and Oppose Tally Amenity Support Oppose Multi-use Sports Fields 70 10 Community Events 76 2 Upgrades to Stadium and Restrooms 67 8 Artificial Turf 45 21 3. SLO Swim Center. Community members were asked to rank their priorities for the SLO Swim Center, with the results shown in Table 5, below. The tables show how many people ranked an option at a certain level (i.e., 19 persons ranked “extended hours for recreational swim” as priority 1), noting that not all responders ranked all amenity or programming options. Table 5. Priorities for the SLO Swim Center Amenity Number of Persons per Priority Ranking Number 1 2 3 4 Extended Hours for Recreational Swim 19 34 10 4 Larger Therapy Pool 11 14 24 29 Extended Hours for Lap Swim 26 14 17 20 Splash Pad 15 15 23 20 Note: Priority Ranking: (1 = most important, 4 = least important) 4. Fields and Facilities. At this station, participants were asked to mark their support or opposition to identified options; results are shown in Table 6, below. Note that not all participants provided a response to each option. Table 6. Fields and Facilities Support and Oppose Tally Amenity Support Oppose Synthetic Turf (Damon Garcia) 50 18 Jack House Activation 59 7 Laguna Lake Golf Course Non-Golf Programs 63 6 Enhance Senior Center 58 13 Ludwick Remodel/Expansion 68 7 Building Community and Enhancing NeighborhoodsCommunity participants at this workshop station provided input regarding 1) the area of the City where they live (refer to Figure 1. Your Neighborhood Area Map); 2) the closest park to where they live; and 3) the amenities or programming that they would like to see in or near their neighborhood. Information provided from 112 responses indicated higher priorities for certain amenities and programming, as shown in Table 7 on the following page (noting that not all responders ranked all options): PACKET PAGE 34 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 5 Figure 1. Your Neighborhood Area Map Table 7. Community Identified Priorities for Neighborhood Amenities Area Nearest Park to Responder Higher Priorities1 1 Anholm Neighborhood events, walking paths Anholm/Throop/Santa Rosa Safer access, neighborhood events, concerts Laguna Lake Park Botanical garden, safer access, fitness classes, walking paths, instructional classes Santa Rosa Park Dog park, safer access, Zen garden, walking paths, botanical garden Throop Park Safer access, neighborhood events, walking paths, instructional classes, concerts 2 Anholm Park Safer access, neighborhood events, dog park, walking paths, concerts Emerson Park Safer access, neighborhood events, concerts, dog park, waking paths, botanical garden, fitness classes PACKET PAGE 35 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 6 Area Nearest Park to Responder Higher Priorities1 Emerson Park/Meadow Park Botanical garden, concerts, safer access, walking paths, instructional classes Meadow Park Safer access, walking paths, neighborhood events, botanical garden, instructional classes Mitchell Park Safer access, neighborhood events, walking paths, concerts, botanical garden Santa Rosa Park Pickleball courts, dog park, walking paths, safer access, instructional classes 3 Johnson Park Neighborhood events, turf fields, walking paths, safer access, instructional classes Meadow Park Safer access, dog park, walking paths, neighborhood events, botanical garden, pickleball courts Mitchell Park Turf fields, walking paths, Zen garden, neighborhood events, botanical garden Sinsheimer Park Safer access, dog park, walking paths, neighborhood events, fitness classes, turf fields Sinsheimer Park / Johnson Park Walking paths, dog park, safer access, botanical garden, instructional classes, pickleball courts Sinsheimer Park / French Park Dog park, safer access, botanical garden, instructional classes, fitness classes 4 French Park Pickleball courts, safer access, walking paths, neighborhood events, concerts Sinsheimer / French Dog park, safer access, walking paths, pickleball courts, turf fields 5 Las Praderas Park Botanical garden, Zen garden South Hills Safer access, walking paths, neighborhood events Stoneridge Park / Las Praderas Park Walking paths, dog park, Zen garden, safer access, botanical garden 6 De Vaul / Laguna Lake Park Bike park, safer access, walking paths, dog park, concerts Laguna Hills Park Zen garden, dog park, botanical garden, fitness classes, concerts, pickleball courts Laguna Lake Park Safer access, neighborhood events, walking paths, dog park, turf fields, concerts Vista Lago Park Safer access, dog park, walking paths, instructional classes, fitness classes County French Park Pickleball courts, safer access, walking paths, botanical garden, turf fields Sinsheimer Pickleball courts, bike park 1 Higher priority indicated by a majority of responder(s) ranking amenity or programming 5 or better, with 1 = highest priority and 11 = lowest priority Other Ideas. Community members were invited to share any additional ideas via post-it note or email. Many of these ideas are similar to the feedback received thus far through open engagement. These ideas and comments are available for view in Attachment A - Other Public Comments. PACKET PAGE 36 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 7 Questions Regarding the Survey Findings Report Throughout the Community Engagement process, the public has raised important questions about how the multiple sources of input will be used to inform the Master Plan and General Plan Element Update. Starting with the Community Needs Assessment Survey that was conducted by ETC Institute on behalf of the City, the Survey Findings Report presents an overview of the survey methodology (Executive Summary), demographic charts (Section 1), and survey instrument (Section 5). The Survey Findings Report is available for view online: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=23358. Regarding methodology, a total of 3,000 City of San Luis Obispo households were randomly selected to receive a mailed survey. The mailed survey also contained a link to an online version of the survey, so residents had the option of completing the survey by mail or online. Providing residents with different methods to complete the survey helped to ensure that diverse populations would be well represented. The goal was to receive at least 400 completed surveys, which was exceeded by the completion of 507 completed surveys. All 507 completed surveys are from households that were randomly selected to receive a survey, and the ETC Institute only included one completed survey per household. The ETC Institute tracked the address of households that completed a survey, and compared it to the addresses that were randomly selected to receive a survey. If a survey was received from a household that was not randomly selected, the survey was not included when analyzing the data and reporting the results. This is also how the ETC Institute ensured that only one completed survey per household was included in the analysis. As shown in the graphical excerpts from the Findings Report, the respondents represent a good cross- section of the community (see Figure 2. Respondent Individual Age and Figure 3. Respondent Household Ages). Figure 2. Respondent Individual Age Figure 3. Respondent Household Ages The results of 507 completed surveys has a margin of error of +/- 4.4% at the 95% level of confidence. This means that if the survey were administered the same way 100 times, 95 times the results would be +/- 4.4% from what we reported, which is a small margin of error. For a community of approximately 47,000 residents, 507 completed surveys is an adequate and appropriate sample size. PACKET PAGE 37 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 8 As a point of reference, ETC Institute provided the population and number of completed surveys for a few other communities they have recently surveyed in California: • West Sacramento: 52,000 residents; 381 completed surveys • Hanford: 55,000 residents: 378 completed surveys • Pleasant Hill: 35,000 residents: 398 completed surveys Regarding a question about the scale of the graphs used to display the results of the survey, the intent of the graphs is to display the data in a way that’s easy for the viewer to digest. The percentages are shown in all of the graphs, and Survey Findings Report Section 4 Tabular Data shows not only the percentages for each question, but in many cases the actual number of households who provided each response. How will Community Engagement Input Inform the Update? Community feedback the City has received to date through the survey, workshops, public meetings, pop- up events, stakeholder interviews, Open City Hall, and general correspondence reveals trends and topics that are important to our community. This variety of input has reinforced staff’s observations of community needs, such as the need for more parks, more and larger facilities, more sports fields and courts, expanded programming for all ages, expansion of youth services programming, enhancement and activation of parks and recreational facilities, and safer non-vehicular connections to parks and facilities. Community input has revealed new trends and ideas, including but not limited to, bike parks, meditative and quiet areas within parks, use of low allergen landscaping, neighborhood events, improvements to parks and facilities to respond to a more active senior population, the desire for multi- and cross- generational facilities and programming, opportunities for community partnerships, and ways to be more inclusive for our community members and more adaptable to a changing climate. In addition, community feedback from all sources and PRC direction are informing the development of draft goals, policies, and programs for the Master Plan and Parks and Recreation Element Update. Next steps in the Update process will include the development of a park-by-park project list, which will be developed by WRT in consultation with Staff, and presented to the PRC for public input and PRC discussion and deliberation on September 4, 2019. The public is encouraged to contribute to this discussion through public comment and correspondence, as this input will be an important contributor to the development of a prioritized list, to be presented at the October 2, 2019 PRC meeting. NEXT STEPS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT As described in the Community Engagement Plan for this Project, there will continue to be many more opportunities for public input. As outlined below, all documents will be provided to the PRC and additional advisory bodies and the City Council, as applicable. Staff encourages the public to review these documents, as well, and provide comments throughout the Master Plan and Element update process. Highlights of current and next steps include the following: PACKET PAGE 38 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update Page 9 Date Action Details August 2019 June Workshop results presented to PRC 1. PRC review of June Workshop results and next steps in the Update process 2. Receive public comment and feedback September 2019 Park by Park discussion 1. Review park by park list of amenities and improvements (not prioritized at this stage) 2. Receive public comment and feedback 3. Provide direction to staff regarding proposed amenities and improvements October 2019 Review Draft Master Plan components and conduct Prioritization Exercise Review, discuss, and provide feedback on received information, based on staff presentation, review of materials, and public comment November 2019 Review Draft Capital Improvement Plan with Cost Estimates Review, discuss, and provide feedback on received information, based on staff presentation, review of materials, and public comment December 2019 Review Draft Operational Cost Estimates for Future Improvements Review, discuss, and provide feedback on received information, based on staff presentation, review of materials, and public comment January - March 2020 Public Review Draft Parks Master Plan 1. WRT and consultant team to work with staff and PRC on Public Review Draft Parks Master Plan components, with complete document release to the public March 2020 2. Advisory bodies receive Public Review Draft Parks Master Plan and update from staff ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Other Public Comments PACKET PAGE 39 Attachment A. Other Public Comments Table 1. Other Comments Received at Public Workshop Other Comments Received at Public Workshop Provide for adoption of bike/multiuse ped trails design criteria in streets & highway code Provide for consistent design criteria for multi use path /trails in county and city Provide for safe router to parks and schools, bicycle facilities Sinsheimer and Laguna need bike paths like Truckee and Morro Bay More soccer fields Sinsheimer needs a parking structure or better parking Multi-use sports fields and tennis at Laguna Lake Multi-use sports complex at Laguna Lake Park Wind breaks in Laguna Lake Park Consider recumbent bike and/or steppers for adults in 2-3 parks Bike parks in Sinsheimer and Laguna similar to Morro Bay Laguna Lake needs some TLC. After the rains, the parking lot is falling apart. Love the little bike path Class I bike paths Bike park (pump track) and more swimming More permanent pickleball courts After school care Equipment in parks kept in good repair; exercise equip in Emerson Park has been in need of repair for 5.5 years. Fully enclosed dog park please Fenced dog park After school care - we need more More open swim times After school care An Indoor/outdoor swim/rec center for the community; bike pump track Bike park/pump track; splash pad We need a real dog park(s) I wish to have more pickleball courts in my neighborhood and the city I'd like to see safe bike riding in slo city Bike park for kids at Laguna and Sinsheimer Bike Pump track at Sinsheimer and Laguna parks Bike pump tracks; beer; cyclocross course; BBQ pits Bike pump & jump track and Laguna and Sinsheimer; Potential sponsorship from SRAM? Lots of volunteers to build Find a location for another community pool; expand rec swim and swim lessons Bike path connectivity; improved streets for safer cycling PACKET PAGE 40 Bocce ball courts w/ covered picnic area and BBQs Sinsheimer park/pool needs a parking structure "View Shed" map for cycling to and from parks; from home to park Recumbent bikes and/or steppers for adults at parks. Good for seniors, good for everyone Better parking at Sinsheimer Is a new pool the solution to the swimming needs or can they be solved by eliminating non community uses? I would like to see all community parks take better care of their tarped paths/trails. Skim coat does not always do it - like Islay Park Please provide hot links on your website to: Survey, needs assessment docs, survey response, demographics Always improve the public restroom maintenance Restroom facilities at trailheads, esp. Johnson Ranch Integrate Laguna Lake Shoreline access into park plan Meadow Park - repave the paths that have been eroded; provide a few lights along paths - it's so dark in the winter months (not safe to run/walk after work) Prioritize people who bike & walk over privately owned vehicles; e.g. use parking for other purposes than cars Need afterschool care Restrooms/public showers/camping PACKET PAGE 41 Table 2. Emailed Comments Emailed Comments Submitted in Response to June 2019 Public Workshop Jeff Whitener: I'm sorry I did not get a chance to speak with you in more detail on Wednesday. I was hoping for more information about the needs assessment that the consultants conducted. While the report presented at the May 1 PRC meeting provided the survey results along with background information and national trends, I could not find the survey instrument itself, it's methodology, nor any demographic information about the respondents. My primary concern is how the survey results have been considered given other public input given to date. I did not find any information of that nature at the workshop. I apologize if I have missed some of this at previous PRC presentations. It would be helpful if the public could have access (online or otherwise) to the following: The needs survey instrument itself. Details of the methodology (i.e. how it was disseminated, were multiple responses from responding households allowed, did the survey allow narrative responses, did the respondents self-select from your random distribution, when was the survey distributed, etc) The demographics of the respondents. The report provided to the Parks and Recreation Commission on May 1 indicated the total number of surveys returned was around 500 and the size of the survey population (total number of SLO households) was about 25,000. I understand small sampling statistical theory to some degree – I would like the consultant’s thoughts regarding repeatably of the survey results and the margin of error given the smaller sample size. The report also appeared to use national trends regarding different recreational activities to interpret the survey results – why not use California trends? Why did some of the illustrative graphs use different scales to display the results? While the numbers were provided, the bars could not be compared in like ways given the differing scales. It could be seen as a subtle manipulation. This leads me to questions based on knowledge of local events. Were the respondents a good representation of the recreational population? I personally was offered two of my neighbor’s surveys to fill out because my neighbors didn't want to bother and they knew I have a passion for youth recreation. I declined but it does make me wonder how accurately the surveys reflect the feelings of the community at large. Were the responses considered in context? For example, if the surveys were sent out late summer or early fall, you may have captured an unusually high response from families frustrated by their recent inability to participate in the highly impacted local "Fun & Sun" and Summer swimming lesson programs. Finally, what relative weight is being assigned to the survey versus other public input? For instance, there were 600 people in attendance at the first public workshop – more than the amount of returned surveys. What methodology is being used to integrate the survey results with other public input? I assumed that the needs assessment would "inform" the process not "guide" it but at each workshop and hearing I’ve attended, the survey results appear to be relied upon and quoted as the sole authority of input. This concerns me greatly. PACKET PAGE 42 I look forward to your thoughts. Once again, I thank everyone for all the effort being put into this update! Wendy Stockton: I was not able to attend the public workshop yesterday but wanted to write to express my support for the staff and programs at SLO Swim Center. The staff is friendly and competent; the programs are well-attended, affordable and treasured by attendees. Please continue to fund this recreational opportunity in our community. Please consider adding additional grab bars in the showers as so many seniors and people with disabilities use the locker rooms. Thank you. Mary Leizear: I would like to see a much bigger therapy pool for children and seniors. The current pool could be extended and expanded. Because of the impacts of the new playground and Blues summertime baseball, the parking lot is now to small. Another parking area close to the railroad tracks would be very helpful. There is plenty of room and no structures are in the way. It would be wonderful if pool hours could be expanded. Laguna Lake needs to be dredged. It is way overdue. There should be a proper dog park installed, with fences, sitting area and water stations. Thank you for holding this workshop. I regret that I could not attend today. Kate Maxwell: I know you’re having a public workshop today but unfortunately I’m out of town. I live in the Serra Meadows development and our area desperately needs a park. There were 180 original homes built in our development. I believe there are about 36 more being currently built. Next to us is the new development Toscana. I would guess there are going to be close to 150 new homes when that is finished. This is all on top of the existing homes and apartments that were already built here. In addition there will be 2 low income housing complexes built in our developments which will bring in dozens of families as well. There is no park near these homes and it is very unfortunate. There are hundreds of little kids that would benefit from that open space. Part of the appeal of living in a small town is the ability to get outside with our kids and neighbors. So many of my Serra Meadows neighbors feel the same and as I’ve gotten to know some young families in Toscana they agree. The closest park to us is Meadow park which we have to drive out on south Higuera to south. It’s an amazing park and useful but if we could have something smaller closer by, walking distance would be ideal, our community would be enriched. Thank you for your consideration! Jeff Whitener: After attending some of your workshops (and receiving feedback from others who attended the workshops I did not) my impressions are that the weight of input is being disproportionately allocated to the needs. The statistical survey came from a very small PACKET PAGE 43 sampling and does not seem to come to the same conclusion about priorities as the public input I witnessed. I fear the process is depending too heavily on such a small survey. Here is an example: after many, many years of attending PRC meetings I have heard very little from the community about public pool needs other than scheduling. I also noticed a larger turn out for the Field needs workshop than the Pool needs workshop. Yet the Pool need remains at the top of the list. I worry that a few parents who received the survey may have been parents struggling with swimming lesson scheduling. These same parents might have children in soccer or baseball. These parents do not always understand the needs of the larger organization due to lack of involvement at the planning level in these organizations. These parents would tell you in a survey that they need more pools, when in fact they need more pools and fields. Maybe you, Shawna, or the consultants can give us a better idea of how the different inputs were weighted when tabulating the list of needs to be prioritized. Jeff Whitener: Thanks again for your response Devin. For those of us looking for more transparency it might be good for staff to be ready explain the methodology used in developing your priority list. It would also be helpful to revisit the needs assessment numbers...City population, survey distribution process, number of respondents, etc. as well as a review of the Executive Summary of that assessment and how those conclusions were reached. Thanks again for all your work. I know all of this is a lot of work. Looking forward to tomorrow night. Odile Ayral: 1) Park and recreation is not the same thing as natural reserves. They should never ever be lumped together. Their names alone show to any educated person that they are not the same thing. Therefore there should be different people in charge, and natural reserves should be protected. Trails on the reserves should be maintained but closed to the public after sunset so that the animals can go about their business (the few that are left considering we haven't been very good in wildlife protection.) 2) Some areas of the city have received a great deal of attention when it comes to parks. Sinsheimer, Meadow park, for example are large and lovely. Other areas have been completely neglected. This is the case for the north western part of the city, which has no parks whatsoever. As you know, Throop park is not a city park, it belongs to the school district which can take it back any time. True, there is Santa Rosa park, but it is cut off from the north west by a large and very busy road, nearly a freeway, and few people from "the other side" go there. The city decided to remedy this problem by using a piece of land they owned way down Broad St and far from the real north west. A piece of land right by the freeway, where the kids can breathe the fumes and enjoy the noise. Shame on the city! When it comes to taking care of vulnerable living beings such as animals and children, I give the city a big zero. I have also learned that the workshops the city regularly organizes are a show: pretending you listen, pretending you care, when in fact you already know what you want to do and you are simply looking for validation. It is true for everything, from housing to parks to separate bike lanes to cutting trees. The best example was when residents turned down the idea of PACKET PAGE 44 unnecessary separate bike lanes on Broad St (the number of cyclists there is pitiful and the neighborhood is old and ought to be protected), but the city council rounded the troops--all young bike people who live elsewhere--and managed to manipulate regulations so they could vote again. So... there are millions for unnecessary separate bike lanes, bollards, etc., but nothing for a decent children park. I am too old to fight for decency anymore. I have had enough. I don't blame you, Shawna, because you are not in charge. I just had to say it. Steve Davis: Shawna – I have seen a couple of notices about the upcoming Parks and Rec workshop. The notices give the impression that the discussion will be about a subset of the community assessment, i.e existing facilities. I noticed that everything referenced are existing facilities. I am assuming there will also be a discussion of other Park facilities that do not currently exist and also how the new residential developments in town and their park facilities will be incorporated into a new plan. Andy Greensfelder: May we tell you our priorities in an email or on a web site like the City allows regarding its strategic plan. Shouldn't be necessary for everyone to descend on the Vets Hall. Marlene Valdes: Hello, I missed the meeting at the lake that was for suggestions for what to do with the lake area. I would really like to speak to someone about some ideas. I can list them here but would like to be directed to someone that I may speak to in person if possible. 1. I believe the best idea would be a community center and pool. This would include a Boys and Girls club or YMCA with activities and swimming for local families. Especially with the housing going in across Madonna Road. There are not enough things for all the kids on this side of the city. The activity center would benefit many kids in the area. It could have classes, after school care, games and swim lessons. And the addition of a bigger play ground. Basketball, Volley ball arena and/or tennis. 2. Baseball fields for Little League, Bobby Socks and many other sports. Frisbee golf does not seem to draw enough people to designate such a large portion of the park. 3. A skateboard and BMX bike park to give teens and preteens an activity. It is crucial to have plenty of activities for this age to keep them away from the drug temptation. 4. It would also be a very good spot for various types of sales events. There could be craft fairs, farmers markets, art shows, gem and mineral events. 5. The Renaissance Fair is a very popular returning event. More events along these lines could be booked. 6. A boat rental facility would be fun. 7. An official camp ground to go with the boat rentals . PACKET PAGE 45 8. A Ranger Station, with more sidewalks and open facilities for better access and open viewing for rangers and police. The improvements along with the constant presence of some type of officer would deter vagrancy and drug use. 9. Holiday carnivals and parties and other types of community gatherings. 10. Continuously designated areas large enough for tents and other extra restrooms. 11. Wedding and other special occasions areas rentals. 12. Food stands or kitchen facilities for food preparation at different events. 13. A more designated and official dog park space. 14. A parking area for trailers and trails for horse back riding. 15. One or several community gardens or community farming areas and sales zones. Or just a garden for helping our poor and homeless population. 16. A large fountain and local information center. 17. A model air plane club area at the far end. I have many other ideas and helpful suggestions I can contribute. My family loves going to the lake and would hate to see it taken away from everyone. It has far too much potential to just be wasted. Don Allcock: Can’t make it to the meeting, but my input is for more family oriented activities like bocce and horseshoes. As a senior citizen I’m looking at more sedate games. Picnicking goes along with both. Paul Fiala: My name is Paul Fiala, I’m a local tennis teaching professional who, in conjunction with the Recreation Department, runs 6 tennis tournaments per year for the community. I’ve been a part of the SLO tennis scene since 1985, and was the city’s tennis director/instructor from 1989 to 1994. Of course, my interest is in the Sinsheimer tennis courts. They pretty much provide 50% of the local tennis community’s recreational tennis needs. I realize the local community near the courts has always been vocal opponents of putting lights on the courts and with the high school now sporting excellent lights for the community, the pressure for lights at Sinsheimer is not as great. They are, however, a necessary part of the upgrade to the Sinsheimer tennis courts as most of the community doesn’t have the chance to use Sinsheimer during Standard Time as it is too dark to play there for any normal length of time that tennis players typically play after around mid-October up until the 2nd weekend in March….that’s 5 months that the working community cannot use Sinsheimer for recreational tennis after their workday. PACKET PAGE 46 Second concern – and likely the most plausible – is to get the tennis courts resurfaced. I’m not sure the last time they were resurfaced, but 10 years is the maximum for any court getting the amount of usage that city courts typically get. If that comes to be, getting the courts surfaced with the new color schemes that most clubs, schools, and universities use, and the cost is the same no matter what the colors used. Third Concern – gopher eradication. There are many ways to decrease the gopher population these days, and doing so would make the pathway in front of the courts a lot more uniform as the gophers have recently (over the past 6 months) been digging under the concrete pathway in-between the concrete sections, piling up large amounts of base material on the pathway. That’s my 2 cents worth. I hope this finds you well and busy doing what you enjoy doing! Loel Green: Hello Shawna! I met you at the meeting yesterday and spoke to you about our new game. You can check it out at www.batellball.com or on Instagram @batellball. We currently getting manufacturing in order for a first round of product. Once we get that done we will start marketing a little harder. We are in the process of starting a local league and would love to have the cities support. We currently play at Meadow Park, French Park, SLO YMCA, and The Pismo Beach Athletic Club. People have responded to it with a growing interest. Thank you for your help. Please forward this to whomever you think necessary. Kathy Battles: My husband and I are unable to attend today’s (6/5) public meetings but want to share our wishes with you. We strongly urge you to build bike parks at Sinsheimer and Laguna Lake parks (similar to the facility in Morro Bay) by including them in the next parks and recreation plan update and budget. For many years we have been supporters of and participants in the cycling community. We do it for the health benefits (both physical and mental), as recreation and in group activities. We’ve ridden all over the world. Now we’re watching our friends’ 8-10 year olds ride like the wind, staying active and just recently participating in enduro and cross country races. All these things add up to a healthier community. Please do this for our city, our children and our future. Thank you!! PACKET PAGE 47