The goal the SLO City Council should have adopted is: “To provide access to the Senior Center based on statistics using first smart parking management around the park and then construction of parking as needed”. Unfortunately the current proposal contains only construction - and this in our precious downtown park.

The short term needs of seniors  - illustrated by Plan A and three perspectives -  are:

1. One loading zone set back from Santa Rosa Street with space to load wheel chairs

2. Three parking spaces for persons with disabilities set back from Santa Rosa and Buchon Streets
compliant with the newest ADA norms. All four of the above spaces should be parallel to the street with practically no loss of greenery.

3. Some smaller spaces for personal mobility devices such as scooters and Tricruisers
The intermediate needs are:

4. Parking spaces for other seniors.

I am 70 and a member of the Senior Center. I still teach at Cal Poly as a Fellow of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) with 46 years of professional experience. After three weeks of research about Mitchell Park I conclude that we do not have the necessary statistics normally used by the parking industry or ITE to support the official 12-space $200.000 parking project:

- The most basic statistics about parking occupancy, parking durations and trip purposes around Mitchell Park do not exist.

- Vital information about the Senior Center is unavailable: By which means of transport do we access the Center? There are at least 10 possibilities. How many seniors can still drive? How many have the disabled placard? How many can walk how far?

A staff report of May 6, 2008, mentions some “senior input” but contains none of the above data. The City has never published a parking management plan with its effects for the Center. The current paving project may be more the result of political dogma than of systematic planning.

My rough analysis of the 48 parking spaces surrounding Mitchell Park indicates how to solve the Center’s problems through smart parking management at zero cost instead of paving. Approximately 70 percent of the above spaces, namely 33, are used by long-parking commuters who can easily be relocated through metered parking, two-hour parking zones, or other measures. Instead of 33 commuter cars we can now accommodate 132 cars per day, each one for two hours, whereof half could belong to seniors. These could serve 70 seniors with the majority closer than 350 feet to the center. This is more than the Senior Center needs. For overflow we  have 43 parking stalls across the streets surrounding the park, and just one block further south there are always empty parking spaces on Islay Street  - long term and free of charge.

I will show plans in Council and I propose a REAL COMPROMISE:
- Answer the short term needs immediately by building the above spaces for safe loading, ADA and special mobility at a possible cost of $25.000.- See Plan A with three perspectives.

- Answer the intermediate needs by implementing a flexible smart parking concept in summer 2009 as a one-year trial and have the Senior Center collect its statistics. After that the effect of smart parking can be checked against the proven needs of the Center.

For the case that paving were really needed, two more plans were developed. Both impact the park less than the official project and still allow for a small specialty garden. They are Plan B “The Esplanade Drive-Up” shown with Perspective 1, and Plan C “The Crowded 8 Spaces” without drive-up. All this is posted on www.savemitchellpark.com.

I hope that many citizens show up for the Council Meeting of Tuesday, January 6, 2009.
The official project is an overkill, inflexible, unfair, unneeded, too expensive and must be rejected. San Luis Obispo can do better. For more info contact Dave Kuykendall, dave@slo5.com.

                                                                     

 

San Luis Obispo, December 30, 2008