Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-2014 ac - pinardph1Goodwin, Heather From: Marx, Jan Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:21 AM To: Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather Cc: Johnson, Derek Subject: FW: LUCE Downtown Pedestrian Plan Agenda correspondence for 1 -14 and 1- 28 -14. Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 JAN 13 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date ` - -7 - Item# T'h I i-, +.14 I- Z$ —ILf From: Peg Pinard [pinardmat @aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 6:11 PM To: Murry, Kim Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Jeanette Trompeter; Dave Congalton; Allan Cooper Subject: LUCE Downtown Pedestrian Plan Kim Murry Please distribute this to the LUCE members before Wed. meeting. Thank you. Dear LUCE Members, The Old Town neighborhood is directly adjacent to the downtown and is obviously going to be the neighborhood most impacted by proposed changes to the downtown. I am writing as a long time resident and an advocate for the Old Town neighborhood. Once again your agenda includes plans that will impact our neighborhood and whose residents have no idea that this discussion is even going on. Since absolutely no outreach to our neighborhood has occurred, as is mandated in the city's constitution, it's General Plan, and reaffirmed over and over again by multiple city councils, you are having this discussion without any benefit of knowing the existing problems for the neighborhood and their experiences living so close to downtown. Your input would be so much more helpful if you could be addressing the issues that currently plague us and building from there. How can you `build' something useful if the current foundation is crumbling? I'll give you some examples in a minute, but first I'd like to address a core issue that seems to be forgotten and, since that is happening, renders a lot this update `planning' practically moot. Some background information may be helpful. In the early 70's (yes, some of us do go back quite a ways!) there were multiple conflicts between the neighborhoods surrounding downtown and the downtown itself. One issue was zoning - as there was a push to convert existing, comparatively inexpensive housing, into offices. Those of us who joined the bicentennial momentum of `preservation' of historic resources wanted to preserve the `neighborhoods' that we had sunk our major investments into. It was not our vision to have empty office buildings sitting vacant after 5 o'clock every day, and all day on weekends and holidays, surrounding our otherwise family- oriented homes. Attempted changes in zoning was one battle. Another was circulation. Families did not want to have a freeways in front of their homes (especially when they were putting their heart and soul into restoring them) and yet, moving lots of traffic quickly around the downtown was a primary city goal. This resulted in more and more fast moving, one - way streets. These were just two of the many issues that needed to be resolved if the city wanted to have a viable neighborhood surrounding downtown. And THAT was the key question! As those of you who are planners may recall, the number ONE requirement for a safe and healthy downtown was the existence of people who lived in and around the downtown. Without the presence of residents surrounding downtowns, there arose a `no man's land' that people generally felt unsafe passing through. In isolation, the old downtowns were seen as, basically, unsafe. Transient populations did not provide the same investment in "neighborhood watch" practices that home -owner occupied residences did. Residents from Old Town, especially as they went out for an evening stroll, pushed strollers, walked dogs, etc. were the 'eyes and ears' of the town and provided that sense of safety that other cities would give their eye teeth for - and, who were scrambling to find ways to recreate it, That was one advantage SLO had over the other cities, it was still that kind of `lost in time' community that hadn't yet seen the demise of its downtown. The downtown business owners and the neighborhood residents got together and, basically, recognized this unique and vital symbiotic relationship. Businesses agreed to take the pressure off the neighborhoods for being targets for spot- zoning and that's how west side of Pismo became the dividing line between commercial /office zoning and residential. The push for speedy traffic through the neighborhoods was also removed as the circulation plan and safety and resident livability became the goal instead. The neighborhood became very supportive because, after all, access to a safe, healthy downtown was why we moved here! Our presence accomplished many of the other city goals, like easing traffic congestion and improving air quality since we could walk to wherever we needed and leave our cars at home. This was a true definition of a WIN -WIN with the entire community benefitting in the long run. The reason I'm going into this in such detail (though believe me, I could bend your ears for hours with A LOT more) is because, as I see it, over these past few years, actions from the city and its `committees' have been unnecessarily ignorant of what we worked so hard for. It appears that what we accomplished is now being taken for granted - and, when things are taken for granted and not understood why they were put in place to begin with, then, sadly, you lose them. The census during the last General Plan update showed the number of non -owner occupied residences for the city being around 60 %. The proportion was higher surrounding downtown - so this was a delicate balance to work to maintain if the city was to keep a stable neighborhood surrounding its downtown. An important statistic at the time was to realize that it wasn't just the number of people compressed into a neighborhood that made a difference as crime statistics were a lot higher in the denser R -3 neighborhoods than in R -I or R -2. The idea that just increasing density provided that sense of safety was completely debunked. Well, here we are, and the latest population statistics showed the city as having near 70% of its housing now being non -owner occupied. What is so interesting is that most of these former residents didn't move away because of jobs or other reasons people move. Many simply moved to other areas in the county. The reason given most often for why they moved was that they had "had it" with the city! The many reasons people gave are gist for another discussion but, the point I'm trying to make here is that this city now has a population distribution resembling Isla Vista. The halo is off that sense of safety and family friendly - for not only the downtown, but also its surrounding neighborhood. The incredible proliferation of bars, of drunks and drunken behaviors, noise — and yes... especially of leaving the residents'out -of -the -loop' has had very real consequences. Many Old Town residents testified at the council when they finally heard about the new punitive laws and potential $10,000 fines they were going to be subjected to under the proposed "Historic Preservation Ordinance" and yet many of their concerns were ignored. The council promised that it would address those problems and that simply never happened. Not long ago, as a neighborhood, we submitted an official petition to the council asking to have time on an agenda with them regarding a whole range of problems we were having - and we were turned down. The council's response was that they "weren't interested ". Since then, a number of these long time families have also moved out of the city. I have heard comments from some of your committee members, from staff, and even council members that it looks like "people don't care" since they aren't coming to meetings. Well, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Residents tried - and were either ignored or turned down. The city's own consultant for the evaluation of the community development department said that it needed to do more in outreach and yet, after using taxpayer dollars to get that advice, they still completely ignored it. There were NO real meetings in the neighborhoods as required by the General Plan or council direction. It is with great sadness that I'm writing this to you. People can only be beaten down so many times before they give up. And, as other cities can testify, once you lose your stable, owner - occuppied population, you lose a lot more than mere numbers. As promised, for whatever good it will do, here are a couple of the problems that residents are facing. You could lean a lot more if you asked them. 1) There is a spillover of people (downtown employees and tourists) parking their cars in our historic neighborhood which is already impacted with its own lack of off - street residential parking. People have added rentals where they didn't provide any additional parking to accommodate them. And, we have many existing houses with multiple residents, each with his/her own car and insufficient off - street parking to accommodate either them or their guests. In the past, our neighborhood presented a petition to the city asking for a `parking district' (signed by over 70% of the residents— and where the requirement for creating a parking district was for only a simple majority) - and we were turned down. However, the issue continues and we would appreciate this being addressed in the downtown pedestrian plan and /or other parts of the update. 2) Just having some "space" in front of our homes doesn't necessarily translate into viable parking places for downtown employees or tourists, as witnessed by these pictures. If the `space' looks like anything more than single parking place then two will try to fit into it. This results in drivers `pushing' it and parking their cars into red lined areas that are needed for residents to be able to get safely in and out of their own driveways. In the older sections of town driveways are usually very narrow and there needs to be safe turning radii. The other picture shows how this parking problem impacts even pedestrian sidewalk pathways. HI: 3) Just so you'll understand a bit more why people aren't coming to meetings they don't even know about and are moving away instead, here is another recent example. Our residential neighborhood was never included in the discussion (or even notified that this was being considered) that the city's long- standing, existing policy of keeping utility boxes in the neighborhoods as unobtrusive as possible was being changed. We awoke one morning to be `graced' with someone's idea of `art' that the city deemed appropriate for our children and grandchildren to have to look at. How would you like to have this in front of your home? One's home is usually a family's major investment and yet we were never even asked if this is something we would like in front of our homes. If residents had agreed that a change in policy was warranted, I'm sure they would have come up with designs more in keeping with the historical context in which they are located. The message was loud and clear that residents simply don't matter anymore. IQ When your discussion and staff report says "in and around" downtown, and you didn't start with asking residents in the neighborhood what the existing problems are that need solving, well, I don't see that `format' as adding to the livability for residents who have already invested their life savings here. I am painfully aware that much of what has damaged and weakened our neighborhood is water under the bridge at this point, however our family and neighbors ask that, in this update, you are aware of the history of our neighborhood, the work we have done to preserve it as an asset to the community, especially the downtown, and carefully examine all proposals for the downtown pedestrian plan for further impacts on our already weakened neighborhood. Sincerely, Peg Pinard Co- founder "Old Town Neighborhood Association" Owner and restorer of the historic Myron Angel House We placed our home on the National Register of Historic Places thus enabling the city's first Historic District. Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo Former, Chairperson, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors