HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-2014 ac - rowleyph1Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mejia, Anthony
Tuesday, January 07,20L4 L:12 PM
Goodwin, Heather
FW: PHI- LUCE Update Minority Repoft
PHL LUCE Update Minority Report 7-7-20L4.doc
R iVËD
JAN 0 7 2014
ct_Ë
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
t- ¡rt -tv
| - 2Ø-t1
t_cj
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
{..:1,-v {)lì stn lu¡s $11r.çp(ì
qr¡o Paim Strcct
San Luis Cbispo, CÂ g34or
tel | 8o5 78:.7ro:
From : Sa ndra Rowley Imailto : macsa r99@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 20L4 L2:4I PM
To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn
Cc: Mejia, Anthony; Lichtig, Katie; Johnson, Derek
Subject: PH1 LUCE Update Minority Repoft
Attached please find the TF-LUCE Minority Report for tonight's meeting.
Thank you,
Sandra Rowley
January 7 ,20L4
SUBJECT: Task Force LUCE Minority Report Regarding Process and EIR lnput
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council,
Prior to presenting our Minority Report we would like to express our gratitude to the 2OO8 and 2OL2
City Councils for their affirmation of the importance to the City of residents and established
neighborhoods. Both councils directed that the process of updating the Land Use and Circulation
Elements was to be primarily resident and neighborhood based. Both councils directed that staff
use legislative drafts to make proposed changes clear to residents, and both councils directed that
the process start with primarily resident involvement.
INTRODUCTION
Each of you was elected by the residents of this city to look out for their welfare. We hope you will
keep this in the forefront of your mind as you provide inputtothe EIR process and, later, when you
review the Land Use Element (LUE) update and the Circulation Element (CE) update.
PROCESS
We are extremely disappointed that Council direction was not routinely followed
1. Meetinss in the neishborhoods . Although two Councils were very clear that this process begin
with meetings in the neighborhoods, such meetings never occurred. lt appeared they were not part
of the update plans. When reminded (severaltimes) of the requirement for neighborhood
meetings, staff instead set up roving workshops where residents, city-wide, could drop in
throughout the day. This process did not allow for individual residential groups to assemble and
provide their comments and concerns and it severely diluted each neighborhood's input
When queried about holding meetings at various elementary schools for neighborhoods in the area
we were told the SL00 cost was too expensive. However, there were sufficient funds available to
pay half of the SL0,000 speaking fee for Peter Kageyama and purchase at least twenty copies of his
book, For the Love of Cities.
The City sponsored an Economic Task Force to "inform" the LUE/CE. The Sierra Club asked for an
Environmental Task Force; their request was denied. Residents didn't know they needed a Task
Force because the General Plan is very clear about the City's requirement to ensure early involve-
ment of residents and to hold meetings at convenient times and places within the neighborhoods.
2. Survev. Both Councils directed that the questionnaire be based on the 1988 questionnaire and
include updated questions as needed. lnstead questions were altered to the point that an accurate
comparison could not be made. The reason given for the changes was to remove inflammatory
language; however, substantive changes were, also, made.
3. Recorded votes, not consensus. Had it not been forthe 2OL2Council's specific direction, it is
possible that assenting and dissenting votes would not have been recorded. lnitially, as well as
1
periodically thereafter, it was necessary for staff and other task force personnel to be reminded of
the requirement to proceed by recorded vote and not by consensus. On September L8, 20L3, the
Task Force received the first, partially completed, element from the consultants to review. Shortly
thereafter repeated consensus "straw votes" were taken followed by official votes for each section
because it was faster.
4. Council directed that definitions should be consistent with the present LUCE and anv proposed
. The
current definition of "infill" in the General Plan Glossary is development on vacant (emphasis
added) sites which are essentially surrounded by urban development, and inside the City limits
existing when this element was adopted. "lnfill" is now used to denote development,
redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing
neighborhoods and surrounding areas. A partial explanation of what this means can be found in the
following statement that refers to new housing built within an existing neighborhood: A mix of
housing types, and a range of density within a neighborhood is desirable. This implies that the San
Luis Drive neighborhood and other established neighborhoods will be retrofitted with a mix of
housing types, a range of density and new commercial development, including a grocery store.
5. Use of the LUE and CE Goals to suide the deve ment of new oolicies and orosrems or revise
existing ones. The Task Force and Planning Commission voted unanimously for the existing Goals in
both elements to be the "Guiding Principles" for the development of new policies and programs.
Council agreed. Thus, all proposed changes were to support the existing Goals prior to being
provided for Task Force review. However, after approving some of the text changes, the Task Force
was advised that some of the Goals might need to be revised in orderto conform to new policies or
programs.
6. documentation of said
need. Documentation of need was often not provided. Many substantial changes had "style" or
"clarity" shown as the reason for the change.
7. Lesislative Draft. Both Councils directed that a legislative draft be used. The 20L2 Council
further directed that everyone needs to know at every stage exactly what language is being
proposed for deletion (strike out), or addition (underlined), and by whom. Several task force
members thought the Task Force would be reviewing the elements and preparing the legislative
draft. However, that was not the case. The consultant team drafted all of the policy language in the
legislative drafts. Then their proposed policy language was provided to the Task Force for
consideration, putting Task Force members in the position of being reactive instead of proactive.
MAIN DRIVER FOR THE UPDATE PROCESS
We believe the update process was driven primarily by the grant application, not by the Council.
The grant's primary focus was on infill, but infill was not mentioned in the 2008 Council's direction.
The 2008 Council directed that the process was to be primarily resident and neighborhood based,
but that was not in the grant application. lt does not appear that the inclusion of infill was a
requirement for grant approval because grant requests by other cities for General Plan updates that
were approved at the same time as our grant request did not focus on infill nor on complete
neighborhoods as ours does.
2
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
We are, also, extremely disappointed in the community outreach process. The process that was
chosen did not result in significant input from city residents. We think one of the reasons residents
were not involved was the absence of meetings in the neighborhoods that, among other things,
would have informed them of the process and their part in it. ln generalthere was low resident
attendance at workshops (about 50 each) and open houses (about L2 each). Attendance was higher
at the Future Fairs with, we think, L25 being the highest number of attendees. This is a very small
percentage of the City's 44,000 residents.
The turnout of residents from neighborhoods that could be affected by proposed land use and/or
circulation changes was not good either, Of approximately 38 neighborhoods that could potentially
be affected by proposed update changes, only six were sent post cards and only on one occasion
(after repeated queries to staff asking whether any of the affected neighborhoods would receive
notification). Unfortunately, the post cards were unclear about what was being proposed and few
residents responded. A few neighborhoods were energized, incidentally being informed on a
someone-who-knew-someone basis... of those, four of the five were able to influence the outcome
to some extent.
When staff was asked why notification post cards were not sent to all affected neighborhoods, they
said it was because of the cost. However, recently, informatively worded post cards were sent by
the Police Department to every, or at least most, addresses in the city notifying residents of double
fines during WOW Week. Apparently meaningful notification can occur.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
During the meetings that were held at the library, the only public comment allowed occurred at the
end of the meeting, afterthe Task Force had discussed, deliberated and, in some cases, voted.
Needless to say, after three or four meetings, attendance by the public was minimal. Meetings at
City Hall were handled differently, with a public comment period at the beginning and several
opportunities to speak throughout the meeting. Attendance improved, but it was still not good. A
large percentage of the meetings had only a handful of residents or less.
Participation was not easy for the public because, unlike Council agendas, Task Force agendas only
generally described items/areas to be covered; it was not until later meetings that more specifics
were shown. Occasionally, the Task Force did not know what it would be covering untilthe meeting
began. ln many cases too many sections were agendized and the Task Force did not complete all of
them in the allotted three hours.
Probably as a result of the lack of notice of topicsto be covered and the inabilityto participate
initially, there was minimal public input provided during meetings. City staff and consultant input
were the primary sources of information that we considered.
TASK FORCE ADVOCACY
The vast majority of the task force had no history of being advocates for the preservation of the
City's established neighborhoods. However, many of the task force members were board members
of and/or active in organizations that advocate for real estate development interests.
aJ
SUMMARY
ln our opinion, the process failed to follow Council guidance at every step of the process
The City never received meaningful input from residents of the various neighborhoods concerning
problems they want corrected or characteristics they liked about their unique neighborhoods and
wanted to have protected, what city-wide problems they wanted to have corrected or what they
considered to be City assets that needed to be protected.
NEXT STEPS
1. Focus on what residents said on the survey. Responses were received from about 2,200 resident
households and San Luis Obispo business owners.
2. Bring Neighborhood Mapping back to Council and do away with the Area designations (Staff
Report, April 2, 20L3)
3. Provide input for the EIR preparation as follows:
a. Evaluate the effects of both text changes and alternatives proposals on the City's established
neighborhoods.
b. Evaluate the effects of both text changes and alternatives proposals on the potential for
increased noise impacts by student/young adults on the City's established neighborhoods.
c. Ensure that early and meaningful notice to City residents is part of the EIR community
outreach process in accordance with our above comments.
Respectfu I ly submitted,
Sandra Rowley Carla Saunders Sharon Whitney
4