The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-16-2012 ss2 luce update study sessioncounci lj ac enba nepont .Meeting Dat e L October 16,2012 j Item Number SS2 C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM : Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r Prepared By : Kim Murry, Long Range Planning Divisio n SUBJECT : STATUS REPORT OF LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT S UPDATE (GPI 15-12 ) RECOMMENDATIO N Receive a presentation regarding the Land Use and Circulation Elements update process . DISCUSSIO N Background - The Council identified update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements as an important objectiv e in the 2011-2013 Financial Plan and augmented grant funding secured through the Strategic Growt h Council with $367,500 in General Funds for the work effort . With this funding, the City was abl e to contract with a consultant team to assist the City in the update process . The Council als o appointed a 17-member resident task force to assist in the process called the TF-LUCE (Task Forc e for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update). To date, the consultant team has assisted City staff and the task force with efforts related to : 1.Defining and understanding neighborhoods through a workshop and open houses ; 2.Identifying community opportunities and challenges in the upcoming years through a workshop and open houses ; 3.Performing a community-wide survey based on the 1988 survey ; 4.Learning about new legislation related to "Complete Streets" and multi-modal levels o f service (MMLOS); and 5.Developing a background report of where the City is today for a variety of demographic an d environmental factors . This staff report will provide a brief description of each of these topics with attached supportin g materials followed by a description of next steps in the process . Neighborhood s Neighborhoods are a key component of the City's character and the current Land Use Elemen t Program 2 .15, entitled "Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans", directs the City to identif y neighborhoods and work with neighborhoods to develop plans for each . Initial efforts to defin e neighborhood boundaries and desirable features began last calendar year . City GIS staff developed on on-line interactive program for residents to identify their address, drag a line around the area tha t they identified as their neighborhood and then answer a series of questions regarding what the y liked about their neighborhood and what they wished to improve . This effort to define neighborhoods was assisted by a Cal Poly student who leveraged City resources by advertising th e effort through newspaper ads ; emails, and posters placed around the community . Handouts wer e SS2-1 • •developed for High School student participation and they were enlisted to assist residents to fill ou t paper copies of the survey at Farmers' Markets and grocery stores . In total, 388 resident s participated in the survey and GIS staff worked with the input from the on-line tool to develop a draft map of neighborhood boundaries . This information formed a starting point from which to initiate discussions for the first workshop . The consultant team arranged the draft 28 neighborhood areas into six sub-areas for purposes o f being able to group workshop participants by geographic area . These areas were discussed at a specific workshop where the TF-LUCE and the community further explored draft neighborhood boundaries for each neighborhood and included a discussion regarding desirable neighborhoo d features . Attachment 1 provides a summary of results from the workshop . The information ha s also been explored at a series of open houses in the neighborhood sub-areas and the input fro m residents is summarized in Attachment 7 . The survey and workshop results indicate that there are common features most residents value : Features such as a sense of personal safety, safe streets for pedestrians and cyclists, and stron g neighborhood relationships were ranked highly by most participants . A greater challenge lies i n coming to agreement on specific boundaries of neighborhoods . The boundaries of Historic Districts , parking districts, and several formal and informal neighborhood associations were considered i n addition to direct input from residents to try to define neighborhood edges . There wasn't a match o f boundaries from these multiple sources and perception of boundaries appears to change dependin g on the residents living in an area at any one time . Some favor bounding larger areas to sho w connectivity where others identify only with their individual subdivision or block as thei r neighborhood . Neighborhood boundary mapping will continue to receive additional effort t o identify organizing concepts which may rely on the larger sub-areas and build in more flexibl e edges for the underlying neighborhoods . A more complete discussion of neighborhoods will appea r in the Background Report that will be available later this fall . This information will be used in the update to help inform consideration of connections betwee n home and a variety of needs such as jobs, shopping, schools, and recreation opportunities . It wil l provide context for resident input related to neighborhood needs . Having defined neighborhoo d areas can also be used as an organizing framework for assigning resources . This approach is bein g explored by the Police and Public Works Departments where identified staff are being assigned t o specific areas . Residents can get to know their assigned staff and have a main point of contact an d staff can become more familiar with the area and the residents leading to more tailored servic e provision . Opportunities and Challenge s The update process is currently in the phase of collecting information regarding communit y opportunities and challenges ; or, as the Task Force calls them, "Good Things, Bad Things, an d Great Ideas ." The Task Force participated in a brainstorming session in June and the topics wer e carried over to traveling open houses conducted in the six neighborhood sub-areas in July an d September (See Attachment 7). In addition to having an opportunity to provide input o n neighborhood features, participants in the open houses were able to add items to posters under th e headings of Good Things, Bad Things, and Great Ideas . • LUCE Update Page 2 SS2-2 LUCE Update Page 3 •After a series of meetings and workshops focused on neighborhoods, a workshop held o n September 27 `h explored citywide issues in more detail under the topics of : •Creative Reuse of Land ; Downtown ; •Motorized Circulation ; •Non-Motorized Circulation ; •New Growth Areas ; •Community Amenities ; •Other Thoughts (to capture ideas not captured elsewhere). Attachment 2 provides a summary of the input received at the Task Force meeting on June 20 , 2012 . A summary of the September 27 `h workshop will be provided as an agenda correspondenc e prior to the Council meeting . The information gathered will be used as the process moves into the current policy evaluation phas e to help identify areas for which development of new land use or circulation policies may b e appropriate ; identification of those policies that are still relevant and shouldn't be changed ; an d review of those policies that may need slight modification to address current issues or "great ideas " or that have been satisfied and are no longer needed . This information augments input from othe r sources such as the Community Survey and the Background Report, all of which are used to hel p articulate the community's vision . •Communitywide Surve y The Council approved scope of work additionally called for an effort to obtain and evaluate how o r if community sentiment had changed since the Land Use and Circulation Elements were las t comprehensively updated in 1993 . Council specified that the scope of work include a maile d survey with questions that were based on those included in the survey conducted in 1988 . Counci l direction was to ensure that any member of the community who wanted to participate, coul d participate in the survey . Therefore, surveys were mailed to all addresses in the City and nearl y 2,200 people responded . While not statistically valid, the survey responses do offer insigh t regarding community sentiments and trends . The summary of survey responses is attached (Attachment 3) and responses show minimal chang e from the 1988 survey on questions regarding growth, community form, and preservation of open space . Areas that were identified in the 1988 survey that are more prominent today include th e desire to see better services for homeless and increased transit options . Areas that were more prominent in the 1988 survey (Attachment 4 provides a summary) than in the 2012 survey include d a desire for more entertainment and shopping opportunities . The decreased emphasis o n entertainment and shopping in the 2012 survey likely reflects the increased availability of shoppin g venues and restaurants and construction of the San Luis Obispo Performing Arts Center that ha s occurred in the intervening years since the 1988 survey . - This information is used in conjunction with other input in the update process to look ahead to the next 20 years . It is apparent that community sentiment is still very strong in valuing the natura l •environment that forms the setting of the community . Having this knowledge will provide a foundation for articulating the community vision and will assist in developing land use an d circulation alternatives for consideration by the Task Force, Planning Commission and Council . SS2-3 LUCE Update Page 4 •"Complete Streets" and MMLO S Assembly Bill 1358 was passed by the California Legislature and approved by the Governor o f California in September 2008 . This act requires that revisions to circulation elements include plan s for a balanced, multimodal transportation network for "motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children , persons with disabilities, movers of commercial goods, seniors, and users of public transportation". The bill doesn't specify how jurisdictions are to meet this requirement but instead directed th e Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines to assist jurisdictions . The updated guidelines for circulation elements published by OPR in December 2010 now contain a discussion of complete streets and multimodal networks . Suggestions in the guidelines may not b e relevant to every jurisdiction but include examples of possible policy areas and data collectio n techniques that could be used to meet the intent of AB 1358 . The TF-LUCE received a presentation on complete streets and MMLOS - Multimodal Level o f Service — on July 18, 2012 . Attachment 5 provides a copy of the information sent to the TF-LUC E regarding the circulation element analysis . The presentation described how identified road segmen t types in the City are being evaluated for their performance related to auto, bicycle, pedestrian an d transit modes of circulation . The traffic consultant has developed a complete streets softwar e package that evaluates the relative performance of street segments and intersections for the variou s travel modes which will be used to conduct this evaluation . The information developed as part o f this evaluation will be included in the Background Report available later this fall . This information is used in several ways as the City updates these two elements . The information i s not prescriptive — it doesn't require any particular action on the part of the City or the communit y but it does provide an additional piece of information with which to make conclusions about simila r road types throughout the City . Sample segments/intersections will be used as part of update t o understand how various road types and intersections are currently performing for four types o f travel modes — bikes, pedestrians, transit and cars . It also will assist in developing and evaluatin g different land use or circulation alternatives . For example, if two different alternatives for land us e are under consideration and both would generate a large amount of vehicle traffic but on e alternative results in better performance for pedestrian traffic than the other, decision-makers ca n now add that information into their decision-making process . Where performance was onl y available for car traffic in the past, MMLOS provides information related to four modes o f transportation to enable a more complete understanding of available choices . Background Repor t The Background Report for the Land Use and Circulation Element update is still being developed . This document will provide a snapshot of the City of San Luis Obispo today and covers topics suc h as demographics, economic condition, environmental setting, utility provision, circulation , infrastructure, hazards and urban structure . This view of current conditions in the City becomes th e existing setting threshold from which to evaluate alternatives in the environmental review portion o f the update process . It also identifies trends which can be modified through policy adoption . Attachment 5 describes draft samples of some bullet point facts about the City of San Luis Obisp o sorted by topic and reflects a portion of the Background Report "findings ." The full Backgroun d Report with description of regulatory setting, reference to existing policy direction, glossary, an d detailed information will be completed and available for public review later this calendar year . • • SS2-4 LUCE Update Page 5 • • • Next Steps . The progress to date has been focused primarily on data gathering and getting a sense of communit y sentiment . The next steps focus on understanding the community's vision for the future an d developing several possible alternatives that attempt to capture that vision . Current policies are the n evaluated for how well they serve the future vision . Planning Commission and Council input wil l be a key part of this evaluation . Attachment 8 shows a graphic of the process and timeline . Information gathered to date has happened through a variety of forums : workshops, open houses , community survey, neighborhood identification project, task force input, and emails submitted t o the project web site . Task Force meetings will continue to occur on a monthly basis with a break i n December for the holidays . The next workshop on December l fi`(location to be determined) will b e a key opportunity for the community to participate in the development of the community vision . T o assist with the discussion, an on-line interactive tool called MindMixer will also be used to provid e another method of gathering input . CONCURRENCE S All City departments have staff involved in this effort to a certain degree . Public Works an d Community Development Department staff are lead on the effort. FISCAL IMPAC T The City secured an $880,000 grant from the Strategic Growth Council (Proposition 84 funds) an d augmented the grant with $435,000 in General Funds in the 2011-2013 Financial Plan to pay fo r environmental review and assistance in traffic modeling . The project is on time and within budge t to date . ALTERNATIVE S This is a study session only . No alternatives are proposed . ATTACHMEN T 1.Summary of 1 51 Worksho p 2.Opportunities and Challenges summary from 6-20-12 TF-LUC E 3.2012 Survey Repor t 4.1988 Survey Summary 5.TF-LUCE memo from 7-18-12 regarding Circulation Element analysi s 6.Preliminary Draft of Background Report Bullet Point s 7.Summary of input from Neighborhood Area Open House s 8.Process and Timeline Graphi c AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFIC E Task Force Binders with agendas and material s 2012 Community Survey sorted by Residents and Business owner responses TVCeunc Agenda ReponsA20122012-10-1B%Counal Briefing- LUCE Update SWtly Sesson (Johnson-Murry)ACAR-LUCE_Update .dccx SS2-5 LAND USE & CIRCULATIO NU P D A T E COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMAR Y MAY16,2012 • ATTACHMENT 1 On May 16,2012,almost ioo people met at the Monday Club to attend and participate in the firs t Community Workshop held for the San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Elements Update . Th e purpose of this workshop was to : ■Provide an overview of the Update process , ■Describe opportunities for public involvement throughout the Update process, an d ■Hold small group discussions designed to gain a better perspective on San Luis Obisp o neighborhoods . WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION S The workshop began with a welcome by Eric Meyer, Chairperson for the Task Force for the Land Use an d Circulation Elements update (TF-LUCE). Mr. Meyer introduced the TF-LUCE members in attendance an d highlighted that the TF-LUCE members would be facilitating the small group exercise later in the program . He also highlighted the role the TF-LUCE would plan in this Update process and encouraged the public t o join them at their meetings . Mr. Meyer was then followed by Kim Murry, the City's Project Manager for the Update . Ms. Murry identified members of the City Council and other City staff members in attendance . Ms . Murry als o introduced the Consulting Team for the Update . PRESENTATIO N The Consulting Team members (Larry Mintier and Rick Rust) provided a presentation to the audience . Mr. Mintier started the presentation with an overview of the Update process, including the Update's schedule . He also reviewed what was covered under the Land Use and Circulation Elements and how thi s Update relates to the rest of the City's General Plan . Mr. Rust followed with a description of the opportunities and methods for public outreach that will b e used during the Update . This includes a special website dedicated to the Update (ww_w_slozo5 .com). Asking for a show of hands for those that had used the website, about 1/2 of the audience had visited th e project website . SMALL GROUP EXERCIS E Following the presentation, Mr . Rust provided the audience with instructions on the small group exercis e that was the focus of this workshop . As part of the setup for this exercise, when the public arrived for the workshop, they were asked t o identify the location of their home or business. The City was divided into general areas : six were base d upon neighborhood boundaries identified through the interactive web program and one was identifie d for Cal Poly . Each person was then assigned to an area table based on the location given . As a table fille d up, another table was set up to address that area with a total of ten tables filled . As the workshop was • • SS2-6 ATTACHMENT 1 atv o rsan luis onispo •designed to discuss neighborhoods, the table groupings helped bring together audience members wit h the most knowledge on the locations discussed . Figure i highlights the six areas of the City plus Cal Poly (Area G) used for grouping workshop participants . Figure 1 . Areas (lettered A though G) used to assign participants to a grou p • The location of those attending the workshop is shown by the blue dots on Figure 2 .While not everyon e marked their location, a majority of attendees did make this mark . As shown, the workshop had a goo d distribution of attendees from around the city and Cal Poly. SLOGPU_Workshop o1 Summary_2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page 2 SS2-7 ATTACHMENT 1 ~city o fsalt tuts osispo Figure 2 . Location of workshop attendee s Setu p One or two TF-LUCE members were assigned to each table to assist in facilitating the discussion at th e table . The role of the facilitator was to help participants with the discussion questions, serve a s timekeeper, and to ensure a productive discussion . Consultant Team members and City staff circulate d between tables during the workshop session to answer questions and assist the TF-LUCE members i n facilitation . • SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page 3 SS2 —8 ATTACHMENT 1 ion city of,.an tuks oaispo •Small Group Exercise Question s Each of the table groups had the same questions to guide participant discussion . The questions, and tim e allotted to each question, are shown below . Key Neighborhood Feature s Questions iand 2 were targeted at getting participant's input on the key features that they felt coul d be used to define a neighborhood . A list of 33 common features was provided to each participant . Working individually (Question i)and as a group (Question 2),participants/groups rated the ke y features presented . Participants were also encouraged to add their own features . In Question 2, participants at each table were asked to work together to identify their top i o features . The result of each group's assessment (including three new features added by two of th e •groups) are shown on the following table (top io features are marked with a ■ symbol with a yello w background). 5 minutes ma x Using the score sheet, ask each participant to read the list of potential neighborhoo d features on the left and mark whether each feature is i)Very Important, 2) SomewhatImportant, or 3) Not Important . If they think of features that are not listed on the scoresheet, add these in the blank rows at the bottom of the sheet . These should be answered a stheymight apply to ar yl neighborhood in the city and are not specific to their neighborhood . 15 minutes ma x Working as a group, share ideas on which features are Very Important . Identify up to ten (lo)Key Features that the group would agree are the ones that define a good neighborhood .Once agreed, the Facilitator, and others at the table, should mark an X on the row of th e selected features under the Q2 column on their score sheet . 20 minutes ma x On the table is a map showing the area assigned to your group . On the map are dashed line sthat represent neighborhood boundaries as defined in the recent online neighborhoo dsurvey. Using the Key Features identified for Q2, have the group discuss the boundarie sshown and make adjustments to the neighborhoods in their area (they can change th eboundaries to extend into areas not covered by this table). Combining some or all of th eneighborhoods shown by the dashed lines is OK . Give each neighborhood identified anumber(can use numbers on map or create your own). io minutes ma xHow does my neighborhood measure up? On the score sheet, have each person write down the neighborhood (from Q3) that they liv ein. Each person should then score if their neighborhood contains the Key Features identifie dinQ2,or whether this feature needs to be augmented or improved . • SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary 2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page 4 SS2-9 ATTACHMENT 1 ~a7 city o fsari lies ouispo Table 1 . Top 10 Key Featuresi Table #s " Housing Choice s 1 .Range of Housing Type s (e .g ., single family, multi-family). A-1 B-1 C-1 D-1 D-2 E-1 F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4 2 .Range of Affordability (from very low to above moderate, ownership t o renter) Aesthetics and Personalit y 3 .Known or Defined Edges, Geographic Boundaries , and Entrance s 4 .Unique Neighborhood Character (e .g ., architectura l style or features) 5 .Positive Image, Attractive, Welcoming – "Cur b Appeal " 6 .Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e (e .g ., paint, landscaping ) Neighborhood Gathering Places ■■ 7 .Accessible Districts of Commercial or Civic Activity (e .g ., downtown, shopping center ) 8 .Neighborhood Serving Retai l (e .g ., grocery/drug store) ■ 9 .Restaurants and Cafe s Neighborhood Services & Facilitie s 10 .Elementary School and Easily Accessible Middl e School ■ 11 .Community Center, Library, or Public Meeting Hal l 12 . Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds Mobility & Accessibilit y 13 .Highly interconnected System of Streets ■•I S ■ 14 . Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestria n Paths ■•■■■•` 15 . Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeways ■■■■■■. 16 .Accessible and Frequent Public Transit Service ■■ 17 . Good Connections with Surroundin g Neighborhood s Environmental Qualit y 18 . Tree Canopy (urban forest) ■ ■■ 19 . Attractive Streetscapes ■■ 20 . Connections to Natural Systems and Open Spaces ■■■■■■ • • SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_2o12 05 25 RRR .docx Page 5 SS2-1 0 • • ATTACHMENT 1 city or.* san tins owsp o Table 1 .Top 10 Key Features,` Table #s Safety 21 . Low Crime Rate A-1 ■ B-1 ■ C-1 D-1 D-2 E-1 F-1 F-2 F-3 F-4 ■ 22 . Sense of Personal Safety ■■f'- 23 .Neighborhood Visibility and Good Lighting 1 24 .Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s (e .g ., crossings, signage, bike lanes) 25 . Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Tim e Economic Strength s 26 .Stable, Steadily Increasing Property Values ■ 27 . Strong Investor Confidence (both in property an d services) 28 . A Range of Jobs (within the neighborhood or easil y accessible by walking, bike, car, or publi c transportation ) Neighborliness and Sociabilit y 29 .Defined Center or Focal Point of Interaction an d Activity 30 .Strong Neighborly Relationship s (neighbors know and look out for each other ) 31 .Intergenerational and Multicultural Interactio n Healt h markets ) 32 .Accessible Healthy Foods (e .g ., in stores,farmers „.` 33 .Limited Tobacco and Off-site Alcohol Sales (e .g ., liquor stores ) Other (Added by Participants ) 34 .Noise Quality 35 .Preservation of Historic Resources ■ 36 .Sidewalks / Bike Paths with High Visibility ■ ` As shown on Table i,a number of factors were selected by several of the groups . While not intended t o be a statistical assessment, counting the number of groups that independently selected the same factor s can be used to gain insight on the key features that may apply citywide . Figure 3 shows the number of groups that selected each feature (the numbers along the horizontal axi s correspond to the numbers listed on the left edge of Table I). SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary 2012 o5 25 RRR .docx Page 6 SS2-1 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Inn city o r 8a0 tins 013151)0 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 '.. The top 11 features selected by four or more groups (out of the 10 total groups) are as follows : 5.Positive Image, Attractive, Welcoming —"Curb Appeal " 6.Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenance (e .g., paint, landscaping ) 12 .Neighborhood Parks and Playground s 14.Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s 15.Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s 20.Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s 21.Low Crime Rat e 22.Sense of Personal Safet y 24.Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclists (e .g., crossings, signage, bike lanes ) 25.Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Tim e 30 . Strong Neighborly Relationships (neighbors know and look out for each other ) Detailed breakouts of the scoring to each questions is attached at the end of this summary . Neighborhood Boundarie s After the groups had identified their top ten neighborhood features, they were asked (Question 3) ho w these features impact what they consider to be the boundaries of their respective neighborhoods . Workshop Small Groff Reportin g At the end of the time allotted to the five questions, each table was asked to get a volunteer from thei r table to report back to all workshop participants . Each volunteer was asked to read off the top 1 0 neighborhood features they identified (as part of Question 2) and to describe the changes they made t o their maps to reflect neighborhood boundaries (Question 3). The results from each table are describe d on the following pages . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 Figure 3.Number of Groups Selecting a Featur e 2 -H .. • • • 5LOGPU_Workshop 01 5ummary_2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page 7 SS2-12 ML ATTACHMENT 1 • city ofsan tuts osispo ■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e ■Restaurants and Cafe s ■Neighborhood Parks and Playground s ■Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s ■Accessible and Frequent Public Transit Servic e ■Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s ■Low Crime Rat e ■Sense of Personal Safety ■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s ■Strong Neighborly Relationships Neighborhood Ma p • SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_2o12 0525 RRR .docx Page 8 SS2-13 ATTACHMENT 1 •11"acyo r san Luis Onisp o GROUP- B-1 Top io Features ■Positive Image, Attractive, Welcomin g ■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenance ■Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s ■Low Crime Rate ■Sense of Personal Safet y ■Neighborhood Visibility and Good Lightin g ■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s ■Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Tim e ■Strong Neighborly Relationships • • SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page 9 SS2-14 • • • ATTACHMENT 1 city ofsan tuts oulspo ■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e ■Neighborhood Parks and Playground s ■Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s ■Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s ■Low Crime Rat e ■Sense of Personal Safet y ■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s ■Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Tim e ■Stable, Steadily Increasing Property Value s ■Strong Neighborly Relationship s Neighborhood Ma p SLOGPU_Workshop m summary_zmz 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 0 SS2-15 ATTACHMENT 1 •~city o fsan wiz; onispo Top io Feature s ■Range of Housing Type s ■ Positive Image, Attractive, Welcomin g ■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e ■Accessible Districts of Commercial or Civic Activit y ■Attractive Streetscape s ■Sense of Personal Safet y ■Neighborhood Visibility and Good Lightin g ■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s ■Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Tim e ■Strong Neighborly Relationship s Neighborhood Map Publics • • SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_zmz 05 25 RRR .docx Page i i SS2-16 • • • ATTACHMENT 1 city o fsan tuts onispo ■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e ■Elementary School and Easily Accessible Middle Schoo l ■Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s ■Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s ■Good Connections with Surrounding Neighborhood s ■Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s ■Low Crime Rat e ■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s ■A Range of Jobs (in neighborhood or nearby) ■Strong Neighborly Relationship s Neighborhood Map SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_Zmz 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 2 SS2-17 ATTACHMENT 1 !,g city of san Luis oiasp o GROUP El Top io Feature s ■Positive Image, Attractive, Welcomin g ■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e ■Neighborhood Parks and Playground s ■Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s ■Attractive Streetscape s ■Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s ■Low Crime Rat e ■Sense of Personal Safet y ■Strong Neighborly Relationship s ■Noise Quality Neighborhood Map Public Ya Are • SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary _2o12 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 3 SS2-18 • • • ATTACHMENT 1 city Ofsan tttis-©utspu ■Neighborhood Serving Retai l •Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s ■Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s ■Tree Canopy (urban forest ) Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s Low Crime Rat e Sense of Personal Safet y Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s Preservation of Historic Resource s Sidewalks / Bike Paths with High Visibilit y Neighborhood Ma p SLOGPU Workshop of Summary_2o12 0525 RRR.docx Page 1 4 SS2-19 ATTACHMENT 1 WEI city o fsan tuts ouisp o GROUP F Top 10 Features ▪Positive Image, Attractive, Welcoming ▪Neighborhood Parks and Playground s ▪Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s ▪Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s ▪Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s ▪Low Crime Rat e ▪Sense of Personal Safet y ▪Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s ▪Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Tim e ▪Strong Neighborly Relationship s Neighborhood Map • SLOGPU_Workshop 01 Summary_2012 05 25 RRR.docx Page 1 5 SS2-20 ATTACHMENT 1 !'.city o GSan turs osisp o ■Unique Neighborhood Characte r ■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e ■Neighborhood Parks and Playground s ■Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s ■Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s ■Tree Canopy (urban forest ) ■Low Crime Rat e ■Sense of Personal Safet y ■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s ■Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Time ■-Strong Neighborly Relationship s • • SLOGPU_Workshop o1 Summary_zoiz o5 25 RRR .docx Page 1 6 SS2-21 sto ATTACHMENT 1 ~ cay o fSanLUIS oalspo GROUP F-4 Top 10 Feature s ■Neighborhood Serving Retai l ■Neighborhood Parks and Playground s ■Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s ■Accessible and Frequent Public Transit Servic e ■Good Connections with Surrounding Neighborhood s ■Low Crime Rat e ■Sense of Personal Safet y ■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s ■Strong Neighborly Relationship s ■Accessible Healthy Food s Neighborhood Map • • SLOGPU Workshop of Summary_2012 0525 RRR .docx Page 1 7 SS2-22 ATTACHMENT 1 my o ra...sao Luis ouispo APPENDI X SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 8 SS2-23 ATTACHMENT 1 city o f san Luis onisp o Question r Other Features Added by Individuals (Sorted Alphabetically ) ■Accessibility of Airport and Rai l ■Accessible to Transport ■Air Qualit y ■ Bike and walk paths highly visibl e ■ Canopy tree maintenanc e ■ Choice of street desig n ■Choice of street design and rate s ■Crossing Tank Farm to Von's is very dangerou s ■Dark sky nigh t ■Easier stroller/bike access at the subway under the RxR at spanish oaks ■Efficiency of roadway s ■Family Friendl y ■Fewer drunk people on Thurs, Fri, and Sat night s ■Historic resource s ■Historic resource s ▪Historic significanc e ▪Historica l ▪Historical Importanc e ▪Historical Significanc e ▪Historical Significanc e ▪Historical Significanc e ▪Historical Significanc e ▪HOA ▪HOA HOA ■Homeless encampment s ■I feel like we are dealing with ghettos instead of neighborhood s ■Less Vandalis m ■More Owner / Occupier or Long-term Renter s ■Name of neighborhoo d ■Name of neighborhoo d ■Name of the neighborhoo d ■Name of the neighborhoo d ■Name of the neighborhoo d ■Noise Qualit y ■Noise quality ■Noise quality ■Noise quality • • • SLOGPU Workshop m Summary_2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 9 SS2-24 ATTACHMENT 1 city o r S.11l 11115 OBIS}Rl ■Noise qualit y ■Normal Density for Zonin g ■Preservation of existing historic resource s ■Preservation of existing historic resource s ■Preservation of existing historic resource s ■Pride of Ownershi p ■Quiet and calming surrounding s ■Quiet, clean, secur e ■Range of housing sizes and household type s ■Ranged house sizes and types ■Rodriquez Adobe Park is a passive park without a bathroo m ■Safe Traffic Speed on Streets ■Sidewalk and bike lanes - Highly visibl e ■Sidewalk repai r ■Sidewalks and Bikepaths - High visibilit y ■Stop Sign s ■Stop Signs / Speed Bump s ■Stop Signs / Speed Bump s •■ Stop Signs / Speed Bump s ■Tank Farm - safe crossin g ■Traffic Efficiency - Round abouts instead of traffic sign s ■Traffic Safet y ■ Trash Ca n ■Tree canopy extensio n ■Voter Approval for Garbage Ca n • SLOGPU_Workshop of summary_20 05 25 RRR.docx Page 2 o SS2-25 ATTACHMENT 1 Alin city orsan tws omispo •Question r Scoring of Features 0 10 20 30 40 50 6 0 1 . Range of Housing Types 2 . Range of Affordability 3. Known or Defined Edges, Geographic . 4 . Unique Neighborhood Characte r 5. Positive Image, Attractive, Welcoming- "Curb .. 6 . Pride of Ownership, High Standards of.. 7. Accessible Districts of Commercial or Civic Activit y 8 . Neighborhood Serving Retai l 9. Restaurants and Cafes 10. Elementary School and Easily Accessible Middle .-I 11 . Community Center, Library, or Public Meeting...I 12 . Neighborhood Paths and Playgrounds 13 .Highly Interconnected system of Streets 14 . Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian .. 15. Complete Networks of Bicycle Lanes and.. 16 . Accessible and Frequent Public Transit Service 17 . Good Connections with Surrounding.. 18 . Tree Canopy 19 . Attractive Streetscape s 20 . Connections to Natural Systems and Open ._ 21 . Low Crime Rate 22 . Sense of Personal Safety 23.Neighborhood Visibility and Good Lightin g 24.Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclists 25.short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response .. 26.Stable, Steady Increasing Property Valu e 27.Strong Investor Confidence 28.A Range of Jobs 29.Defined Center of Focal Point of Interaction and.. 30.Strong Neighborhood Relationships 31.Intergenerational and Multicultural Interaction 32.Accessible Healthy Foods 33.Limited Tobacco and OH-Site Alcohol Sales ■Very Important ■Somewhat Important 0 Not Importan t Figure 4 . All Responses to Question 1 • • SLOGPU_Workshop o1 Summary_2o12 05 25 RRR .docx Page 2 1 SS2-26 • • • ATTACHMENT 1 !;1 CrtV o f san Utis oatspo Question 4 : Does Your Neighborhood Have This Feature Today ? 33 . Limited Tobacco and Off-Site Alcohol Sale s 32 . Accessible Healthy Food s 31 . Intergenerational and Multicultural Interaction 30. Strong Neighborhood Relationship s 29. Defined Center of Focal Point of Interaction and... 28 . A Range of Job s 27. Strong Investor Confidence 26 . Stable, Steady Increasing Property Valu e 25 . short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response ... 24 . Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s 23 . Neighborhood Visibility and Good Lightin g 22. Sense of Personal Safety 21 . Low Crime Rate 20 . Connections to Natural Systems and Open ... 19. Attractive Streetscape s 18 . Tree Canop y 17 . Good Connections with Surrounding ... 16. Accessible and Frequent Public Transit Servic e 15. Complete Networks of Bicycle Lanes and _ 14 . Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian _ 13.Highly Interconnected system of Streets 12 . Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds 11 . Community Center, Library, or Public Meeting ... 10 . Elementary School and Easily Accessible Middle ... 9 . Restaurants and Cafe s 8 . Neighborhood Serving Retai l 7 . Accessible Districts of Commercial or Civic Activit y 6 . Pride of Ownership, High Standards o f 5 . Positive Image, Attractive, Welcoming-"Cur b 4 . Unique Neighborhood Characte r 3 . Known or Defined Edges, Geographic Boundaries,. 2 . Range of Affordabilit y 1 . Range of Housing Types 40 -45 5 0 ■Yes ■ Need more or Improve q N o Figure 5 . All Responses to Question 4 SLOGPU_Workshop 01 Summary_2o12 05 25 RRR .docx Page 2 2 SS2-27 SID ATTACHMENT 1 crty o fsan tuts oaisp o Question 5 : What would you change about the area your table is discussing ? ■Improve Chorro underpass for pedestrians and bicycles, more attractive and safe r ■Slow down speed on peach between Broad and Chorr o ■Emphasize balance connection to open space of Cerro San Luis . ■Better bike lanes . ■More frequent public traffic . ■More street lighting . ■More bike lanes . ■Extend the railroad safety trail . ■I'd like to prevent overflow parking from downtown into residential BUT I DONT want parking districts. ■We're very affected by drunken pedestrian traffic . ■I'd like more ways to cross Broad Street . ■More interaction with Spanish speaking and low income residents / renters and other homeowners . ■There were multiple tables labeled "F" but results should be combined for statistical accuracy, no t considered separately . ■More vibrant and interesting upper Monterey Stree t ■Less cut through traffic on Grove Stree t ■Better street tree canop y ■More affordable housing option s ■More stores in neighborhood s ■More street lightin g ■Overall safety is good but needs to be supported with walkin g ■Unique architecture and building s ■More street lights . ■More parks . ■ Chorro Street runs through the neighborhood which is that the speed is too fas t ■Tree planting in street margins . IN A good grocery store, less drunks ■More connections from town to tow n ■Too many cars per unit . ■Bright lights shining at nigh t ■Stroller friendly sidewalks ■Overcharged rental s ■Larger street tree s ■Need a department store downtow n ■ Fewer bar s ■Grocery stor e ■Fewer homeless/drunks in par k ■Enforce illegal motorcycle noise and truck • • • SLOGPU_Workshop of summary 2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page 2 3 SS2-2 8 ATTACHMENT 1 !'city o r• sari lots ounsp o •■ We need a grocery stor e ■Enforcement of noise ordinanc e ■More street tree s ■Enforcement re : curb appea l ■Lower crime rat e ■Attractive streetscape s ■We need a grocery stor e ■Enforcement of noise ordinanc e ■More street tree s ■Enforcement re : curb appea l •Lower crime rat e ■Attractive streetscape s ■Need good grocer y ■Plant more tree s ■Access to hiking trail s ■More bike lanes ■Make foot traffic same priority as auto traffi c ■Management of neighborhood parking being sued by outside employees and Cal Poly student s •■ Complete the Railroad safety trai l ■Integrate biking into the new transit cente r ■A safe place to cross the street between Johnson and Orcutt when walking . ■More accessible bike path s ■Better bike path s •Brood Street needs to be crossable and pedestrian friendly - sidewalks to o ■Homeless need a better path through Meadow Park than Brood and R .R tracks ■Railroad safety trail extende d ■Area could use a discrete nam e ■How to get better restaurants and motel s ■Block clubs ■Make streets smalle r ■Access to park s ■Slow traffic on Johnso n ■I'm interested in the area adjacent to the city or South Higuera (near the octagon Barn). ■It is vital that the city collaborate with the county on key elements . Buckley Road extension, the thre e bike road connection . ■Also there is an issue of landscaping to shield the Octagon Barn from RV storage areas . ■Question : How will the development in the Margarita Area (adjacent to airport) affect traffic o n •Buckley/Vacherl and South Higuera . ■Note : The Octagon Barn could act as a community center for the southern part of area "C". ■Homeless in Creekside area s sLOGPU_workshop of Summary_2oiz 05 25 RRR .docx Page 2 4 SS2-29 ATTACHMENT 1 ~city o rSan Luis omsp o ■Traffic bottle neck by Fortinis Figuera should be 4-lane from Madonna Road sout h [Ed : Believe comment is on a traffic bottle-neck by Fortinis (a business) on South Higuera and that th e street should be widened to four lanes in this area .] ■More planned open/rural areas in lieu of developmen t ■Let Ernie develop his property . ■No more density in SFK neighborhood . ■Any and All 'N' Ordinances [Ed : Neighborhood Ordinances] that are going Imposed upon all Citizen s Should Require Line Vote by a Min . of Registered Voters ■Noise Quality and Contro l ■Control density in R-i ■Rethink the mixed use project s ■Highway Blocking my Connection to Downtow n ■Make Santa Rosa and Foothill More Walkable . ■Slowing Traffic on Santa Ros a ■Too many motels by Santa Rosa and Olive- Unsafe Activities, Dirty . ■More Owner Occupied Houses in Neighborhood is needed to accomplish many of these goal s ■Fix connection Across Foothill to Shopping Cente r ■Foothill Beautificatio n ■ Walkable in front of Foothill Plaza and University Square • • • SLOGPU Workshop of Summary_2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page 2 5 SS2-30 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Circulatio n Input Groups 1Stue Opportunitie sDevelopedasitems we"r°easub r e N x,. Transit •Buses are too big for some of our residential •Facilitate Transit Village/ Housing/Retail surroundin g areas facility Public •Traffic circle at railroad station update-•Parking tool to influence modal spli t conflicts •Charge for parkin g •Preference treatment for transi t Traffic/Infrastructure •Implementation of public infrastructure ; • Prado Roa d Traffic levels and patterns need to encourag e • all alternative s Rush hour traffic is heavy in areas ; addres s • impacted circulation area s Not easy to get around tow n •Traffic quagmire at Johnson and San Luis Driv e • now a problem what will it look like wit h Orcutt area is built out? The EIR onl y considered traffic impacts up to Laure l Circulation Plan to fund ? Street Trees/••Downtown Creek s Greenways/ Creeks •Continue street tree progra m •Extension of Mission Plaz a •Create a green path connector to green belt and ope n • space in neighborhood s Consider use of existing rights of way to includ e • pedestrian walks in neighborhood s Develop more robust street tree planting in residentia l neighborhood s Street Hierarchy/•Create better hierarchy of streets •As a general opportunity the use of Osos/ Palm 1 SS2-3 1 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Circulatio n Input Groups - Developed as items were submitted Issues i jiportunities ' Character •Slow traffic on neighborhood level streets . "Calming traffic" surfaces type intersection to slow- "pedestria n friendly" traffic should be encourage d •Intersection Osos/Palm is nic e •Opportunity to improve upper South Higuera ; Broa d to Madonna now has an urban blight loo k Funding •Bike Master Plan needs General Fund dollars . Currently less than 2% of traffic/circulatio n funds go to bike s •Take % from auto infrastructure and give it to bike s Lack of Circulatio n Connections (Safety) •Create better town-gown connectivity throug h bike lanes, transit, uses between Cal Poly an d Downtow n •Safety of Bicyclist and Pedestrian s •Insufficient sidewalks and bike paths in Ca l Poly neighborhood s •There has been an increase in auto/truc k circulation in southern area of the city causin g safety, noise, pollution problems . Due t o increased commercial land uses and existin g circulation constraints . (Big box stores , Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road , South Higuer a •In congested areas of the city, more conflict s between auto, bike and pedestrian s •South Bishop to Roundhouse Roa d connections (connection across railroa d between Johnson/ Buchon and Orcutt Road ) •Create "Sub Pathways" and circulation 2 ••SS . 3 ATTACHMENT 2 Circulatio n Input Groups=Issues'`Opportunities Developed ailtems were submitted • linkages in neighborhood for residents an d pedestrians . (Walk-thru easements, creeks ) From Cal Poly car travel East to West- West t o East in the city . Easy travel North to Sout h Bike/Pedestrian •Not enough facilities/linkages to open space •The scale of SLO could support more opportunities fo r Connectivity for bike and pedestrians beyond city (Bob non-auto transit transformatio n Jones Trail, etc .)•Pedestrians to have a planned approach to pedestria n •Link on-street bike lanes Bob Jones bike trail flow expansion •Continued bike and Pedestrian paths connection an d •No local healthy grocery stores within walking access distance •Bike and Pedestrian transit superior to the car i n •Expand bike travel safety transportation plannin g •Separate network of class one trail s •Trail system/ enhanced connectivit y •Work closely with county on county wide connectivit y • for pedestrians/bikes (path to Morro Bay, Path t o Pismo ) Opportunity to become a premiere bike city makin g bike travel the "mode" of travel 3 SS2-3 3 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Land Us e Issues Opportunitie s Open Space/Creek s Parks •Clearly differentiate between parkland (activ e recreational activities) and natural open space . The existing COSE, WE and Open Spac e Ordinance do this but there has been a "drift " to loosen the distinctions . This is especiall y important to neighborhoods adjacent to 0/S that may be impacted . •Enhance and publicize the diversity o f opportunities to recreate in the greenbelt fo r all age groups . •Expand Urban Fores t •Continued Open Space connections wit h neighborhoods and new neighborhood s •Should consider opening up the entire Cree k Downtown (Public and TF comment ) •Look at the Creek network and expose more of th e now covered route s •The city has much open space in and around the city . It should be better connected . •Plan so that future generations can enjoy the grea t natural beauty, open space, and clean air tha t residents have rated as top priorities in the 1994 LU E and Measure Y surveys . •Enhanced trail connectivity . Neighborhoods •Where is the "great good place" (communit y gathering place)? • •Clearly differentiate between established city neighborhoods and new neighborhoods whe n considering generic planning concepts an d polices in the LUCE update . •Tank Farm- mixed use, Regional Park, wide variety o f housing types including transitional housing, improve d circulation pedestrian/ auto, detached pedestrian/bik e path, velodrome ? •Greening of neighborhoods and downtown includin g expanding creek walks, parks and public art . •Clarify the image/elements of the neighborhood tha t would be the unifying elements for a neighborhood t o rally around . •Create more community gathering places . Historic Resources •Artificial designation of Historic Districts a s neighborhoods . Development Process and Policies •Lengthy and costly permit process . •Effectively strengthening and improving th e existing LUE policy on the right o f neighborhood residents to have the •Develop a Land Use philosophy, mission statemen t (public comment) 4 •SS . 5 S •ATTACHMENT 2 Land Us e Issues Opportunitie s opportunity for early and meaningful impac t on proposals which may significantly impac t their neighborhoods . •Existing neighborhoods have been subject t o changing development philosophies (reductio n in lot size, increase in up zoning of individua l parcels) thus, no current "protection" fo r people who selected a particular area as th e place they wanted to live/raise a family . •Second unit development fees should b e based on square footage (less for small, mor e for large). •Need for early and meaningful notice t o residents when a project, building, roadway, whatever, is anticipated in their area . •Complicated residential/commercial zonin g regulations and fee structure . Viewsheds •Potential issue of amenity transfers . Fo r example, as building height increases thos e with top floor residents retain the view an d those on the bottom floor lose it . Currently , the city's skyline allows everyone to retain th e amenity . Security/ Safety •Vagrant and crazy issues downtown cause fo r uneasy feelings amongst shoppers . Downtow n needs to resolve this to create the "sense o f personal safety ." •A solution to the downtown homeles s situatio n •Homeless and RV parking in neighborhoods • Energy Efficiency •Create resources and incentives to help 5 SS2-3 5 6 ATTACHMENT 2 Land Use Issues Opportunitie s residents go green in housing, circulation , energy consumption, solar, wind, etc . Employment •Improve jobs-housing balance with workforc e housing land use designations sufficient fo r need . Downtown •Downtown walkway appearance looks junky •Indoor/outdoor dining opportunitie s most of the time .•Additional housing and lodgin g •More variety downtown (architecture, paving •Expand use of creek paths in downtown . treatments and landscape). More flexibility in •Provide more downtown gathering places . design guidelines .•Higher density and mixed-use downtown . Smaller, •How to support and encourage local more variety in housing types . businesses downtown, and keep downtown •Flexible height limits (public comment ) commercially viable .•Downtown SLO in itself is an inviting place to live an d •More community serving uses downtown e .g . dry-cleaning (public comment). visi t Commercial •Many of the neighborhoods lack grocer y facilities and other retail, which requires •City could encourage more neighborhood services i n additional car transport .neighborhoods . ••Allow planning to use judgment with tenan t •Continue the clustering of car dealerships out placement in commercial zones . on Madonna and off Monterey Street .•Facilitate business development seeking to us e •Prior to mixed-use, neighborhood- commercial broadband fiber optic cable "beachhead". was just that . Now the emphasis is on •Encourage neighborhood businesses that provid e maximizing the residential component an d losing sight of the reason for C-N to exist . necessities . •How to influence the local retail fo r neighborhood retail . Infill •There are not enough examples of innovative •Moratorium on big boxes . More infill (publi c types of land uses "mixes" (i .e . mixed-use,comment). form-based). Too much zoning uniformity in •Encourage mixed-uses in order to develop more new development . Need more examples of complete neighborhoods 6 •SS . 7 ATTACHMENT 2 7 SS2-3 7 Land Use Issues Opportunitie s •Consider more form based approaches to land us e •Hold design workshop for downtown with Cal Pol y students . •Encourage density ; use as strategic design tool (publi c comment). •Keep downtown vibrant though flexible use standard s to allow changes with the time . •Optional land uses or zone changes (i .e . exces s commercial zones convert to residential ) •Continued green belt and tight city boundarie s "defined city edges" means we need to increas e density and be creative with infill . •Incentivize infill in our existing residential (SDUs) an d commercial (Foothill Blvd) areas . Housing Types •Look at zoning setbacks, sideyards etc . fo r opportunities to promote diversity of housin g types . •Create inventory of sites right for affordabl e housing developmen t •Approach enhancing diversity of housing type s by zoning and form based code change s (ancillary units, mixed-use, etc .) •Expand mobile home parks (public comment). •Reduce barriers to affordable housing market (public comment). •Housing for new family arrivals, renters , mobile homes, low to mid incomes, senior s etc . including mixed-use ; let's get even mor e innovative ! •How to integrate a range of housing i n innovation in community . •Clarify opportunities for increased densit y within city boundaries . Including R1, R2, R3 etc . •No high density (public comment). •Constrained land opportunities so need t o focus on growth within cit y •Minimize sprawl along LOVR •New development provides opportunity to asses s various planning concepts including smaller lot sizes . •Zoning to enhance diversit y •Encourage Cal Poly to build more on-campus housin g and to make parking available for students to use fo r free . •Specific zoning for bungalow court development s might allow unique senior living arrangement s •Encourage mixed-use (public comment). •Look at "ancillary housing unit" or "granny unit " ordinance to enhance buy-in and uptake . 8 ATTACHMENT 2 Land Us e Issues Opportunitie s neighborhoods (don't ghettoize). •Too many workforce houses used for studen t rental s •Downtown housing turned into businesses . •Rental issues- student population, slumlord s (public comment). •Affordable housing is difficult to buy/sell . Focus on affordable by design . •Need transiency study of owner occupancy vs . permanent residents that rent (publi c comment). Beautification ••History/tradition of beautifying the city . 8 ATTACHMENT 3 city 0 Esan Luis onisp o LAND USE & CIRCULATIO N U P D A T E Quality of Life and Future Development Surve y Survey Overvie w The City of San Luis Obispo conducted a survey of its residents and businesses to gauge their opinions of overall quality o f life and future development as part of the update of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements . The survey was distributed to more than 25,000 residents and businesses via utility bill inserts and direct mail . It was als o made available online . It was completed by 2,029 people via return mail and 169 people online, for a total of 2,19 8 respondents — nearly four times the number of respondents that would have been necessary for a statistically vali d telephone survey . This was also a substantially higher sample size than achieved in the 1998 survey, which had 58 5 respondents . Mail and online surveys are not considered statistically valid as they are "self-selected" — people choose to participat e based on their own desire to share their opinions . The City Council opted for this course of action so that any and al l residents and businesses would have an opportunity to participate in the effort . Given the enthusiastic responses, w e believe this is an accurate assessment of the opinions of San Luis Obispo residents and business owners . Survey Question s The questions were based on a survey conducted by the City in 1998 and included five major topic areas : 1.Overall Quality of Lif e 2.City Growth and Relationship to the Regio n •3 . Form of Developmen t 4.Public Facilities and Service s 5.Basic Demographic .lnformatio n Summary An overview of the final result from the 2012 survey are provided on the following pages . For questions that are similar to those in the community survey conducted in 1988, a comparison of the results is also provided . For questions in the 2012 survey that allowed respondents to write in a response, these are summarized in the mai n report . A complete listing of responses is provided in the appendix . September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2-39 Page 1 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update ATTACHMEN T Quality of Life • How would you rate the overall Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo? Approximately 81% of respondents rated the quality o f life as "high" with less than 2% rating it as "low". That's a higher number than the 1998 survey, which had 76% o f respondents choosing "high" and less than 1% choosing "low". How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Luis Obispo ? Medium Low High • 0 500 1000 .1500 2000 Figure 1 .Quality of Life, San Luis Obispo 201 2 When asked to identify San Luis Obispo's greatest problem, respondent's top choices were the homeless (19%), traffi c (10%), lack of jobs (9%), and affordable housing (9%). Downtown parking and congestion was cited by 8%. Man y expressed concerns about future growth and development . This shows a shift from 1998 responses more than doubling the percentage of people who cited homeless issues as th e City 's greatest problem . Concerns about traffic actually went down from 1998 though it remains one of the top concerns . The survey also shows the shift in the job market with concerns about available jobs more than doubling . Page 2 Quality of Life and Future Development-Survey S .Qber 2012 ATTACHMENT 32012 Community Surve y Table 1 .Greatest Problems Identified, San Luis Obispo 201 2 •Homeless Category Percentage Numbe r 19% of Respondent s 347 Traffic 10%180 Jobs 9%166 Housing 9%166 Downtown 8%144 Growth 85 Business 3%7 0 Cost of Living 6 8 Streets 3%6 7 Development 44 Neighborhoods 2%40 Quality t:2:39 Government 2%3 8 Water 2%3 6 Police 1%3 3 Cat Poly 2 3 City Council 1%1 9 B'' Box Stores 1 9 Planning 1 9 Shopping 1 9 Regulation 1%18 When asked about the City's greatest strength, the natural environment took most of the top spots as it had in the 199 8 survey . Table 2 .Greatest Strengths Identified, San Luis Obispo 201 2 Category Percentage Number of Respondent s Weathe r Beauty Locatio n Community Open Spac e DUWntowo Climate Small Tow n Quality of Life :Cal Pol y Culture Clan . Ai r Natural Environmen t SL O Citizen s Low Crim e • September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2-41 Page 3 12 % 7 % 6% 22 1 22 0 10 6 147 13 3 LAND US E San Luis Obispo General Plan Update ATTACHMEN T Listed below are several aspects of "quality of life "in San Luis Obispo . On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being LEAST importa n and 5 being MOST important, respondents rated natural environment and crime as having the highest impact on quali t of life - echoing the sentiments expressed by 1998 respondents . Table 3 .Quality of Life Aspects Identified, San Luis Obispo 201 2 1 Response Count Natural environment (air quality , open space ) Job opportunities Recreation opportunitie s Pace of life Crime levels - Opportunities to participate i n government decision s Traffic Safety and Congestion Management (local travel and : 2 .7 % (54 ) 4 .6% (92) 2 .7 % (53 ) 2.5 % (SI) 3 .2% (65 ) _(47) Entertainment oppa: Educational opportunitie s Shopping opportunitie s Transportation choices - bus service , bicycle and pedestrian facilitie s Housing opportunities,',(c choice 'of types) Cultural diversity (people wit h different backgrounds and interests ) Downtown character and "activitie s Property maintenance (upkeep , junk/litter control ) Access to healthy foods fre:....: produce and supermarkets 2 .1 % (42 ) 4.2% (83 ) 1 .8 % (36 ) 2 .4% (49 ) 3r2%+.• (65) 5 .3 % (106 ) 3.2 % (64) 2 .5 % (51 ) 2 2 81° 44) 2 3 4 1 .4%5 .5%19 .9% (29)(110)(401 ) 73%19 .4%30 .7%' (153)(387)(613 ) 4 .6%20 .0%40 .6% (93)(402)(815 ) 9.0%333%':.385 % (181)'(673)-(773 1 5 .8%16 .6%32 .1 % (116)(334)(646 ) 13:9%35 .8%30 :0 % (280)(720)(603 ) 4 .1%18 .0%33 .2 % (82)(360)(664 ) 3.1%22 .3%. (52):x(184)(448)::. 8 .0%27 .7%35 .3 % (160)(554)(707 ) (102)(368)(670 ) 8 .9%22 .1%31 .5 % (178)(443)(632 ) 7 .9%24 .2%29 :3 % (159)(485)(588) 16 .3%31 .3%28 .0 % (327)(628)(561 ) 6:9%19 .4%33 .6 % (139)(390)(674) 6.3%20 .0%34 .8 % (126)(402)(698) 5.9%16 .8%29 .5 % (119)(337)(590) 5 71 .1 % (1,429 ) 38 .2% (763) 32 .9 % (660 ) 16.9 % (340 ) 42 .8 % (860 ) 15 .7 % (316 ) 42 .0 % (840 ) 62 .9%. (1,265) 25 .8 % (517) 40.7 % (813): 35 .2 % (706 ) 35 .3% (708 ) 19 .1 % (382 ) 36 .9% (741) 36 .4 % (731 ) 45.5% (911) 2,01 1 =1;999 2,00 6 2,010 2,010 2,011(' 1,999 2,00 8 5: 2,004 2.008 2,00 8 2,00 1 5 .1%18.4%33 .5% Next, respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the current conditions of each area with 5 bein g MOST satisfied . Overall satisfaction was high but respondents indicated concern with job opportunities, housing, an d cultural diversity . Jobs and housing were also cited as areas with "dissatisfaction" in the 1998 survey . Page 4 Quality of Life and-Future Development Survey Ssia&42ber 2012 ATTACHMENT 32012 Community Surve y Table 4 .Current Conditions Satisfaction, San Luis Obispo 201 2 Natural environment (air quality , open space ) Job opportunitie s Recreation opportunitie s Entertainment . opportunitie s Educational opportunitie s Shopping opportunitie s Pace of life Crime levels Opportunities to participate i n government decision s Traf c Safety+and Congestion Management (local travel and :; parking) Transportation choices -bus service , bicycle and pedestrian facilitie s Housing opportunities (cast and . €hoIce of types ) Cultural diversity (people wit h different backgrounds and interests ) Downtown character and. activities •Property maintenance (upkeep , junk/litter control ) Access<ta=healthy foods ,*e produce and s+ When asked to name a place they particularly enjoy, people continued to name San Luis Obispo's Downtown, Mission , open spaces, and parks just as they did in the 1998 survey . Table 5 .Particular Place of Enjoyment, San this Obispo 201 2 Category Percentage Number of Respondent s September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2-43 Page s I _ Downtow n Park Missio n Laguna Lake ' ' ,` Open Space Bishop Pea k Walking Hiking Trail s Railroad Irish Hill s Madonna 37% 2 7 .. • 1 2 3 4 5 Respons e 1 .8% (35)2 .8% (56)6 .8% (136)38 .4% (764)50 .2% Coun t 1,99 1 (1,000 ) 9 .0% (178)21 .3% (421)43 .3% (855)21 .4% (422)5 .1%(100)1,976 1 .4% (27)3 .7% (74)22 .5% (447)43 .9% (873)28 .5%(566)1,98 7 1 .S%130)6.2% (124)28.7% (572)43 .1% (859)20 .5%(408)1,99 3 1 .4% (27)4.9% (97)20 .1% (399)42 .2% (840)31 .5%(627)1,99 0 4.7% (93)11 .5%(228)27 .1% (538)38 .5% (765)18 .3%(364)1,988 1 .8% (36)3 .4% (68)15 .8% (313)39 .4% (783)39 .6%(786)1,98 6 2 .2% (43)9.1% (180)231% (459)42 .2% (838)23 .4%(464)1'984 3 .1% (61)8 .2% (161)37 .0%(729)36 .2% (713)15 .5%(305)1,96 9 7 0% (1 0);,;21.3% (424) 28 .2% (561 ) 6 (58) 12 .4% (246) 31 .2% (620) 33 .8% (671f". 9,7% (192) 37 .1% (737) 16.3% (324)1,985 3 .256 (460) 40 .0% (793) 20.5% (407)7 .5% (148)1,98 1 5 .5% (109) 13 .2% (261) 41 .5% (824 ) 23%o (50)j 7.4%(146) 20 .8°% (411) 3 .3% (66)9 .9% (196) 27 .4% (544) 25 .8% (511)14 .1%(279 ) 43 .1% (852)26 .2%(518 ) 44.5% (882)14 .9%(296) 1,984 1,977°° 1,984 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update ATTACHMENT LAND USE 6CIRCUt.TIO N Ur DA,f They were less enthusiastic about Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), which topped the list of "least" liked places . Th ' question yielded different responses from the 1998 survey as LOVR had not been expanded at that time . Both survey identified areas associated with traffic and low-rent/student housing . Table 6 .Least Liked Places of Enjoyment, San Luis Obispo 201 2 Category Percentage Number of Respondents 14%195 13%172 8%11 4 7 % 7%9 3 4%.62 4%5 3 3%5 1 3%46 • Madonn a Parking Homeles s Foothill Street Broad South Higuer a Page 6 -Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2p44ber 201 2 ATTACHMENT 32012 community Surve y • City Growth and Relationship to the Regio n When asked which of the following approaches to determining allowable growth in the City they supported, respondent s continued, but to a lesser degree, to support preservation of the natural environment . Sixty—six percent want to kee p growth in existing areas and 60% support avoiding harm to the natural environment . That's a change from the 199 8 survey where over 85% of respondents sought to keep growth in existing areas and 79% supported avoiding hard to th e natural environment . ng to determining allowable gro you Please sheet all that apply . • Figure 2 .Approaches to Allowable Growth, San Luis Obispo 201 2 September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2-45 Page 7 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update ATTACHMENT LAND DS E C■■COl TIC •If the city was to change the current residential growth rate of 1%, which one of th efollowing would you prefer ? Tie the resident:kg*skittle rte • Figure 3 .Preferences to Change Current Residential Growth, San Luis Obispo 201 2 Nearly 55% of respondents support "No Change" in residential growth rate, with over 14% supporting some increases bu t none greater than the County or the State as a whole . Just 10% supported no growth limits . This question also saw a shif t in responses from the 1998 survey . Previously 35% supported "no or very little" increase to the City's population with 39 % supporting modest increases and 17% supporting "no growth limits". San Luis Obispo has worked to balance development and conservation to preserve the City's natural beauty and uniqu e character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities and a vibrant economy . People were asked if the City ha s not enough, enough, or too much of the various types-of development . Respondents indicated the City has "enough "of each category ; however, housing and manufacturing were cited as low by some . This is substantially different than the 1998 survey . Respondents then sought more housing (70%), tourist/visitor servin g activities (53%), shopping (58%), and cultural activities (70%). Page 8 .Quality of Life and Future Development Survey S32.»t46ber2012 ATTACHMENT 3 2012 Community Surve y Table 7 .Types of Development, San Luis Obispo 201 2 Not enough Enough Too much Response Coun t Housing 33 .0% (637)58 .9% (1,135)8 .1% (156)1,92 8 ....._ Tourist/visitor serving 9 .5% (184)i%(1,538)..., .......... Manufacturing 43 .9% (827)513% (967)4 .8% (91)1,88 5 Business Park 23 .5% (443)65 .2%(1,232)123%{2141 1,58 9 Shopping/stores 21 .3% (412)59 .5%(1,151)19 .1% (370)1,93 3 .... Cultural/entertainment 21 .5% (416)73 .4%(1,423)..:': Medical, legal, financial 14 .7% (284)77 .0% (1,484)8 .3% (159)1,92 7services .. --A,... Government `..,. .',.. 4.4% (84) ....,.,..-. What influences Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo? According the respondents, air quality, traffic, aircraft noise, and the _ preservation of farmland were cited as the factors that MOST influence quality of life in San Luis Obispo, mirroring th e 1998 survey results . Table 8 .Quality of Life Influences, San Luis Obispo 201 2 1 2 Air pollution 15 .3% (301)14 .4% (283 ) coittro'ckttdffjt noise 6 .2% (122)14.2 %.(279) Aircraft noise 16 .9% (331)22 .4% (439 ) 6.8% (132)15.9% (310) ... Crowing/delay at parking 9 .1% (175)17 .6% (340 )facilitie s Akpark or recreation :.'.:.....Development o n farmland, ranchland 7 .5%(142 )11 .8% (222 ) Deetrl of creeks,6 :8%.11271 10 .1% (189)..;:::.. Form of Development 5 .0% (89)10 .0% (177 ) Overall intensity of 4 .6% (86)10 .4% (192 )development 5 .3%,( 98)9 .7%(181) 3 4 5 Respons e 19 .0% (373 ) 29 .5% (580) 16 6% (325 ) 17 .1%(336) 34 .7%(880)., 14 .1%(277) Coun t 1,96 2 1,96 3 33 .6% (648)22 .9% (442)16 .8% (323)1,928 ...!....:.' 26 .7% (504)20 .8% (393)33 .1% (624)1,88 5 257t*0sa 32 .5% (574 ) 30 .1% (557)22 .8% (422)32 .1% (594)1,85 1 27 .8%(517),,223%1418.Y 84,7%l , September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2-47 Page 9 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update ATTACHMENT LAND USE t C19 C San Luis Obispo and the surrounding area includes about 34% of the jobs in the county, and about 18% of the houses an y apartments, which results in commuting . On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being no effort and 5 being high effort, respondent . were asked how much effort they thought should go into each of the following approaches to reduce commuting impacts . Table 9 .Approaches to Reducing Commuting Impacts, San Luis Obispo 201 2 Respondents indicated they would like the City to focus the most effort in discouraging commuting and the least effort i n discouraging additional jobs here in San Luis Obispo . More local employment translated to fewer commuters . 5 Respons e Count 1,882 1 2 3 4 Discourage commuting by 33 .5%(258):,` 11 .1%(212)20 .5%(391)20 .4% (389 ) encourage use of busses, van pool bicycles an d, Expand roads and parkin g facilities to reduc e congestion . 18 .3% (344)16 .2% (304)27 .4% (516)18 .8% (354 ) individual drivers antl 19 .3% (364) 1,907 ' carpools...'i Discourage additiona l jobs in San Luis Obispo . Encourage housin g 41 .3% (775)15 .7% (294)23 .8% (447)9 .3% (174 ) 19 .7% (371)16.5% (310)27 .8% (523)16 .5% (310) 9 .9% (186)1,87 6 19 .6% (368)1,88 2 19 .3% (364)1,88 2 Obispo.. Expand roads and parking 18 .3% (344 ) facilities to reduc e congestion . development in San Luis ..:::. 16 .2% (304)27 .4% (516)18 .8% (354) ... • Page 10 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2p,48ber 201 2 ATTACHMENT 32012 Community Surve y • Form of Developmen t To accommodate new growth in the City, 71% of respondents supported using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods fo r buildings like those that have been built in the neighborhood with over 63% supporting redeveloping underdevelope d sites with buildings compatible with the neighborhood . A little more than half supported mixed-use infill development i n existing buildings . This was similar to responses in 1998 when 81% supported using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods . To accommodate new housing in support (Check a t • Figure 4 .New Growth, San Luis Obispo 201 2 September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2-49 Page 11 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update ATTACHMEN T To accommodate new businesses, banks, and office buildings, the clear preference with 80% of respondents choosin g was development in existing commercial areas, using vacant lots for new buildings generally like ones that have been bul l there . In 1998 65% of respondents supported that idea with 37% supporting replacing existing buildings with larger ones . To accommodate new stores, banks, business park development and offices, I suppor t (Check all that a pply.) Figure 5 .New Development Preferences,San Luis Obispo 2012 When asked about what changes they would like to see in certain land uses, only two land uses resulted in substantia l differences with 59% seeking fewer bars downtown and 71% seeking additional small city parks in residential areas . Th e City received similar responses in 1998 with 63% of people seeking more small parks and 41% seeking fewer bars . Page 12 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2p€Ober 2012 /ATTAHMENT 3012 community Surve y Table 10 .Land Use Changes, San Luis Obispo 201 2 • Respons e Coun t5324 • Small second dwellings ("granny units") i n areas that are mostly individual houses . Specialty stores (such as books or clothing ) in small neighborhood shopping centers . Offices (doctors, lawyers) in smal l neighborhood shopping centers . Nursing homes, churches, or school§int areas that are mostly individual housi Retail stores downtow n In residential areas, home,3rusinesses'with , no employees otherthan residents' ofthe` house or apartment that may include smal l scale product assembly or frestomer isits . Neigh borhood markets orresh produc e markets in residential areas . Auto repair downtown orfr centers . Small city parks in residential areas . 13 .5%7 .6%33 .2%24 .6%21 .1 % (256)(144)(632)(468)(401 ) 6 .0%32 .8%,31 .7%22;0% (143) '..(115)(624):(603).,(318)1 .903 ' 8 .8%10 .4%45 .1%23 .7%12 .1 % (166)(196) -(852)(447)(229 ) 13,0%47..1%: (248)(896)(297){127 ) 15 .8%31 .4%4 .3%5 .1 % (303)(602)(83)(98 ) 9,7%54 .6%1531 ' (187)(1,050)s .7 C ,", 5 .4%48 .0%24 .1%15 .3 % (293 ) Bars and nightclubs downtown . Restaurants and movie>t 1,90 1 1,89 0 ,9% r05)% 81% (152) 42.2 % (790) 22 .7%1 {426) 1,91 7 1,91 8 24 4 .1 % (79 ) 3 .0 % (57)2 .2% (43 ) 5 .2 % (99 ) .7% 80) 26 .1%35 .2 % (497)(671 ) 51 .1 4 12 :2"/o ? $7.2)(231) 23 .9%30 .9 % (459)(593) 29 .3 % (559)1,90 5 1,92 040.0 % (768 ) September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2-51 Page 13 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update ATTACHMEN T Public Facilities and Services • On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being less and 5 being more, just four areas were supported by the majority of respondent s seeking additional facilities and services ; 50% would like more bicycle lanes, 58% support acquiring open space peaks an d hillsides, 53% support more land for creeks and marshes, while 54% support more land for City's Greenbelt . These wer e the very same items selected by respondents in 1998 with slight variations in support ; 44% bike lanes, 54% peaks an d hillside preservation, 50% creeks and marshes, and 43% preservation of farm land . Table 11 .Additional Facilities and Services, San Luis Obispo 2012 19 .8%32 .8 % (366)(606 ) 20.2%19 .0%1,835 (371)(349)- 42 .0%25 .2%19 .2%1,81 4 (761)(457)(348) 49 .0%16 .8%1 (888)(305)(251 ) 50 .4%21 .0%14 .6 % (920)(383)(266 ) 55 .6%'8 6%1,82 0 (1,012)(259). ` '.157); 41 .8%22 .8%18 .3%1,8 3 (767)(419)(336 ) 34 .7%20.5%1645%1,838 : (637)(376)(306 ) 47 .1%23 .7%18 .3%1,819 (103)(856)(432)(332 ) 8.5%54 .6%17,404 , (155)(993)(.316)(219)..: 13 .2%46 .2%15 .7%11 .5%1,807 (239)(835)(284)(207) 5 .1%29 .5%23 .2%348%1,840 (93)(543)(427)(640) 9 .5%43 .2%.18 .7%19 .8%1,81 7 (172)(785)(340)(359 ) 6 .4%34 .7%24 5%:28 :4% (117)(635)(449)(520). 6 .4%32 .7%24 .0%30 .0%1,82 2 (117)(596)(437)(547 ) 11 .9%9 .5%43 .9%19 .9%14 .9%1,818 (216)(172)(799)(361)(270) 6 .2%7 .3%46 .9%23 .4%16 .1%1,83 0 (113)(134)(859)(429)(295 ) 11 .3%10 .8%51 .5%100%1,83 (207)(199)(945)(300)..'(184 J 17 .0%13 .0%46 .0%14 .5%9 .4%1,83 2 (311)(239)(843)(266)(173 ) Acquiring and maintaining open space fo r farm, ranchlan d Acquiring and maintaining open space . o r creeks'&marsh e Acquiring and maintaining open space fo r City greenbel t Parking and access choices downtow n Parks/playfields Public art Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths an d parking ) Bus service moreroutesand more rfrequent'se vice Traffic congestion managemen t Preserving historic building s Page 14 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Neighborhood traffic management Emergency services/disaster readines s ramuae s Law enforcement : Violence/theft s Law enforcement : Nuisances/zoning 10 .8 % (200 ) 8 .2 % (150 ) 7 .2 % (130 ) 10 .4% (188) 6 .9 % (126) 10 .3 % (187 ) 7 .2 % (133 ) 16.9% (311 ) 5 .3 % (96 ) 7 .5% (136 ) 13 .4% (242 ) 7 .4% (137) 8 .9 % (161 ) 5 .9% (108) 6 .9 % (125 ) 1 2 6 .3 % (116 ) 6.9 % (127 ) 6 .5 % (118 ) 10 .0% (181 ) 7 .1 % (130 ) 11 .3 % (205 ) 9 .9 % (182) 11 .3 % (208) 5 .7% 30 .4% (562 ) 45 .7%=. (838). 534 Response Count 1,85 0 1;81 3 1,825 ATTACHMENT 32012 Community Surve y 1 Recreation program s Shelter for homeles s Sidewalk "rmproverrients and pedest r 4UIIIIeLLJUI1 S Street maintenance 7 .1% (130) Street trees, landscaping along,street s Street widening/signal s Transit se • (122) 13 .9 % (252 ) (173) frequency . 2 3 4 5 9 .2%51 .2%21 .7%10 .6 % (167)_(933)(395)(194) 8 .2%27 .3%23 .6%23 .5 % (151)(504)(436)(433 ) 7 .5%412%24.0%19 .6% (138)(764),,(438)(358) 5 .7%46 .2%25 .8%18 .3 % (847)(473)(335 ) 1 7 (138)(803)'(443)(321) 13 .4%44 .6%17 .2%10 .9 % (243)(807)(312)(197 ) 49%' {182)(823),(344);267) Respons e Coun t 1,82 3 1,844 1,82 8 1,83 2 )827 Despite support for some services, only a slight majority of respondents said they would support paying more for just two ;. 54% for open space for peaks and hillsides, and 52% for acquiring space for the City's Greenbelt . Table 12 .Support for Paying for More Services, San Luis Obispo 2012 Yes No Response Coun t 51 .3% (900 ) 1 .4 (1,0 1) 62 .4% (1,049) 1,75 3 1,680. 1,68 0 Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths and parking) •Bus service „,ore routes, rind more frequent servic e Traffic congestion managemen t Neighborhood tra fiic management Emergency services/disaster readines s Flood prev rtreft rrttrol ,3 Preserving historic building s Housing for low- ncome tam ie s Law enforcement : Violence/thefts Law enforcement:Tr,affic safety Law enforcement : Nuisances/zonin g Acquit” g maintaining iapen space for peaks &hi lsides Acquiring and maintaining open space for farm, ranchlan d Admiring'and taini1g°rpen space for creeks & marshes Acquiring and maintaining open space for City greenbelt 48 .7% (853 ) 38.6%x,(649)` 37 .6% (631 ) 51 .6% (891 ) 24.7%(417) 38 .8% (655 ) 23.9% (397) 20 .6% (345)- 33,0% (545) _ 46 .7% (820) 42 .1%(709) 42 .4% (716) connection s Park Parks/playfield s Perform Public art Recreatiorf pa Shelter for homeless Sidewalk improvements and pedestria n Street maintenanc e Street trees, ` landscaping along street s Street widening/signal s Transitjservicei –:routes and,;frequency, 39.8%(666 ) 24 .9% (411 ) 31 .7%(520) 58 .3% (965)1,65 4 48 .4% (836)1,72 7 61 .2% (1,033)1,68 8 76 .1 % 79 .4% (1,329)1,67 4 67 .0%x(1,106) 53 .3% (935)1,75 5 57 .9;%77)`1,686 57 .6% (971)1,68 7 60.2%;(1 ;008)1 67 4 75 .1% (1,237)1,64 8 68.3%(1,12 :,1 .641 28.0%(455), ,. , 72i. 41 .7% (689) 74,31 64 .4% (1,094 ) 64t%%(1 58 .1% (972 ) 28.9%(479),,; ,l 24.1% (402) 54.1%:(943} `; 30 .4% (508)69 .6% (1,163 ) 49.3%(847).;' 50.7%(87`. 41 .9% (701 ) 35 .6% (605 ) 35.9% (618) 75 .9% (1,268) 1,67 3 1,67 0 September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2-53 Page 1 5 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update ATTACHMEN T The 1998 survey showed support for paying more for bicycle paths, bus services, law enforcement, and performing art1 (63%). There was also support for public art, recreation, and parks and playfields .1 Finally, we asked people to identify the services they would most like to see in the City . The responses were varied, but a substantial number mentioned better services for homeless and increased transit options for air, bus, rail, and tax i services . • Page 16 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey S32p454ber 2012 • ATTACHMENT 312y Surve y The vast majority of respondents indicated they live in the City of San Luis Obispo with a little less than half working o r owning a business in the City . Seventy-three percent of respondents own their dwelling with 27% renting . Please check all that apply . Figure 6 .Demographic Data, San Luis Obispo 201 2 Demographic Dat a September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey SS2-55 Page 17 San Luis Obispo General Plan Update ATTACHMENT LAND USE L CFPCUI■TIO N Which of the following best describes your status ? 02%362% fl Employe d i Unemploye d Retired al Other • Figure 7 .Status, San Luis Obispo 201 2 Page 18 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey • ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O OPINION SURVEY RESULT S As part of the general plan update, the city conducted a survey of residents' opinions o n broad development issues . Each residential address in the city had an equal chance o freceiving a survey form . By the response deadline, 585 (28 percent) of the mail-bac ksurvey forms had been returned . Statisticians consider this number of responses adequat e for a valid sample . The results are summarized below . Satisfactio n Over three-quarters of respondents thought the overall quality of life in San Luis Obisp o is high, and only one percent thought it is low . Excessive growth was named by mor e people than any other item as the city's greatest problem . Natural beauty, includin g clean air and open space, followed closely by geographic setting and climate were mos t frequently named as the city's greatest strengths . When asked to indicate how important various factors were in determining quality of life , people ranked natural environment, crime levels, and property maintenance and litte r control the highest . Cultural diversity, shopping opportunities, and job opportunitie swere seen as least important. Concerning levels of satisfaction with each aspect , natural environment, pace of life, and educational opportunities received the highes t ratings, while housing opportunities, convenience in getting around, and jo bopportunities received the lowest . Residents named downtown, Mission Plaza, and creek areas as places they particularl y enjoyed, while the lower Higuera/South Street area and mall/shopping centers were mos t frequently mentioned as not enjoyable places . Growt h Concerning possible ways of determining allowable growth, most respondents indicated mos t -support for keeping growth within available resources (85% in favor) and avoiding harm t othe natural environment (79%). Fewer than a majority supported setting a maximum growt h rate (46%), a boundary which the city would not grow beyond (30%), or a population limi t(26%). Letting the overall growth of the community follow from specific goals (fo r example, more manufacturing jobs, or preserving certain open space areas) was supporte dby 33%. Ten percent indicated "Do not set growth limits ." When asked "If the city was to set a maximum population size or a boundary to outwar dgrowth, which one of the following would you prefer?" the response was : A reduction in city size or population : 5 % No or very little increase in city size or population : 35 % - A modest increase in city size or population : 39 % A substantial increase in city size or population : 2 % I do not favor such limits : 17 % (Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding .) S$2-57 ATTACHMENT 4 When asked "If the city was to set a maximum city growth rate, which one of the following • would you prefer?", the response was : No growth : 15 % Some increase, but much slower than the state or the county as a whole : 51 % Growing no faster than San Luis Obispo County as a whole : 19 % I do not favor such a limit : 15 % When asked what limits on certain types of development would be acceptable to maintain environmental quality, a majority (55%) said "no expansion of government agencies" and "a little more housing" (60%). For no category was a majority willing to accept "much more " or "no limit ." When asked how much reduction in certain aspects of environmental quality would b e acceptable to accommodate additional development and economic growth, large majoritie s said "none" for air pollution (83%), traffic noise (67%), and development on creeks o r marshes (67%) and peaks and hillsides (66%). A clear majority was willing to accep t crowding or delay in use of parks and recreation faciliities (62%), while a sligh t majority was willing to accept an overall increase in the intensity of development (55%). Commutin g To deal with the imbalance between jobs and housing, which leads to commuting , respondents indicated these preferences : N o Effort Som e Effort •Muc h Effor t Expand roads and parking facilities.17 56 2 7 Discourage commuting by individua l drivers and encourage use of busses,9 34 5 7 van pools, and carpools . Discourage additional jobs and - college enrollment in San Luis Obispo .51 31 1 8 Encourage housing development i n San Luis Obispo .45 37 17 Lan Use s To accommodate whatever new housing would be allowed in the city, respondents favore d using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods for buildings like those which have bee n built in the neighborhood (81%) over all the alternatives, including more intens e development on vacant lots (14%), replacing small buildings with larger ones (13%), an d low-density development at the city's edges (41%). To accommodate whatever new stores, banks, and offices would be allowed in the city , respondents supported using vacant lots in existing commercial areas for new building s like smaller ones which have been built there (65%). None of the other options receive d majority support : replacing small commercial buildings with larger ones (37%); new, small buildings at the city's edges (28%); large buildings at the city's edges (21%). SS2-58 ATTACHMENT 4 •The survey also asked whether people wanted less, the same, or more of certain types o fland uses. Here are the results : Less Same Mor e "Granny apartments" in single-family areas 28 44 2 7Specialty stores in neighborhood shopping centers 20 54 2 5Offices in neighborhood shopping centers 26 55 1 8Nursing homes, churches, or schools i n single-family areas 27 57 1 5Bars and nightclubs downtown 42 49 9Restaurants and movie theaters downtown 14 69 1 7 Small home businesses 26 53 2 1Convenience stores in residential areas 28 57 1 5Auto repair downtown or in shopping centers 29 63 8 Small city parks in residential areas 3 31 6 5 The survey asked whether the city should provide less, about the same, or more of 2 4categories of service . For seventeen categories, a majority of respondents favored th esame level of service . The five categories with the most support for the same level o fservice were: flood prevention/control (73%); sidewalk improvements (71%); bu sservice/shelters, recreation program, and sewage system (each 67%). •For three categories,a majority of respondents favored more service: keeping peaks an dhillsides open (56%); additional water sources (51%); keeping creeks and marshes ope n(51%). For no category did a majority of respondents favor a lower level of service . For the three categories with a majority favoring more service, respondents indicated th efollowing preferences for funding : Pay more i n taxes/fees Divert money fro mother services Both Keeping peaks and hillsides open 52 42 2Additional water sources 63 34 2Keeping creeks and marshes open 57 -40 3 One survey question asked people to name the facility or service not available in Sa nLuis Obispo which they would like to have . Very few respondents indicated something .Afew mentioned things which are already available to some extent (south county bu sconnection, job placement service, art museum). Responses were not tabulated . Comparing 1980 census results with survey reponses, students were apparentl yunder-represented in the responses, while retired people were over-represented . Also ,renters were under-represented . These differences do not appear to have substantiall yaffected the results concerning basic growth issues . However, students expressed mor esupport for downtown bars and nightclubs and for home business . Students were les sconcerned with property maintenance, while retired people (as expected) were les sconcerned with ,educational opportunitiies . The survey concluded with an open-ended opportunity to comment on the survey, th esubjects it covered, or any other items of local interest . Several people wrote comment scovering a wide range of subjects and points of view . City staff did not try to tabulat eor summarize these comments, but appreciates the thoughts people shared . SS2-5 9 LAND USE & CIRCULATIO N U P D A T E ATTACHMENT 5 city o fsal, tuts oBISp o OVERVIEW OF CIRCULATION ELEMENT ANALYSI S TF-LUCE #4 JULY 18, 2012, 6 :oo PM CITY-COUNTY LIBRARY COMMUNITY ROOM • • As part of the update of the Circulation Element for the City of San Luis Obispo, Kittelson & Associates Inc . with assistance from the City staff and Cal Poly reviewed the arterial and collecto r streets in the City to see how they perform for all modes of travel – cars, transit, bicycles an d pedestrians . This is known as a multimodal LOS (MMLOS) analysis . The analysis was based on th e multimodal LOS methodology documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (a publication o f the Transportation Research Board). The HCM2010 MMLOS method uses data such as street cross - sections, traffic signal timing, the posted speed limit, bus headways (timing between bus arrivals), traffic volumes, transit patronage, and pedestrian volumes . Most of this data was collected by Ca l Poly students and through the City's normal biennial traffic count effort . The MMLOS analysis can be used to answer the following questions (to name just a few): ■To what extent are car movements hindered if we narrow the street to add bicycle an d pedestrian amenities (such as bike lanes and widened sidewalks)? ■How do we quantify the tradeoffs among travel modes for a given streetscape desig n feature or strategy? For example how do we evaluate the benefits/costs to travelers in car s versus those on bicycles if we narrow a street to include bike lanes ? ■How do we prioritize bicycle and pedestrian improvements within Downtown ? ■How do we begin to document compliance with the California Complete Streets Ac t (AB 1358)? Besides assisting the City to meet the requirements of California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358), thi s multimodal approach provides an opportunity to better understand the way people traveling b y different modes interact within-a shared right-of-way environment as well as the trade-offs that nee d to be considered due to right-of-way limitations as the community considers where growth can occu r in the future . Kittelson & Associates has developed a software program, CompleteStreetsLOS TM that implement s the HCM 2010 MMLOS methddology (see attached brochure). This software is being used b y Kittelson & Associates to analyze prominent roadways within the downtown grid network for thei r MMLOS performance . Selection of which streets to include in this analysis was coordinated with Cit y staff. In all,14 roadways were selected - these include the downtown grid sections of : Santa Ros a Street, Higuera Street, Marsh Street, Broad Street, Osos-Street and Monterey Street (to name a few). The complete list of roadways identified for MMLOS analysis is provided in Table1 and shown i n Mao 1 . SLOGPUTF_LUCE OA Circulation 2oiz 07 ioc RRR.docx Page l SS2-60 ATTACHMENT 5 Ol.j city o fAsan Luis osisp o • The MMLOS analysis will augment the typical operational performance analyses to be performe d with the Circulation Element update (i .e ., State Highway Level of Service (LOS), local roadway Average Daily Traffic (ADT) threshold analysis and intersection LOS). For this component, we ar e analyzing over ioo intersections and over 75 local roadways . An overview, with examples, of th e MMLOS and other traffic study results will be presented at the General Plan Update Task Forc e Meeting on July 18 th . • sLOGPU_TF_LUCE 04 Circulation 2012 0710c RRR.docx Page 2 SS2-61 ATTACHMENT 5 .ddd 9.9 9 Multimodal Level of Servic e KAI led the development of a methodology for determinin g the level of service for auto drivers, bus passengers, bicycl e riders and pedestrians on an urban street . The researc h culminated in the NCHRP 616 report Multimodal Level o f Service Analysis for Urban Streets . These methods will b e added to the new 201Q Highway Capacity Manual . adopter) laws .";and! raging the consideration' 'erf.`designing tjJj . wit h eat s 8j200$j,•regraiee s ttworks tameet,. CompleteStreetsLOS Softwar e To help planners and engineers evaluate the level of servic e for all users of a street, KAI has developed th e CompleteStreetsLOS software package . The software implements the methods which will be part of the 201 0 Highway Capacity Manual . Streetscape Desig n In addition to developing methods and tools, KAI regularl y applies the Complete Street principles in support of rea l world street design projects . We have evaluated removal of auto lanes for bicycle lanes, sidewalk widenings, intersectio n bulb-outs, and the installation of center islands . Ou r analysis leads to successful designs which significantly improve conditions for pedestrians and bicycles withou t causing unacceptable auto conditions . ,KAI developed the Corrtplete !software and uses it to evolveservice for pedestrians,bicycipassengers and auto drivers . A COMPLETE STREETS CASE STUD Y Harrison Street/Oakland Avenu e Community Transportation Pla n City of Oakland, C A KAI was the transportation member of a team to develop alternative s for the Harrison Street/Oakland Avenue Community Transportatio n Plan . The study corridor provides direct access between Interstate 58 0 and downtown Oakland through a predominantly residentia l neighborhood . There are fast-moving high-volume one-way street s combined with busy attractors of pedestrian traffic including a middl e school and a Whole Foods market . Field surveys were used to coiled information for auto, pedestrian , bicycle and transit modes of travel . KAI applied the Multimodal Level o f Service (MMLOS) for Urban Streets analysis procedures in order t o interactively compare levels of service for all uses : pedestrians , bicyclists, transit passengers, and motorists . The MMLOS results wer e used to inform the community and policy makers of the efficiency an d perceived quality of service for-all travel modes . In addition to level of service analysis, KAI provided inputs to the desig n team regarding safety, traffic controls and traffic engineering design . Recommendations were made for improvements to the pedestrian , bicycle, and transit systems for each of the project alternatives . KAI staff participated in public outreach by making presentations at Technica l Advisory Committee (TAG), Community Steering Committee (CSC ) meetings and public workshops . KITTELSON Sc ASSOCIATES, INC . TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING/PLANNIN G http://www.kittelson .com 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 I Oakland, CA 9461 2 510.839 .1742phone 1510 .839 .0871fax 428J 5treet, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.266 .2190phone 1916 .266.2195fax ATTACHMENT 5 IMPS cILV o f San LUIS OGISO O Table 1 .MMLOS Analysis Segments "CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GENERAL PLAN UPDAT E MULTI-MODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS SEGMENTS Anal is Segment ID{,f $''44G/atdfrv` Broad Street ~~ Analysis Street : __.._ North Higuera Stree tAnalysis Street : limits :Higuera Street to Divert Road Limits :Johnson Avenue to Pismo St/Bianchi N/High S t 1 Higuera Street 1 Johnson Avenu e 2 Marsh Street 2 Santa Rosa Stree t 3 Pacific Street 3 Uses Stree t 4 Pismo Street 4 Morro Stree t 5 Burton Street 5 Chorro Street 6 High Street 6 Broad Stree t 7 South Street 7 Nipomo Stree t 8 Orcutt Road 8 Marsh Stree t 9 PismoSt/Bianchi In/High S t Analysis Street Marsh Street Analysis Segment ,,..'.,b ,4+Y F Limits :Higuera Street toiohnson Avenue Analysis Street:Monterey Stree t Higuera Street limits :Chorro Street to Grand Avenu e 2 Ni porno Street 1 Chorro Street 3 Broad Street 2 Morro Stree t 4 Chorro Street 3 Osos Stree t5Morro Street 4 Santa Rosa Stree t 6 Osos Street 5 Johnson Avenu e 7 Santa Rosa Street 6 California Boulevar d 8 Johnson Avenue 7 Grand Avenue 4 t Street : Analysis Street:t : Analy Charm Street Analysis Street:Santa Rosa Street Limits :Foothill Boulevard to Marsh Street Limits :Highland Drive to Pismo Stree t 1 Foothill Boulevard 1 Highland Driv e 2 Meinecke Avenue 2 Foothill Boulevard 3 Murray Street 3 Murray Stree t 4 Mission Street 4 Olive Street 5 Center Street 5 Walnut Stree t 6 U ncoln Street 6 MITI Street 7 Palm Street 7 Palm Stree t Monterey Street Monterey Stree t 9 Higuera Street 9 Higuera Street 10 Marsh Street 10 Marsh Street iSS 11 j Pismo Street Anal Tena High Street Analysis Segment4 ikr+0u+?e";.d=Ki%Analysis Street : Limits :Higuera Street to Broad Street Analysis Street :South Hlguera Street 1 Higuera Street limits :High Street to Los OSos Valley Roa d 2 Broad Street 1 High Street 2 South Stree t Anal sS en ,.,,,... Madonna Road 3 4 Madonna Road Fontana Avenu eAnalysis Street : Limits :Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera Street 5 Margarita Avenu e Los Uses Valley Road 6 Prado Roa d 2 Oceanaire Drive 7 Granada Drive 3 Dalidio 8 Tank Farm Roa d 4 0 Mercado 9 Suburban Roa d 5 US 101 SB Ramps 10 Los Ow, Valley Roa d 6 US 101 NB Ramp s 7 Higuera Street Analysis Segment:ll Analysis Street:Foothill Boulevar d Analysis Street:Johnson Avenue 1 Patricia Driv e Limits:Monterey Riven.,laurel lane 2 Tassajara Driv e Monterey Street 3 Broad Street 2 Marsh Street 4 Chorro Stree t 3 San Luis Drive 5 Santa Rosa Stree t 4 Ozzie Street 6 California Boulevar d 5 Ella Street 6 > Bishop Street Laurel Lane Analysis Segmen t Analysis Street:Osos Street limits :Palm Street to Upham Stree t Palm Stree tAnalysis Segment: Analysis Street : „yg:=a x 1 California Boulevard 2 Monterey Street Limits :Foothill Boulevard to San Luis Drive 3 Higuera Street 1 Foothill Boulevard 4 Marsh Stree t 2 Mill Street 5 Pismo Stree t 3 Monterey Street 6 Burton Street 4 San Luis Drive 7 Upham Street • • SLOCPU TF LUCE 04 Circulation 2012 0710c RRR .docx Page 5 SS2-6 4 ATTACHMENT 5 20 t citvo fsal)Lu15 OBISp O •Map 1 .MMLOS Analysis Segments ~wre ur*.varkty ' SLOGPU TF LUCE 04 Circulation 2012 07 IOC RRR.docx Page 6 SS2-6 5 • ATTACHMENT 6 San Luis Obispo General Plan Background Repor t Summary of Major Finding s SLO Toda y Demographic s 'The City has experienced slower population growth than the County as a whole . The City's population growt h was half as fast in the past decade than during the 1990s, but is projected to accelerate slightly when ne w housing construction begins to get underway in 2013 . As of 2010, the US Census shows the City's populatio n at 45,119 . •With the high proportion of college students in the population, San Luis Obispo has a relatively high level o f renters (60 .7% of occupied housing units) and single person or other non-family households (60%). Conversely, 39 .3% of housing in the City is owner occupied, while 1,182 persons (2 .6% of the population) liv e in group quarters . The City also has proportionately fewer families with young children (16%) than the count y as a whole (39%). •With these demographic characteristics, the City has a higher proportion of multi-family housing (40 % compared to 18% for the County), and fewer single family detached housing units (46% compared to 68% fo r the County). The City currently has a total of 20,663 housing units . •Median house prices in the City dropped by one-third between January 2007 and December 2011, but rema i higher than comparable prices in the County as a whole . Even at the lower median housing price of abou t $440,000 in the City, the qualifying income is about $95,000, more than twice the median household incom e for city residents of $42,500 . •SLOCOG projects a growth of 973 dwelling units between 2010 and 2020, with a corresponding populatio n growth of 1,982 . This would be slightly lower than the growth rates the City experienced between 1990 an d 2000. Fiscal /Financia l •The City is fortunate to have a strong commercial sector that generates relatively high sales tax revenues . I n addition, the voters approved Measure Y, which generates additional sales tax revenues to help fund bot h operating costs and capital improvement projects . It is important to recognize, however, that sales ta x revenues arevolatile during slow economic periods and that Measure Y sunsets in 2014 unless renewed b y voters . Economic Developmen t • The City is home to nearly one-third of all jobs in the County, but has only 17 percent of the County's population . ■Despite the number of jobs available within the City, a number of large employers are located outside the Cit y limits . Approximately 60% of the City 's labor force (about 10, 300 workers) commutes outside the City t o work. Of the 31,660 jobs within the City, approximately 7,050 are filled with City residents and th e remainder, almost 25,000, are filled by workers who commute into the City . 'SLOCOG projects the City will add jobs at a faster rate than the County over the next 20 years . The City's Economic Development Strategic Plan has identified 96 sites comprising 624 acres that can potentially suppor t Administrative Draft Background Report September 2012 SS2-66 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 6 San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e future business development . A major element of the Strategic Plan is to focus on permit streamlining an d infrastructure finance to ensure that the available raw land can in fact support employment developmen t when it is needed .- •San Luis Obispo has a retail market that serves as a regional hub, attracting spending from well beyond the cit y limits . The local retail spending demand totals $415 million, with $342 million coming from San Luis Obisp o households, and the remainder coming from Cal Poly students living on campus, and commuters who liv e elsewhere and work in San Luis Obispo . By comparison, the sales by San Luis Obispo retailers total over $1 .2 7 billion, which means that over 67 percent of its market capture comes from outside of local market demand . •Major sources of regional capture include residents from neighboring communities, out-of-town visitors, an d retail sales from other businesses . Out-of-town visitors represent a major source of revenuein San Lui s Obispo County, with over $1 .1 billion in overall spending . Business-to-business supplier transactions create a n additional $378 million in retail demand . Page 2 September 2012 Administrative Drafr6S)id Repor t • ATTACHMENT 6 Community Developmen t Urban Structur e San Luis Obispo is located about 10 miles inland from the coast at the junction of U .S . Highway 101 and Stat e Route 1 and is at least 10 miles away from any other town . This physical separation adds to the identity of Sa n Luis Obispo as distinct from other places . •San Luis Obispo is bisected by the Union Pacific rail line and lies at the convergence of two main drainages : th e Los Osos Valley which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and San Luis Valley which drains t o the south-southwest into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via the San Luis Obispo Creek . •In general, San Luis Obispo is characterized by relatively compact urban development within a 'natal setting . •The overall form of the city has been largely determined by its location at the junction of the Chorro, Los Osos , and Edna Valleys, and the surrounding steep hillsides . The city branches out from its Downtown Core, wit h development extending along the major transportation corridors and wrapping around the bases and lowe r slopes of the hills . •The Downtown Core of the city was laid out in a rectilinear fashion oriented toward both San Luis Obisp o Creek (around the mission), and later around the railroad tracks . This resulted in an unusual pattern oriente d at a 45-degree angle to the compass directions . This has resulted in long view corridors in the Downtown are a with excellent views of the nearby and prominent morros and mountains . •Although San Luis Obispo has areas with gridiron street layouts, the branch-like form of the town an d intervening features such as hills have prevented a single, uniform grid from being extended throughout th e community. Instead, local neighborhood street patterns are generally determined by the major road corridor s that border them . •Natural visual landmarks in San Luis Obispo include Los Osos and Edna Valleys, the morros, the Santa Luci a Mountains, Irish Hills, Laguna Lake, San Luis Obispo Creek, Bishop Peak, and Cerro San Luis Mountain . •The City of San Luis Obispo recognizes more than 700 historic properties, some of which are recognized a s State and National Landmarks . State Historic Land marks in the City include the Mission San Luis Obispo d e Tolosa, the Ah Louis Store on Palm Street and the Dallidet Adobe on Pacific Street . Historic properties on th e National Register located in the City include, the Ah Louis Store, the Myron Angel House, the Jack House, th e former Pacific Coast Railway Company Warehouse, the Carnegie Library, the Shipsey House, and the Tribun e Republic Building. ■ San Luis Obispo has five identified Historic Districts : Old Town, Downtown, Chinatown, Mill Street, an d Railroad . San Luis Obispo scenic corridors of high scenic value include : U .S . Highway 101 (from the southern City Limit t o Marsh Street), South Higuera Street (between Prado Road and the southern City Limit, Broad Street (betwee n Perkins lane and the southern City Limit), Tank Farm Road (between Broad and Higuera Street ; and east of th e UPRR tracks), Johnson Avenue (in the vicinity of Bishop Street), Los Osos Valley Road (west of Laguna Lane t o the City limit), and Santa Rosa Street (between Boysen Avenue and the northern City Limit). ■Unlike many cities, San Luis Obispo lacks one single residential neighborhood that would be identified as it s "signature" neighborhood . This is true in part because the architectural styles found in San Luis Obispo refl e the variety of influences from particular periods of growth over the last 200 years . ■The scale of structures and overall size of the community helps maintain the character of a "small town," wit h many visual and physical connections to the surrounding natural landscape . Administrative Draft Background Report September 2012 SS2-68 Page • • ATTACHMENT 6 San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e Open Spac e •The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan includes five categories of open space land : undeveloped lan d generally free of structures, land designated as Open Space on the Land Use Diagram, land designated a s Interim Open Space on the Land Use Diagram, and land owned by the City and intended for long-ter m preservation of open space resources . •A total of 4,081 acres of open space and other natural areas are in the San Luis Obispo Planning Area . •Most open space land, or 3,639 acres, is held in open space easements . The City also manages 4,081 acres of open space areas, 62 percent of which is managed under adopted Conservation Plans . •The City of San Luis Obispo has adopted seven Conservation Plans for large, City-owned opgn space areas : Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, Cerro San Luis Natural Reserve, Irish Hills Natural Reserve, Johnson Ranch, Sout h Hills Natural Reserve, Stenner Springs Natural Reserve, and Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve . Page 4 September 2012 Administrative Drafesategd Report ATTACHMENT 6 Circulatio n Pedestria n •Based on the 2010 American Community Survey, walking is the mode of travel for approximately 4 .3 percen t of journey to work trips in southern San Luis Obispo County (including the City of San Luis Obispo), which i s greater than the California average of 2 .7 percent. ■The General Plan goal to make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians has see n progress through installation of bulbouts, protected mid-block crossings and new curb ramps . The full exten t of the goal has not been realized, and the City does not yet have a downtown pedestrian plan . ■Several pedestrian crossing signals are not equipped with countdown displays and permit crossing whil e vehicular left and/or right turning movements are permitted . •Many of the City's sidewalks continue to deteriorate as a result of weather, growth of tree roots,an d challenges with limited maintenance resources . Bicycles •Based on the 2010 American Community Survey, 1 .3% of commuters in San Luis Obispo commute by bik e compared with the state average of only 1 .0%. •The total linear length of the bicycle network within the City of San Luis Obispo is 37 .8% the length of its tota l roadway network excluding US 101 . •Bicycle volumes are highest along the Foothill Boulevard Corridor with intersections being measured at ove r 100 bikes per hour, but counts indicate that bicycle activity is not particularly concentrated at any one locatio • Transit •Transit ridership trends have steadily increased over the past five years . Ridership is distributed unevenl y between Cal Poly students (62%) and other transit users (i .e . permanent residents and tourists). SLO Transit Ridership set a new record of 1,118,000+ passengers carried in FY 2011-12 and Ridership has increased 10 % over the previous year in the first two months of FY 2012-13 . 'Early morning service (before 6 :00 AM) is not provided on any routes . Evening service (after 6 :30 PM) is not provided on routes 1, 2 and 3 on weekdays . Evening service (after 6 :30 PM) is not provided on any routes o n weekends . ■Headways on SLO Transit range from 30 minutes to 1 hour on weekdays . Routes serving Cal Poly maintain 30 - minute headways during the day and 1-hour headways in the evening on weekdays . Route 1 is not offered o n weekends . Routes 6a and 6b do not run on Sundays . •Demand response services (i .e ., dial a ride) have been reduced in frequency or are restricted to specific area s of the county on certain days of the week as a result of reduced funding for private and public programs . ▪SLO Transit manages seven bus routes ; however, no routes (either City or Regional) provide direct access t o the County airport, and no routes provide east/west access in the southern portion of the city . •Unmet transit needs submitted to SLOCOG during its 2012-13 outreach period include : improved connection s or transfers between SLO Transit and SLORTA, continued improvement of bike lane or shoulder conditions fo r bicyclists when a bus is present, and improved lighting at certain bus stops . in the city . Administrative Draft Background Report September 2012 SS2-70 Page ATTACHMENT 6 San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e Vehicula r S • Between 2001 and 2010, maintained City road miles increased from 116 .93 miles to 126 .55 miles, an increase o f 9 .62 miles or 8 .2 percent . Growth in City maintained roadway miles was primarily the result of annexations o f County roadways . Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) on City owned roadways increased by 24 percent during thi s period - growing from 418,670 VMT to 521,600 VMT . This equates to approximately 10,700 daily trips utilizin g the 9 .62 miles of new City miles of roadway added since 2001 . Conversely, VMT growth on state highways withi n the County of San Luis Obispo grew by just 2 percent during this same period (Source : Highway Performanc e Monitoring System .Data). •Despite substantial increases in VMT, the City's Traffic Safety Program has reduced overall crashes within the Cit y by over 50% since 2002 . In 2009 the City received the international Public Agency Achievement award from th e Institute of Traffic Engineers and recognized as an industry leader for its innovate work in traffic safety . Multimodal Syste m •A sample of thirteen City roadways were analyzed for Complete Streets performance based on the Highwa y Capacity Manual Multi-modal Level of Service (LOS) methodology . General findings as follows : •Pedestrian LOS is good (B, C or D) along most roadways analyzed . Poor LOS scores were typically recorde d where pedestrian wait times are long at signalized intersections or where adjacent vehicular traffic is hig h speed . 'Transit service LOS was determined to be fair to poor (Cc E or F) on most study roadways . While transit servic e is provided along many corridors under analysis, service frequencies are typically greater than 30 minute s which results in poor LOS scores where transit service is provided . Generally speaking, higher frequencie s allow travelers more flexibility to take transit when they need to, as opposed to being reliant on the fe w scheduled occasions that service operates . All transit agencies strive to offer high frequencies within the limit s of their funding . However, frequently this goal runs at odds with providing efficient routing . 'Bike LOS is good (B, C or D) along most study roadways . Note that LOS A has an extremely high standard , equivalent to the experience of a Class Ifaciliity (separated bike path). The only segment with LOS A is th e southbound segment of California Boulevard, which has a Class I bike path between Foothill Boulevard an d Hathway Avenu e •Peak hour auto LOS is good (B, C or D) along study roadways . Segments with fair to poor LOS (E or F) wer e primarily constrained at/by intersection operations . LOS F is assigned to intersections for which traffic volum e exceeds the intersection capacity . Parking Y , •The city owns and maintains 3,093 parking spaces in .the commercial core with 25% in eight surface lots, 38 % in three parking structures and the remainder (37%) in street parking . On street parking is generally provided throughout the community . Within some residential areas, on-stree t parking is regulated through specialized residential parking permits . The three parking structures (842 Palm, 871 Marsh, and 919 Palm) within the city averaged 46%, 51% and 81 % average occupancy respectively in 2010 suggesting that sufficient parking resources are available most of th e time . Peak periods of structure use periodically occur on Thursday nights (Farmers Market), on weekends , and during the holiday season when the structures are used near or at capacity . Page 6 September 2012 Administrative DrafSSaJuobd Report ATTACHMENT 6 Parking revenues in 2010 did not fully cover operating and maintenance costs to maintain and enhance th e city's parking infrastructure .- • Rail •San Luis Obispo is currently served by eight passenger train trips . One terminating in Seattle, one tri p terminating in Los Angeles, three trips terminating in San Diego, and three trips that terminate at San Lui s Obispo . •San Luis Obispo's existing rail infrastructure is privately owned by Union Pacific . Passenger servic e improvements must be negotiated with the needs of existing freight services that use the same infrastructure . •Complementary strategic plans for service improvements have been prepared by Caltrans, Amtrak an d LOSSAN . Airports •Four municipal airports are located within approximately 30 miles of the City of San Luis Obispo : Ocean o County Airport, Paso Robles Municipal Airport, San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) and Santa Mari a Public Airport . •At present, air travel through SBP is does not meet the levels anticipated in the 2006 Airport Master Plan . At the peak for enplanements in 2007, SBP had approximately 180,000 departing passengers . In 2011, SBP ha d approximately 137,000 departing and 135,000 arriving passengers . •The airport is accessible by bicycle, personal auto, taxi and shuttle . Neither local nor regional transit agencie s serve the airport . •Freight, or non-passenger, air transportation service contributes to regional growth and development . •The City does not have authority over SBP activities . The FAA, State and County together have authority ove r such activities . The County is the primary body responsible for operating the airport . •Airports generate noise and safety impacts that extend well beyond their boundaries and affect land use s around them . The County Airport Land Use Commission is responsible for preparing an Airport Land Use Pla n that addresses land use compatibility in the environs of airports within its jurisdiction . Administrative Draft Background Report September 2012 SS2-72 Page 7 • ATTACHMENT 6 San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e Infrastructur e Water •The city obtains water from five sources : Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), Whale Rock Reservoir , Nacimiento Reservoir, recycled water from the city's WRF, and groundwater . •The city has a total of 9,950 acre-feet (AF) of available water resources . This includes 6,940 AF from th e Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs, 3,380 AF from the Nacimiento Reservoir, and 130 AF of recycled water . •Recycled water is used for landscaping, wetlands, wildlife habitat, stream augmentation, groundwate r recharge, toilet flushing, vehicle washing, and industrial cooling processes in various locations in the City . Wastewate r •The City is the sole provider of wastewater service within the City . The City also provides service to the Sa n Luis Obispo campus of California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) and the County of San Luis Obisp o Airport . •The Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) has a design capacity for dry-weather flow of 5 .2 million gallon s per day (MGD). ■ Both the collection system and WRF must address infiltration and inflow associated with wet-weather . Storm Drainag e • There is a significant amount of existing development within the floodplain of San Luis Obispo Creek , especially in the downtown area . •Policies and regulations have ; been established by the City for the floodplain that are more stringent than NFI P regulations, with special rules to address infill and redevelopment in the downtown floodplain area . • Flooding occurrences along San Luis Obispo Creek have typically been between the 10 and 25 year events . •The legacy Unocal Petroleum Tank Farm site (now Chevron) is contaminated with hazardous materials nea r Tank Farm Creek and wetlands . Chevron's proposal to remediate and develop the site will include measure s to address storm drainage . Other Utilitie s •Southern California Gas Company maintains two large natural gas pipelines that form a ring around the Cit y limits running adjacent to Buckley Road, Broad Street, and South Street/101 . Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is the only purveyor of electricity in the Planning Area . 'Three trans-Pacific fiber optic cable landings in Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo, and Grover Beach combine t o make the central coast one of the largest international telecommunications hubs on the West Coast . 'The City of San Luis Obispo and Cal Poly jointly operate a fiber optic cable ring used exclusively for City service s and educational purposes . •Digital West, in collaboration with the City of San Luis Obispo, has completed a fiber ring in 2012 bringing hig h speed connectivity to businesses in several San Luis Obispo corridors . Page 8 September 2012 Administrative Drafesar?tsd Report ATTACHMENT 6 Public Services and Utilitie s 'The San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) operates six elementary schools, one middle school, on e high school, and one continuation high school within the San Luis Obispo Study Area . There are also man y other schools within the larger Planning Area, including charter schools, an alternative education school , private schools, Cuesta Community College, and California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo . ■ While SLCUSD enrollment steadily decreased from its peak in 1997-1998, enrollment increased during the pas t three years (2009-2010 through 2011-2012). •San Luis Obispo Schools maintained an average ratio of 21 students per teacher . ■ The San Luis Obispo County Library operates 15 branches, one of which is located is within the San Luis Obisp o Planning Area . •The San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) operates out of four fire stations (Stations One through Four ) located throughout the city . •SLOFD has an ISO rating of Class 2 on a scale from 1 through 10 where Class 1 is considered the best rating . 'A total of 51 .8 full time employees work at the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department (SLOFD) as of June 2012 . •SLOFD meets National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guideline 1710 for the necessary 14 firefighters o n duty to fight the average structure fire, but only Station One has the four person team recommended by NFP A guideline 1710 and OSHA to enter a burning structure . •The San Luis Obispo .Police Department (SLOPD) is staffed with 83 .5 full and part time employees, 57 of whic h are sworn police officers, as of July 2012 .• •SLOPD's current (2012) staffing ratio is 1 .27 officers per 1,000 residents, which is lower than the most othe r police departments in the region and is below the comparable state average of comparable communitie s (1 .38). •Crime in San Luis Obispo decreased from 2007 to 2010 by about 11 percent, but increased from 2010 to 201 1 by about 6 percent . •There are three solid waste disposal facilities within San Luis Obispo County . Most solid waste collected in th e City is disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill . 'Since 2008, the San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste Management Authority has achieved the County's diversio n target of 65 percent, including an overall 66 percent diversion rate for population and employment in 2010 . Parks and Recreatio n • There are currently (2012) 27 parks in the city, (9 community parks, 10 neighborhood parks, 8 mini parks),6 joint use facilities, as well as and several recreation centers (e .g . the Ludwick Community Center and Senio r Center) and special facilities (e .g . Damon Garcia Sports Fields and the SLO Swim Center). In addition t o developed parks, the City also has substantial open space resources (described earlier). ■In addition to parks facilities, there are several special recreation facilities and sites within San Luis Obispo , including : the Laguna Lake Golf Course, San Luis Obispo Swim Center, Jack House, Ludwick Community Center , Senior Center, Meadow Park Center, Laurel Lane Community Gardens, Broad Street Community Gardens,' Emerson Park Community Gardens and Meadow Park Community Gardens . Administrative Draft Background Report September 2012 SS2-74 Page 9 ATTACHMENT 6 San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e Environmental Resource s •Aesthetic s ▪The City is located in a visually outstanding location, with the volcanic morros, Santa Lucia Mountains, ope n space, and agricultural lands providing a scenic backdrop framing the City . ■Because it combines a compact urban form in a rural setting, the City does not have one character, bu t several, transitioning from urban in its downtown core to more suburban along its edges,with neighborhood s exhibiting different visual qualities depending on when they were developed . •Unlike many cities, San Luis Obispo does not feature one residential neighborhood that stands out visually, o r is considered obviously more affluent than others, nor does it feature many neighborhoods in obvious decline . This is true in part because of the eclectic visual nature of the architecture throughout the City, which span s eras dating from the Spanish Mission period to today . ■The Downtown Core of the City was laid out in a rectilinear fashion and at a 45-degree angle to the compas s directions . This orientation can lead to some confusion in that very few roadways in the City run in a tru e north-south direction . Agricultural Resource s ■While the city is urbanized, and does not include areas for large-scale agriculture within its boundaries, it is i n the heart of an agricultural region, and functions as a commercial hub for agricultural sales, promotion an d distribution of local products through its farmers markets and grocery stores . It is also used as a base for ag - related tourism, such as winery touring . •Small scale agriculture is successfully practiced within the city's four community gardens, which have man y community benefit s ■The City is surrounded by open space and agricultural areas, some of which include prime soils . Biological Resource s •San Luis Obispo is located ina rural area surrounded by _a diverse mosaic of natural communities and man y special-status species . Within-the city, various creeks and their related riparian habitat are important urba n biological features that provide connectivity corridors supporting a rich diversity of plant and animal life . ■With the acquisition of open space and the dedication to creating a functional green belt around the Cit y urban area ; the City is currently working on plans and policies for the maintenance and stewardship o f community open space through the "SLO Stewards "program . By taking advantage of opportunities for environmental restoration as a requirement for development activities, such as those envisioned under the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, the City has established a means t o help ensure that that the loss of important habitat is mitigated . Cultural Resource s •The City has applied for and has been recently granted status as a "Certified Local Government "(CLG) throug h the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) upon adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance . Thi s status gives the City the ability to apply for grant funding through OHP for historic preservation through thei r annual grant cycle and provides the City with the tools, training and leadership to protect key resources . Page 10 September 2012 Administrative Draf Sar7i5d Report ATTACHMENT 6 •The City Cultural Heritage Committee is currently updating the Historic Resources Inventory . The first phase o f the inventory update includes an evaluation of residential neighborhoods outside of the historic distric t boundaries . Future surveys will occur following completion of a historic context statement . The surveys wil l identify historic resources while examining whether adjustments to district boundaries are warranted . •The City has grown around the historic Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa and much of the current downtow n development lies on top of significant cultural resources including Native American sites, Mission-era histori c archaeological resources as well as historic resources from early European settlement, giving the City th e opportunity to protect and study these resources as the community develops and evolves . •Many historic buildings in the Downtown were subject to the City's seismic retrofit program and have bee n rehabilitated thus ensuring their continued viability as cultural resources for the City . Through its Genera l Plan policies and related implementation measures, the City balances cultural resource preservation wit h other community goals . Geology and Soil s •The Los Osos Fault, adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo, is identified under the State of California Alquist - Priolo Fault Hazards Act . Other faults in the vicinity of San Luis Obispo are the West Huasna, Oceanic, an d Edna faults . These faults are considered potentially active and present a moderate fault rupture hazard t o developments near them . •The Hosgri-San Simeon fault system is located adjacent to the city and is also considered to be active by th e USGS . The San Simeon fault was responsible for the December 22, 2003 magnitude 6 .5 earthquake . •The segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone closest to San Luis Obispo was given an earthquake recurrenc e interval of 206 years with an 18% probability of rupturing between 1994 and 2024 . ■The City established a program to reduce the hazards posed by unreinforced masonry buildings (URMs) i n accordance with California State Laws . During the 1990s, all URMs in the City of San Luis Obispo wer e identified and comprehensive structural analyses were completed . Subsequent to the San Simeon Earthquak e in 2003, the City established a URM hazard mitigation program due to the high concentration of UR M buildings in the City 's downtown . To date, the hazard has been mitigated in 109 of the original 126 UR M buildings identified . Administrative Draft Background Report September 2012 SS2-76 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 6 San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e Hazards and Hazardous Material s •Fire Hazard s •The SLOFD is a member of a countywide team that responds to hazardous materials incidents throughout Sa n Luis Obispo County . Hazardous Material s In 1926,a lightning strike ignited a major fire at the San Luis Obispo tank farm (located on Tank Farm'Road), destroying many of the tanks and reservoirs and releasing several million barrels of crude oil . The City and County of San Luis Obispo are currently co-lead agencies in the preparation of an environmenta l impact report for the remediation and redevelopment of the tank farm site . Airport Hazard s • According to the Airport Land Use Plan, the consideration of airport safety factors has led to the delineation o f "safety areas" with respect to aviation safety risks . Although these areas are delineated, the figures are no t geo-referenced and establishing on-the-ground reference points using the delineated safety areas is difficult . The opportunity exists to use up-to-date GIS mapping to ensure that theseareas are properly identified . •Existing earthen walls and berms associated with the SLO Tank Farm located near the end of the airpor t runway pose a safety concern to outgoing flights in the event of an emergency landing immediately after take - off . The City is currently working with Chevron representatives and the ALUC on a solution that will likel y involve the partial removal of these structures . Hazardous Tree s •Some of the downtown street trees are reaching the limits of their lifespan . As trees begin to decay, th e opportunity exists to replace the trees with species less likely to cause damage to City sidewalks an d infrastructure . Hydrology and Water Qualit y Drainage and Flood Hazard s •Substantial portions of the City are located in the 100-Year Flood Plain, most notably the downtown area . •Flood damage patterns in the developed area of downtown were observed during the floods of 1969, 1973 , and 1995, which caused substantial property damage . This included the flooding of street-front businesses , and fiboding of low-lying intersections such as the intersection of Higuera and Marsh Streets and the Johnso n Street railroad underpass . •Flooding events in the City are commonly short-lived as local waterways typically reach and then decline fro m flood stage in a matter of hours . Tidal influence on local streams can affect the timing and intensity o f flooding events . •The City is not affected by coastal flooding or tsunami/seiche events . However, the water suppl y infrastructure from Whale Rock Reservoir to the City has the potential to be damaged during earthquake o r subsequent flooding . •Overgrown vegetation within local streams and creeks, like San Luis Creek, has the potential to exacerbat e flooding events by clogging drainage features and creating obstacles to flowing floodwaters . • Page 12 September 2012 Administrative Drafe$(tgrWd Report ATTACHMENT 6 Water Qualit y •According to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the two most important sources o f pollutants to the larger watershed are uncontrolled sediment and agricultural runoff. •The City has embraced the use of Low Impact development strategies to guide future development, consisten t with RWQCB principles . •Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo area is considered suitable for agricultural water supply, municipa l and domestic supply, and industrial use (RWQCB 1994). • • Administrative Draft Background Report September 2012 SS2-78 Page 13, • • 1 ATTACHMENT 7 July 28, 2012 Open House s Comment s Elks Lodge 9 :30- 11 :30 a m Good Things Area E Meadow Park area is a great place to live, close proximity t o everythin g Bad Thing s Area A •Walking on streets without sidewalks is dangerou s Area E Meadow Park needs to let us pla y Great Ideas Area A •Move Gas and Water meters closer to houses making sidewalks safe r •Parking permit attached to business license for R1 "Retail" •Off street parking for rental units in Residential neighborhood s •Partnership between city and home owners for installation o f sidewalk s Area E •Finish homeless campus on Prado Roa d •Business card with homeless services listed, phone number plus smal l map 0 Swim Center 12 :30- 2 :30 pm Good Things Area A •Bike friendl y Well maintaine d •Safe, low crim e •Great view s •Close to hikin g •Quie t Area E •Nice downtow n •Easy access to downtow n •Bike facilitie s •Good neighbor s •Close to adult schoo l •Maintain open space •Proximity to fire statio n •Theater productions at Unity Churc h •Railroad trail- great for exercise and access to downtow n •The YMCA ' •The Laurel Lane Marke t •Sinsheimer Park- poo l •Baseball stadiu m •Business at corner of Orcutt and Broad Stree t Bad Things Area A •Not many young families, childre n •Nice to have another close grocery store besides Albertson s 1 SS2-7 9 2 ATTACHMENT 7 •Walk to downtown requires going under 101 overpas s •Neighbors not very socia l Area E •Need sidewalks in neighborhood (area E ) •Water going across Laurel Lane intersection with South wood, ha s caused accident s •Sorry to see Scholaris close (community feel) no more box store s Graffiti tag s •Need families in neighborhood s •Part time or rentals that turn over, can ruin neighborhood connection s •High school traffi c •Proposed Johnson area housing projec t Great idea s Area A •Better sound barriers on 10 1 •Improve walk from neighborhood to downtow n Area E •New playground equipment for Sinsheimer Par k •Sunshades for all playground s •Finish bike trail from train station to Cal Pol y •A restaurant on Broad Street between Orcutt and Santa Barbar a •Expand the trail in both direction s •More plants and trees between trail and railroad tracks to act as a green buffe r •More neighborhood wide special project s •Staircase to railroad trail s •We need additional ways to cross the railroad tracks between Orcut t and the Jennifer street bridg e •Railroad crossing- expand bike trail s •Provide homeless housin g •Block partie s •Neighborhood Facebook page or website to promote neighborhoo d relationships •Walk streets- pedestrian alley access - Area F •Make list of questions and go to where people are and have the m complete a surve y •Forecasting : Make up scenarios for example traffi c •Model split parkin g •Put revised LUCE elements to a public vot e •Document not only our best solution, but also alternatives and wh y they were discarde d Laurel Creek Community Room 3 :00- 5 :00 pm Good Thing s Area E • • Weather, small-town fee l Downtown is pleasin g Bad Things Area D I •Homeless smoking in bus shelters in front of kids 2 SS2-80 • • • • 3 ATTACHMENT 7 • • • • • • • • • • SB gives homeless free bus tickets to SL O Mother and son living in trees next to Rail road, and kid goes to schoo l Too much cut through traffic on Bucho n Sacramento Drive has some challenges (accidents ) Sacramento Drive is banked in wrong direction, not safe for bike s Cars speeding on Sacramento Drive (6 accidents in the last year ) Homeless, leaving trash and living in creek s Homeless knocking on Laurel Creek doors, hassling resident s Neighborhood up kee p Complete build out of Laurel Cree k Area E • • Rented properties are allowed to deteriorate to an unsafe leve l We need to inspect all rental properties and require owners to kee p them up to code and saf e Area F • • • Make Higuera and Marsh two way from Johnson to Santa Rosa to kee p traffic out of Buchon/Pismo Neighborhoo d Santa Rosa Southbound to Marsh Eastbound needs a dedicated tur n arrow priority, currently has none - Too many decorative cubby holes create pigeon problem s Great Ideas Area A • • Allow PAC parking for students at reduced rate during non- PAC hour s to discourage students parking in neighborhoods - this would make Ca l Poly a good neighbor (passes could be prioritized based on GPA ) Create neighborhood commercial and medium density and mixed us e on large parcel at Daly and Jeffrey Area E • • City fund that provides low interest loans for photovoltaic installations , repaid to city via property tax assessment on parce l More connected bike path s Area F • • • • Re- direct parking fund toward alternate mode s If you make it easier to walk/bike to town then less parking will b e neede d City owned small incubator commercial retail space downtown to hel p local small businesse s Class 1 bike path from Foothill neighborhoods to Downtown (Alon g creek, west of Santa Rosa down to Broad) 3 SS2-8 1 4 ATTACHMENT 7 4 SS2-82 5 ATTACHMENT 7 • Closer view of input from a younge r SLO resident who attended the Laure l Creek open house . 5 SS2-83 6 ATTACHMENT 7 September 29, 2012 Open House s Comment s 9 :30-11 :30 am New Frontiers Natural Market Good Things Area B • • • • • Proximity to New Frontiers and Madonna Rd Businesse s San Luis MTN!! Proximity to Downtow n Nice Neighbors (in general ) Communal Garden (Broad ) Area A • • • Foothill Bank/Grocery/Et c Anholm Par k Lincoln MRKT Area F • • • Increase in mixed-use business and living example : corner of Johnso n and Montere y Outdoor Eatin g Art After Dar k Bad Things Area A • • • • • • • • • • • Need more bike lanes/signag e Need more pocket parks like Anhol m Disc Gold Course needed on north side of tow n Expand green belt around Bishops Pea k Make foothill more bike walker friendl y Highway 1 N . Entrance Needs Definition and wor k Running Trail Networ k Parking (in SB it's 1 .5 Hours ) Need more bike path s Decent department stores neede d Increasing traffic congestio n Homeless Services ! Area E •Bishops Street Extensio n Area C • • • • • • • • • Lack of walking access to bike trail from Prado Rd (Bill Roalman Park ) Los Verdes 1&2 -One exit/entry onto truck laden road . Left turns a proble m Los Verdes 1&2 walkability to Trader Joes is lackin g Homeless population sleeping in the cree k Single women living in Los Verdes-theft from mailboxe s Los Verdes 1&2 No access to walkable areas aroun d Palos Verdes 1&2 Homeless on Suburban panhandle-affects walkabilit y Lack of egress from Los Verdes to Los Osos Valley Roa d Connect trail by sewage treatment plant to something so it doesn't dead-end . Not safe to walk it . Great ideas 1 SS2-84 • • • 7 ATTACHMENT 7 Area B •Incorporate the arts in more public event s •More bike path s •More neighborhood shoppin g Area A •Bike only parts of downtown/Foothill/Santa Rosa through t o downtow n •Better control of student noise pollution/partie s •Improved bike lane s •Cal poly car free •Crosswalk where Marsh ends at California and where Higuera crosses Johnson would improve walking . The green paint at Monterey an d California has really helped cars seem to be paying more attention t o pedestrian s •More bike only areas expand green belt(Bishops ) •More pocket parks (like Anholm ) •More City Parks (Linear Parks ) Area F •Intersection at Chorro and Monterey (see scanned drawing ) •Guerilla Gardening- put Street trees on Mill between Johnson an d Santa Rosa • 12 :30-2 :30 pm Zion Church Good Things Area A •More people seem to be walkin g •Location To Cal Poly Walkin g •Great Friend s •Need more parking districts in residential neighborhoods with a simpler procedure for creation . 2 SS2-8 5 8 ATTACHMENT 7 •More people are walking or biking in the neighborhood to get to Ca l Poly or the supermarket . Bad Things Area A •California E/B on bike path (I) turning right onto Foothill W/B bike lan d (H) is dangerous . Drivers turning left from CA WB onto Foothill EB d o not expect cyclists to be entering bike land from sidewalk/bike path . •City residents voted for measure Y, with "neighborhood street repair " being the #1 item on the ballot . Yet some streets in the Upper Bishop s Peak Neighborhood have significant problems, and the City's respons e to requests from residents for neighborhood street repair has been t o tell residents that the city adopted a neighborhood street repai r "rotation" system and the upper Bishops Peak neighborhood resident s will have to wait several years for street repairs, even if it is neede d now . (the commercial downtown "neighborhood" does not have t o wait ... it gets "as needed repairs") •Proposed Neighborhood 1 boundary is too large, encompassing, ver y distinct neighborhoods of very different character . These differen t neighborhoods fit together like a puzzle but it would be a disaster t o come up with a list of "one size fits all" generic features and to/ t o superimpose these features on all of the different neighborhoods . Fo r example, proposed neighborhood #1 has; a neighborhood o f multifamily student housing and commercial development ; older singl e family, smaller lot size neighborhoods on relatively flat land ; newe r neighborhoods around and including Ferrini Ranch Annex area ... characterized by large lot residential lots reaching into the lowe r foothills of Bishops Peak ; Higher on Bishops Peak are established , "large lot subdivisions" adjacent to City's natural Open Space Reserve . These neighborhoods are characterized by large, often steep, hillsid e lots, ranging up to two and three aces, and they provide additiona l habitat for flocks of quail, hawks, deer, various species of foxes , bobcats and other birds and animals who live or range into this ' transition area neighborhood . Within these large lot, Bishops Pea k hillside neighborhoods, there are also a number of relatively short, cul - de-sacs which were intentionally laid out, and continue to have, n o sidewalks . Trying to superimpose a list of one size fits all generi c features on all of these neighborhood would not reflect the specifi c issues and problems of those neighborhoods . For example, mos t residents of the neighborhoods higher on Bishop's Peak value thei r neighborhood's hillside character and the vast majority do not wan t sidewalks generically superimposed on cul- de- sacs which do not have - them . •The city's Conservation and Open Space element of the general pla n states that the city will consider allowing passive recreation in ope n space where it will not degrade or significantly impact open spac e resources and where there are no significant neighborhoo d compatibility impacts . Relatively new city and city-sanctione d aggressive advertising of the Bishops Peak natural open space as a 3 SS2-86 • • • 9 ATTACHMENT 7 • tourist attraction have create very significant conflicts with the uppe r Bishops Peak residential neighborhoods surrounding the tw o trailheads, especially the Highland Drive Trailhead . There was no inpu t from the residential neighborhoods who are affected before th e aggressive advertising began . Aggressive advertising of Bishop Peak a s a tourist attraction must be reconsidered with extensive input for m the residential neighborhoods being impacted . City needs to enforc e the hours of use of the open space adjacent to and impactin g residential neighborhoods . Foothill bike lane in county into city is uncomfortable . •Foothill/Santa Rosa Intersection hard to cross on bike -noisy and scary . •Univ Square has a problem with vacancies . •Lack of safety around Pacheco school because all the students ar e • driven to it and also because the staff parks on the street instead of parking in their parking lot . Create a loading zone on Ferrini where al l can converge . Also needs a hedge along drop off . Foothill Blvd is very dangerous to cross it needs a median from Patrici a • to California, preferably with trees to calm down traffi c City property at the corner of N . Chorro and Santa Rosa needs to b e • cleaned up and sidewalk finished . Presently, pedestrians (man y students) share the road with cars . Stores in Univ Square are almost all empty . What is going to happen t o • Univ Square Curbs are not being painted red . •There is a huge difference between the neighborhood up on the hil l and the neighborhood directly north of Foothill . The later suffer fro m high student rentals, blight, lack of parking, etc . Area F •Not much downtown except restaurants and bar s •More opportunities for recreatio n •No place for adults to shop-Need Macy's or Nordstroms– have to go t o • Santa Barbara or nort h No good places to shop for people over 20 Avoid using large buses i n summertime and Christmas time ... go to smaller vehicle s Great Idea s Area A •Rentals for Cuesta and Cal Poly students cause blight . Cuesta =0 • housin g Code enforcement for blight, parking, treat Rentals as a Busines s • Regular Inspectio n Landlords don't care-Absentee landlords . Inspections on a regula r • basi s Formalize Hiking paths around Madonna Mountai n •Increase access points to it informal to forma l •Foothill Plaza "Functioning Place" bar a few vacancie s •Can people doing community service paint the curbs re d •Create Drop-off area for Pacheco School on Ferrini Rd to force the staff to park in the school parking lot and free the space for parents . Ask 4 SS2-8 7 10 ATTACHMENT 7 the School District to comply with CEQA mitigation and plant a hedg e along the parking/drop-off to separate it from the street and improv e safety-again this CEQA requirement has been ignored . Parking Zone s•w/ Cell Phone Technolog y •More Attention to our problems and less attention to downtow n Area F •Bicycle "Bridge" along RR Tracks from Marsh to Mill then cross over t o meet California •More opportunities for recreation and entertainment downtown fo r youth Or . high/ high school ages ) Area B •Bike Path Connecting Madonna Bike Path to Laguna Lak e Neighborhood s Area D •Bike Path Connections to Vineyard s •Bike Path Connections on Westside of UPR R •Bike Path Connections to Trader Joes 3 – 5 pm Senior Center Good Thing s Area F • • • • • • • • • • Friendly/Caring Neighbor s Well-kept historical home s Jennifer St . Bridge over track to Ped Path is Awesom e Convenient walking to downtow n Good communication w/ city gov't (e .g . surveys ) I love the Bike Happening! It is a great opportunity to get people ou t on their bikes and have fun . It's a great event, NOT a critical mass . Differences? Bike Hap i s 1 . Positive vib e 2 . Law-abidin g 3 . Inspires/unifies community . The Noise Ordinanc e All of my friends and family who will never attend one of thes e planning meetings Tunnel s SLO Bike Coalition . Educates people how to maintain/fix their bike . Provides a service . Needs more space . Area A • • • Separate Bike path along Californi a Bishops Pea k MTN-Bike Trails- Legal or otherwis e Bad Things Area F • • • • • No Local Market (e .g . Scolaris ) Cut Through Traffic on Buchon between Santa Rosa and Johnso n Need for better bicycle access/connectio n Prohibitive laws about keeping chickens in the yard s Same as any city . National communication companies are neve r 5 SS2-8 8 • 11 ATTACHMENT 7 • • • • • • • • • prosecuted for failing to deliver on promises of access and bandwidth , or for failing to quote rates which have anything to do with the actua l rates charged . People who cannot afford lawyers are regularl y harassed by police, while large companies can fearlessly defraud entir e cities . Anytime property is forced or pressured to change by a city employe e for failing to match or fit the character of the neighborhoo d The wide spread smell of Abercrombie & Fitc h The City-Wide ban on smokin g SLO is feeling more and more like a police state . Anything that happen s outside of the "norm" is treated with suspicion or a citation . Suppres s expression, which is legal by the way ... SLO police are cracking down on cyclists during the monthly Bik e Happening and just around town . Also a crack-down on the (ver y small) tall-bike community . WTF? This puts a negative message at t o cyclists and discourages people from riding . Let people have fu n regulate when necessary . Bicycle community feels targeted by SL O Police . The Noise Ordinance . "Enhanced Security Zone". Mandatory citation s in response to complaints . Nothing appear to be legal without a permi t The off-road bike path along California-both lengths of i t Remove bike lanes where car doors conflict with lane s Area A • • • Dangerous Bulb Out for Bikes at Chorro/Murra y Cost of wate r Interchange at Froom Ranch to Target – traffic backs up to Los Oso s Valley Roa d Area D •Worst Bicycle connection to from [Sinsheimer] path . No easy way t o access path from the south due to concrete islands on Orcutt . Great Idea s Area F • • • • • • • • More Mixed-Use neighborhoods . No Residential Subdivision s Comprehensive Citywide Traffic Calmin g Pedestrian Streets Downtown Walkable Cit y City Council Bike Tour of SLO! Get City Council on bikes in the city t o gain perspective . How can people make decisions about bicycl e infrastructure improvements if they never ride a bike ? On-line interactive survey dialog w/ neighborhoo d Want yield signs to replace stop sign s Permanent Street Art . In Portland, OR neighborhoods have com e together to paint vibrant patterns in some intersections . This i s beneficial b/c : 1 . Aesthetically pleasin g 2 . Traffic calmin g 3 . Connects people in the 'hood . Add a pedestrian path along SLO creek (outside of the Mission) to make it an enjoyable asset to the community . If people tak e ownership over a creek they enjoy, then there will be reports if the 6 SS2-8 9 12 ATTACHMENT 7 creek is getting trashed/polluted . Therefore, keeps the creeks cleane r and more useful as a wildlife corridor . •Repeal the most recent noise ordinanc e •Put signs or EDUCATE motorists that it is legal for cyclists to take th e lane . I don't think motorists recognize/understand sharrows . •Crosswalk at Leff/Osos/Santa Barbar a •Bike Path on both sides UPR R •Left Turn priority arrow at Santa Rosa and Marsh (Southbound ) •Be the first city to enforce honest transactions between consumer s and internet service providers . There are competitors who are read y to replace AT&T and Charter . Same with mobile service providers . Area A •Blinking Crosswalk @ Ferrini on Foothil l •Put Higher Density around University/Cal Pol y •Make Foothill more pedestrian friendly and beautiful at Ferrini t o Santa Ros a •Overall ordinance for rental property maintenance for neighborhood . Second This!!!!! Ye s •Monument Sign to SLO and Kiosk for Students at Santa Rosa an d Highlan d •Ped Crossing Separate from Cars at Santa Rosa/Foothil l •More Ped Friendly Foothill Between Santa Rosa and Ferrin i •Foothill/Chorro/Broad Intersection improvemen t •City should sign on to 2030 challeng e •New construction shall meet 2030 challenge . Net Zero and Energ y Efficien t •Arch Design Guidelines . Do not want everything looking the sam e •ADA access on street curb cuts •Night sky shielding of Street Lights • 7 SS2-9 0 13 ATTACHMENT 7 •Sub-areas used to identify source of comment s • SS2-91 ATTACHMENT 8 LAND USE & CIRCULATIO N U P D A T E Task Force Meetings held monthl y 3 rd Wednesday of the mont h City County Library until 2 nd Draft Plan is developed SS2-9 2 •S 7/20/2012 - 2/1/201 3 Issues, Opportunities, Vision 5/1/2013 - 8/30/201 3 Preferred Alternative/Policy Documen t 12/2/201 2 Background Report 1/31/201 3 Policy Evaluation Matri 6/30/201 4 Grant Deadline — Draft LUC E 12/21/201 2 orkshop 143 Summa 10/15/201 2 Workshop 42 Summary New Oi Newsl,o e Ian12-Apr12 gri=e ar 12 Ju yl/-Feb19 kg 4 .Kk¢4'R6a .2Fekk'May 13-101 1a .D 1/2/•012 4/1/2012 7/1/2012 10/ 2012 1/1 / 9/2 .2012 3 Oper Houses 7/28/201 2 3 Open Houses 12/3 012 Works op# 4/1/2013 Workshop 5/15/2011 7/1/2013 10/1/2013 1/1/2014 4/1/2014 6/3 0 5/8/2014 Workshop #6 1/22/201 4 Workshp #5 5/15/201 2 Workshop k1 9/22/201 2 Workshop #2 V 1/2/2012 - 12/3/201 2 LUCE - Background 1/1/2013 - 5/31/2013 Alternatives Development 9/2/2013 .10/31/201 4 LUCE Draft Documents/EIR