HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/1990, 3 - RECREATION CENTER REHABILITATION 9 ISI ` p I' III 'j�/ (' G q�
QII���N���INIIIIIIIIIIII��N�IIIUIII "1 t r MEET�N/4/ TF
A c� san tuts os�spo 4
ITEM NUMBER:
WNGs COUNP& AGENDA REPDRT
FROM: Jim Stoc , Recreation & Parks Director BY: Kathy Koo
SUBJECT: Recreation Center Rehabilitation
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a report from staff and the project. architects, West and
Doubledee and authorize staff to proceed on the comprehensive
rehabilitation of the San Luis Obispo Recreation Center at an
estimated cost of $973,900.
OVERVIEW:
The San Luis Obispo Recreation Center is the city's only multi-
use indoor recreational facility. Due to the failing systems of
the aging building, meeting program demands has become
increasingly difficult and in some cases impossible to
accomplish. Realizing this, staff applied for and received grant
funding from the State of California.
Continued inspection has revealed that the level of
rehabilitation necessary to return the building to a state of
usefulness exceeds the original project budget. In an attempt to
retain the functionality of the building, and in light of the
decision to postpone the community/senior center master plan
study, staff with the assistance of the project architects have
proposed several options.
These are: 1. Comprehensive Rehabilitation
2. Do Nothing
3. Phased Comprehensive Rehabilitation
4. Demolish and Rebuild
5. Partial Demolition
6. Commercial Exchange
Project architects from the firm of West and Doubledee will
provide a detailed presentation of these alternatives during the
April 4, 1990 Council meeting.
BACKGROUND:
In mid 1986 a grant was received for the rehabilitation of the
Santa Rosa Street Recreation Center. After receiving
notification of the grant award, staff prepared and distributed
Request. For Proposals to provide architectural design and
interviewed prospective architecture firms. A contract was
awarded to West and Doubledee for design services in Spring,
1987.
I.!AR 2 7 1990
CITY CIER;<
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
VKI I Icity or sa:i Luis OBlspo
SMEGS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
It was the intent of staff and the architects to provide a
durable, low maintenance facility that was cost effective to
rehabilitate. With this in mind, the architects completed a
first set of design plans in late 1987 and submitted them for
initial review. The first architectural proposal called for a
stucco exterior with metal doors and windows to withstand the
usage associated with a recreation center and in addition make it
easy to maintain. When the proposal reached the Cultural
Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission, it was
determined that even though the building was not on the list of
historical properties, the facility was of historical
significance as it is one of the last remaining examples of
buildings constructed during World War II. for use as a USO
center. This determination necessitated a redesign of the
exterior to include a more costly wood siding and wood window
trim that would recall the original appearance of the building.
The project was resubmitted for review to the Architectural
Review Commission. In April of 1988 staff was notified by the
Project Planner who interpreted the ARC's recommendation, that in
addition to making the exterior alterations, a parking and
landscape plan would be required before a building permit would
be issued. Originally no parking alteration or landscape plan
was required because the project was considered a rehabilitation
and the existing foot print of the facility was not disturbed.
In fullfilling this requirement, staff solicited bids for a
landscape architect firm to develop plans and specifications to
complete a parking and landscape plan.
A more inclusive inspection of the building revealed the presence
of extensive amounts of asbestos. Rehabilitation would disturb
the asbestos laden areas and this necessitated asbestos abatement
prior to start of project. Aside from contributing to time
delays these items additionally escalated the rehabilitation
costs. In addition to the asbestos abatement costs, the building
has experienced further deterioration rendering major systems and
portions of the facility disfunctional. What began as a project
with a budget of $373, 000, and an initial project estimate of
$450,000 is now estimated at a project cost of $973,900.
Realizing that this cost approaches that of new construction
staff has intensively investigated alternatives and is providing
several options for council review.
Outlined below are several options for Council's consideration.
These options will be presented in detail by the project
architect during the council meeting of April 4, 1990.
crty o� san Luis oBispo
COUNCIL ,AGENDA REPORT
-' Staff Report
Page 3
REHABILITATION OPTIONS:
1. COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION: This option addresses the
safety, health, structural and aesthetic deficiencies of the
building. The scope of this option includes the project, for
which the construction documents are already completed and meets
details requested by the Cultural Heritage Committee and
Architectural Review Commission. The project includes: asbestos
abatement, re-roofing; replacement/repair of all exterior
materials; replacement of doors and windows; partial
reorganization of interior spaces; replacement of electrical,
lighting, and mechanical systems; structural stabilization,
landscaping and parking reorganization. Cost of the project is
approximately $973,•900 which includes contingencies, landscaping,
asbestos abatement, fire sprinklers/alarm system and all
conditions.
For reasons detailed later in this report, staff recommends this
option. In summary, while requiring a substantial investment,
this alternative resolves all safety, weatherproofing and system
issues as well as addresses many aesthetic and functional issues.
Selection of this option requires a long-term commitment to use
i
of this existing facility configuration, organization and
v location..
2. DO NOTHING: Adoption of this alternative would result in
closing the Recreation Center and leaving no long term
recreational facilities available to the community. The.
architect lists the following deficiencies with the facility as
it exists presently: asbestos in heating and plumbing;
antiquated electrical distribution system; antiquated and
inoperative heating and hot water system; inadequate sewer and.
plumbing systems; major weatherproofing deficiencies, including
leaking roof and failing exterior finishes; nonexistant fire.
alarm system; inadequate fire exit pathways; and limited handicap
access.
Closing the Recreation Center would greatly reduce the Recreation
Department's ability to meet this community's diverse
recreational needs. Thus, this option is not recommended.
3. PHASED COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION: Adoption of this
alternative would restrict renovation to minimum items required
in order to maintain use for 5 - 6 years. The amount of work
required to meet this criteria could vary considerably, depending
upon the level of activity to be maintained and the permanence of
renovations instituted. Building modifications would consist of
improvements that would provide an improved facility that would
meet minimum health, safety and aesthetic requirements. The
first phase would accomplish minimum weatherproofing and safety
city O� sal-. Luis OBISPO
WMaGo COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
measures required to allow continued use of facility. Again,
this is a patching up of those items in the facility that are in
disrepair. It would extend to include some painting, patching
and caulking for the purpose of weatherizing the facility. Some
work would be done on the existing electrical system with a
general attempt being made to improve the existing systems of the
building but not include any new systems. The cost of this
alternative approaches $650,000 and includes asbestos abatement,
landscaping and sprinkling for fire suppression.
This option does not provide permanent solutions for existing
facility deficiencies, does not address significant aesthetic or
functional issues and may increase long term costs of facility
operation. In light of the successful completion of the Senior
Citizens Center rehabilitation, it is important to keep in mind
the unanticipated expenses that may be encountered as a part of
this rehabilitation project and allow for contingency costs.
That is included in the above cost estimate.
Staff does not select this as a recommended option as it does not
address historical renovation requirements. Additionally it
provides a limited life expectancy and useability of the
facility. Experience in this and other communities indicates
that partial rehabilitation of older structures presents many
problems and is not a workable solution.
4. DEMOLISH AND REBUILD: The existing facility is 14, 000
square feet. Complete demolition and construction of a new
facility could yield a recreation facility of 14,000 to 26, 000
square feet constructed over a 350 space parking garage. This
option is mentioned conceptually and has not been researched in
depth. Approximate cost of a 14,000 sq. ft. facility is
$1,400,000 to $1,650,000. Approximate costs for 26,000 sq. ft.
facility is $2,600,000 to $3,200,000.
This alternative requires a large capital expenditure and would
waive the historical significance of this facility. Additionally
staff would have to rewrite the existing grant and submit it to
review by the State of California which may result in the loss of
the $296,000 grant funding already received by the City.
However, when completed, the new facility might better address
existing recreational needs and long term goals for the downtown.
5. PARTIAL DEMOLITION: The gymnasium is the most redeeming
feature of the facility. This option would provide for
demolition of all of the facility except the gymnasium and
reconstruction of the adjacent building.
icity of San Luis OBispo -
SONGS COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
The architect's preliminary review indicates that a balance could
be achieved between parking and useable recreational space and
still retain the quality of the existing gymnasium floor which is
the most desirable aspect of the existing building. The
operation of the facility would be greatly reduced due to the
space required in order to accommodate parking. Approximate
costs for this alternative would fall between options 1 and 3,
($650,000 and $973,900) .
Disadvantages of this alternative include the large capital
expenditure in relation to the net useable space achieved.
Planning restrictions caused by attempting to retain the
gymnasium may limit planning flexibility and facility size.
6. COMMERCIAL EXCHANGE: Several inquiries from private
businesses have been received by the Recreation Department for
the purchase of the facility, with some form of rehabilitation
and continued use by the City. Staff has received a preliminary
proposal for the rehabilitation/lease of the Recreation Center
and will work to acquire a formal proposal for Council review, if
Council is interested in this kind of public/private approach to
the project. The staff believes it is inappropriate to consider
the sale of this property for commercial purposes and believes
that rehabilitation of the building under private sponsorship
raises more issues than it solves.
RECOMMENDED OPTION:
In the absence of a community center master plan study to
identify alternative recreation center sites, it is assumed that
the current location, size and configuration of the existing
facility is the best available option for a recreational center.
Additionally, considering the failing status of the existing
center and the community's demand for and extensive use of the
existing facility, the comprehensive rehabilitation option is
recommended.
Failure to perform any rehabilitation on the facility would
negate the Recreation Department's ability to meet the
community's diverse recreational needs. Most of the youth, teen,
adult and many senior activities would be discontinued as
alternate facilities for these programs are not available for use
on a long term basis.
Community feedback as well as staff and architect review indicate
the Recreation Center is in a state of failing condition. The
architect lists the following deficiencies with the facility as
it presently exists: extensive asbestos in heating and plumbing,
antiquated electrical systems, inadequate sewer, plumbing and
handicap access, failing weatherproofing systems including a
��� �►►i�i���I��Ia ���� City O� sari tins OBISPO
ffamGa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 6
leaking roof and failing doors, windows and exterior surfaces and
inadequate fire suppression system. One room is presently closed
to use because of asbestos contamination, the heater/boiler
system is inoperative and heat is being supplied through the use
of space heaters. Security is nearly impossible because of
inadequate and failing doors and windows.
While requiring a substantial investment this alternative
resolves all safety, weatherproofing and system issues as well as
addressess all historical, aesthetic and most functional issues.
Selection of this option requires a long-term commitment to use
of this existing recreation facility.
Finally, it should be noted that staff worked for a considerable
period of time with the project architect to develop a less
costly alternative to a full scale rehabilitation. In the end,
staff and the architect believe that an attempted "piecemeal"
approach is likely to escalate in cost as the work proceeds, and
when completed, the project may prove a disappointment to the
City and to our recreation program users.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Under the contract with the architectural firm of West &
Doubledee approved by the Council on April 7, 1987, $80, 600 has
been committed for this project to-date for schematic design,.
design development, and construction documents. Based on project
concept changes since this contract was originally executed, an
additional $3800 in consultant service costs have been incurred.
As detailed in the Architect's Estimate (Attachment A) , the
projected construction cost for the Comprehensive Rehabilitation
Option is $973,900 summarized as follows:
Construction
Remodeling $ 718,800
Contingencies @ 15% 107 .800
Total Architect's Estimate 826, 600
Bidding assistance and project administration 27, 300
Acquisitions (equipment and furnishings) 25, 000
Asbestos abatement 65, 000
Landscaping 30, 000
TOTAL PROJECT COST - CONSTRUCTION PHASE $ 973,900
-G
�u AI�d arty Of SM WIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
J Staff Report
Page 7
Grant funding in the amount of $296, 000 has been awarded from the
State of California for this project. Under the terms of the
grant agreement executed on April 9, 1986, 80% of these funds
($236,800) will be distributed to the City upon award of
contract, and the balance ($59,200) will be allocated upon
completion of the project. Significant progress on this project
(such as bid award) must be demonstrated by June 30, 1990 in
order to retain the City's eligibility for this funding although
an extension can be requested.
The 1987-89 Financial Plan (page E-10) designated $373, 000 for
the construction phase of this project, with $257, 000 to be
funded from grant sources and the balance ($116, 000) to be funded
from park-in-lieu fees. As discussed above, the Architect's
Estimate is significantly greater (by $600,900) than original
budget estimates, which is partially offset by an increase of
$39,000 in grant funding. Three alternatives have been
identified in funding the additional $561, 900 in City resources
required to finance the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Option:
Park-In-Lieu Fees
At the end of Fiscal Year 1990-91, the 1989-91 Financial Plan
reflects an ending fund balance for park-in-lieu fees of $828,400
(page G-9) . As indicated above, park-in-lieu fees are currently
the designated funding source for the City's share ($116, 000) of
this project. Accordingly, it might be appropriate to fund the
remaining balance required ($561,900) from this source. However,
this approach would significantly deplete the accumulated
resources available for neighborhood park improvements, resulting
in a revised projected ending fund balance of $266,500 at the end
of Fiscal 1990-91.
Debt Financing - Capital Outlay Fund
This project meets all of the criteria established in the 1989-
91 Financial Plan (pages B-7 and B-8) for the use of debt
financing in meeting the City's capital improvement needs. At
the $561,900 level, annual net debt service over 25 years would
be approximately $60,000, which compares favorably with any
rental or leaseback alternatives. The primary concern with this
approach is whether the debt service period (25 years) is greater
than the remaining useful life of the facility in either
programming or structural terms.
Combined Park-In-Lieu Fees and Debt. Financing
Under this alternative, the City's total share of the project,
($677,900) would be funded evenly from park-in-lieu fees and debt
financing. This option continues the commitment to use park-in-
lieu fees for this project ($338,900) compared with original
1111111111111114111111 city Of Sao . LUIS OBISp0 -
WRign COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 8
Financial Plan designations of $116,000 but at a level which
retains adequate resources ($605, 000) for future neighborhood
park improvements. With this option, net annual debt service to
be supported through the Capital Outlay Fund would be reduced to
$35,000; or the annual debt service requirement indicated above
could be retained at $60, 000, and the term reduced to ten years
to better match the "program life" of this facility.
Any of these alternatives adequately meet the funding needs for .
this project as well as the. City's overall financing policies and
capabilities. At this time, staff recommends the Combined Park-
In-Lieu and Debt Financing alternative as the most balanced
method of funding this project.
NEXT STEP:
With Council approval of the recommended option and financial
plan at the April 4 meeting, the next step in the Recreation
Center rehabilitation project will be to review the already
completed plans and bid specification package. Additionally the
department of Finance will begin compiling the package for debt
financing. Due to the City's positive cash flow at this time
completion of the debt financing process is not necessary prior
to beginning project construction. The project will then return
to Council at the May 1, 1990 for approval to advertise to bid.
CONCURRENCES:
This document has been reviewed by the Department of Finance,
Fire, Public Works, Community Development and the comments of
these departments have been considered in the development of this
report. The City's Building Official concurs that a partial
rehabilitation approach will not be cost effective or desirable.
The Parks & Recreation Commission has received regular reports on
the project and concurs with the recommended action.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Cover letter and project estimate
rX
ATTACHMENT A
�•, ARCHITECTURE
_ WEST+DOUBLEDEE ARCHITECTS PLANNING
19
March
1990
City of San Luis Obispo
Recreation Department
860 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attu; Kathy Koop
Re: SAN LUIS OBISPO RECREATION CENTER REHABILITATION
Construction Cost.Estimate for "Option 1, Comprehensive Rehabilitation"
Dear Kathy:
In response to your request made at our review meeting on tuesday the 13th we have reviewed the cost
estimate for"Comprehensive Renovation"(Option 1).The estimate for this option is based on the completed
contract drawings and was last updated to $ 716,205.00 in August of 1989.
The attached updates the estimate for this option to March 1990. The current estimated construction cost is
$ 826,629.00. The following outline briefly describes this option.
OPTION 1. COMPREHENSIVE RENOVATION
This alternative corresponds to the project for which construction documents have been completed.
The intent is to correct all structural safety and weatherproofing deficiencies.
The scope of work includes:
1. All new Roofing
2. Replacement and/or repair of all exterior materials.
3. Replacement of all doors and windows.
4. Partial reorganization of interior spaces.
5. Replacement and/or repair of interior materials in the front portion of the building.
6. Replacement of most electrical service, distribution and lighting
7. Replacement of most plumbing including fixtures
8. Replacement and/or repair of all Heating and ventilation systems.
9 Structural stabilization
Also included in the project, but not included in this estimate is:
Asbestos abatement
Landscaping
As we discussed we will be available to present the options to the City Council and answer any questions as
necessary.
Sincer Now
on D ub dee
800 QUINTANA 6'U I T E 2F • MORRO BAY , CALIFORNIA 934 4 2 • 805 / 772 . 5668
3-9
WEST+DOUBLEDEE ARCHITECTS
SLO REC CENTER 143-A-87 MARCH 1990
SAN LUIS OBISPO °RECREATION CENTER' REHABILITATION
DIVISION TRADE ESTIMATE TOTAL
1 GENERAL CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS $45,582.95
OVERHEAD $68,374.43
PROFIT $56,978.69
$170,936
2 SITEWORK&DEMOLITION
DEMOLITION $7,800.00
SITEWORK $10,400.00
HANDICAP RAMPS $22,880.00
$41,080
3 CONCRETE
CAST-IN-PLACE CONC $0.00
$0
4 MASONRY
MASONRY $0.00
$0
5 METALS
MISC.METALS $4,160.00
$4,160
6 WOOD AND PLASTICS
ROUGH CARPENTRY $27,352.00
FINISH CARPENTRY $16,640.00
MILLWORK&CABINETS $18,720.00
$62,712
7 THERMAL&MOISTURE
SIDING $49,920.00
ROOFING $26,000.00
EIFS (STUCCO) $54,080.00
INSULATION $15,600.00
FLASH ING&SHT.MET. $6,240.00
$151,840
8 DOORS AND WINDOWS
DOORS $8,320.00
WINDOWS $36,400.00
HARDWARE $4,160.00
$48,880
9 FINISHES
GYPSUM DRYWALL $9,880.00
PLASTER $0.00
SUSPENDED CEILINGS $18,720.00
TILE $18,720.00
CARPET $9,360.00
SHEET VINYL $2,080.00
PAINTING $20,800.00
WALL COVERING $0.00
$79,560
10 ACCESSORIES
TOILET PARTITIONS $5,200.00
TOILET ACCESSORIES $1,560.00
$6,760 ��
WEST+DOUBLEDEE ARCHITECTS
DIVISION TRADE ESTIMATE TOTAL
11 EQUIPMENT
KITCHEN EQUIPMENT $1,560.00
ATHLETIC EQUIPMENT $520.00
$2,080
12 FURNISHINGS
FURNITURE $0.00
ART $0.00
$0
13 SPECIAL CONST
SPECIAL CONST $0.00 _
$0
14 CONVEYING SYSTEMS
CONVEYING SYSTEMS $0.00
$0
15 MECHANICAL
HEATING&VENTING $36,400.00
AIR CONDITIONIG $0.00
PLUMBING $20,800.00
FIRE PROTECTION $36,400.00
$93,600
16 ELECTRICAL
SERVICE $8,320.00
DISTR16UTION $26,000.00
LIGIiTING $15,600.00
COMMUNICATIONS $2,080.00
ALARMS $5,200.00
$57,200
SUBTOTAL $718,808
CONTINGENCY AT 15% $107,821
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $826,629
4
n
i
Mr-MNG AGENDA
- - o ITEM # -�
City Of SM 1UI S OBISPO .
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8,100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
April 4, 1990
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM: ::2ttem .3, ,
s
SUBJECT: April 4, 1990 Council Meeting
.As requested by Councilmember. Penny Rappa, attached is supplemental
information in connection with Item #3 , Recreation Center .
Rehabilitation on tonight's agenda.
PV:ss
Attachments:
Rec. Center Calendar of Events
Excerpts from Facilities Master Plan
c: John Dunn
Ken Hampian
Jeff Jorgensen
Jim Stockton
T-T
File
111111 IIIcity of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
April 4, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sherry Stendahl, Council Secretary
FROM: Linda Fitzgerald, Recreation Supervisor
SUBJECT: Recreation Center Uses
As per your request, the following are the Recreation Center uses for the month of April:
RECREATION CENTER ROOMS (includes the Crafts Room,small meeting room and a large
meeting room):
Babysitting: Monday through Friday, 8:45-10:45 a.m. -- for exercise classes
Joy of Music: Wednesdays & Thursdays, 4:00=5:00 p.m. -- youth music classes -
Babe Ruth Baseball: meeting Thursday, April 4 from 6:00-6:30 p.m. -- youth team registration
Interior Design: Wednesdays, 6:00-8:00 p.m. -- adult class
Easter Crafts Workshops: Monday, April 9 - 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. & 2:30-4:00 p.m.
youth programs Wednesday, April 11 - 10:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Art for Kids:_ Mondays & Wednesdays 4:00-5:30 p.m. -- children art classes
Narcotics Anonymous: Mondays & Fridays, 6:30-10:00 p.m.-- adult group meeting
Overaters Anonymous: Tuesdays & Thursdays, 7:00-9:00 p.m.-- adult group meeting
RECREATION CENTER GYMNASIUM (includes weight room)
Weight Room: weekdays, 5:00-7:00 p.m. -- used by public for weight training
Aerobic Fitness: weekdays, 9:00-10:15 a.m..-- adult fitness class
Silver Treads: Mondays & Wednesdays, 10:45-11:45 a.m. -- adult/senior fitness crass
Jazzcrci_se: adult fitness class
Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays, 12:00 noon - 1:00 p.m.
weekdays, 5:30-6:30 p.m.
Yoga for Seniors Mondays, 1:30-3:00 p.m. -- adult/senior fitness class
Martial Arts: Mondays & Wednesdays, 6:45-8:30 p.m. -- adult/youth class
Special Olympics: Thursdays, 6:30-7:45 p.m. =- handicapped fitness activity
Contemporary Social Dance: 3rd Tuesday, 7:00-10:00 p.m. -- adult dance class
r
Earth Week Coalition: Sunday, April 15, 1:00-6:00 p.m. -- public meeting
Open Gym times: Tuesdays, 10:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 6:30-10:00 p.m.
Wednesdays, 1:15-5:15 p.m.
Thursdays, 10:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 8:00-10:00 p.m.
Fridays, 1:15-5:15 p.m., 6:30-10:00 p.m.
Saturdays, 12:00 noon - 5:00 p.m.
Sundays, 12:00 noon 5:00 p.m.
In addition to the scheduled times in the rooms, the building is open to the public from 8:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Saturdays & Sundays from 12:00-5:00 p.m. for use of pool, ping pong,
and other games.
Attached are our calendars for the April; if there is any other information that I can give you,
please feel free to contact me at x293.
i
C'
s
_ 7
N
(A 2 C�
R cb
Q "t — N a 00
V) m a
ct
a N S Y 7
!L N �• p (J
v_� o v,
o o %n a \^
T r N � • •' .J � r M
y � A `•� G to O" � � e �` � i� `1 h � 0 .9
to
Lo -17 N T Q N T 4 1
N O
a
o - to ° y o
ua � � o o ems � � � 4c � � v O
y ' �� 2 ' �M N Yom ? � � •. m � QOo a � � "
cm
a 13 N y S N tri i " a N N L � v �'
rN N C `'J N �V
3 ¢ T 00 �;, 7 fi
0 i:, -� e
N
lJ �n N N 0 0 In 0
n o v1 m
in
CO (q � o' �' Q � U `J' O •J
f'r M
y f y 0 a s !2 d7 v Q 0
rj
�V
V) V)� T O � T N N � �
2� 0 v 0
0 n N p q
Q p a M N o N Q �^
�• �. �� Cp M i to X61.; 0 � N ? M � lam ` �M m ;y i �J �
Zr
co e3 w
N g o N 1C� vi V)
to In 7 IC) 0 y to " Vi`41
y o
a O N Q.9 `. . N .� d �w C� `Jsr
O N N 1
C\j � `� 6 d o ci 4 'o Q o d i�
cad
c
ycm
cis
.. - E c
c
a
'> E g w
LO
co
M
T T V v N N
00
N
.
., Q �E
to fN 4. M
-0 14
LL �o
VI
kn
hH
13
J- T40 0-)
og T— C\j
3 1rv
7
id A
00
.1Z
fa
1v -
a) rl � 6
63
In ol
0-
Q �R,.1. r r (�� -,
LC)
It 00
a C\j
Ct r)--5 I-V)
lk
Ao ck i;
C\l
m Z os
Q M) 0
0
bo (�T
Z' 3
cn 0.
0
D
'r— LO
co VJ
EXCERPTS FROM: San Lui;Obispo City Facilities
Master! an 1988-2010 Overview
and Options
MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES
ISSUES FIRE STATIONS
Except for Fire Station No. 1,discussed elsewhere,the re g
fire stations present no immediate impact on the ove arming
of city facilities.
Station No. 2 is an older facility that doe of function in accord-
ance with modern fire station desi dards. The 1986 "Fire
Station Location Study"reco this facility continue serving
in its present location.
Fire Station No.3 uld continue to serve the city well with only
minor mainte ce required. Fire Station No. 4 may require
modifica . to accommodate upgraded equipment. The "Fire
Staff cation Study"also recommends a future station to be lo-
ed in the southern area of the city if annexation occurs.
RECREATION FACILITIES
The Senior Center and the Recreation.Center have projects in
progress to mitigate major existing structural and functional
deficiencies. The Recreation.Center requires additional interior
renovation and site improvements.
These facilities and the Meadow Park Community Building are ex-
periencing demands for activities and programs that exceed exist-
ing capacity.
Site limitation at the Recreation Center restricts expansion unless
additional site area is acquired. Expansion of the Senior Center
and Meadow Park Community Building would substantially im-
pact existing park areas.
LIBRARIES
The existing library building will be vacated upon complet'
the new City/County Library in early 1989. An ysis con-
cluded that the facility is insu size and cannot be effi-
ciently or cost- y utilized for expansion office space,
s ould be removed to provide for potential expansion
OPTIONS 72
EXCERPTS FROM: San Luis Obispo City Facilities
Master Plan V 72010 Overview
and Options
OPTIONS/RECREATION OFFICE '(860 PACIFIC)
OPTION D
This option examines the alternative of incorporating the Re
Land
Department into an expanded City Hall f e poten-
mpact upon City Hall,;inc a to department clients
potential c of Justified by the nominal benefits that
enved by"centralization"of this department.
OPTION E
Incorporation of the Recreation Department administration into
an "activity center" is a logical tactic: However, the Santa Rosa
Street Recreation Center is not conducive to major expansion and
parldng demand cannot be satisfied at this location without sub-
stantial site addition.
RECOMMENDATION The Recreation Department administration wool_d fan2ion
effectively as an integral element of a majoractb4trWifar. The
recommended interim .soluti ocate the Recreation
Department to tot�o Street parldng structure scheduled for
on in late 1989.
65' OPTIONS