Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-2014 PH1 TF Luce Minority ReportsJanuary 7, 2014 SUBJECT: Task Force LUCE Minority Report Regarding Process and EIR Input Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council, Prior to presenting our Minority Report we would like to express our gratitude to the 2008 and 2012 City Councils for their affirmation of the importance to the City of residents and established neighborhoods. Both councils directed that the process of updating the Land Use and Circulation Elements was to be primarily resident and neighborhood based. Both councils directed that staff use legislative drafts to make proposed changes clear to residents, and both councils directed that the process start with primarily resident involvement. INTRODUCTION Each of you was elected by the residents of this city to look out for their welfare. We hope you will keep this in the forefront of your mind as you provide input to the EIR process and, later, when you review the Land Use Element (LUE) update and the Circulation Element (CE) update. PROCESS We are extremely disappointed that Council direction was not routinely followed. 1. Meetings in the neighborhoods. Although two Councils were very clear that this process begin with meetings in the neighborhoods, such meetings never occurred. It appeared they were not part of the update plans. When reminded (several times) of the requirement for neighborhood meetings, staff instead set up roving workshops where residents, city -wide, could drop in throughout the day. This process did not allow for individual residential groups to assemble and provide their comments and concerns and it severely diluted each neighborhood's input When queried about holding meetings at various elementary schools for neighborhoods in the area we were told the $100 cost was too expensive. However, there were sufficient funds available to pay half of the $10,000 speaking fee for Peter Kageyama and purchase at least twenty copies of his book, For the Love of Cities. The City sponsored an Economic Task Force to "inform" the LUE /CE. The Sierra Club asked for an Environmental Task Force; their request was denied. Residents didn't know they needed a Task Force because the General Plan is very clear about the City's requirement to ensure early involve- ment of residents and to hold meetings at convenient times and places within the neighborhoods. 2. Survey. Both Councils directed that the questionnaire be based on the 1988 questionnaire and include updated questions as needed. Instead questions were altered to the point that an accurate comparison could not be made. The reason given for the changes was to remove inflammatory language; however, substantive changes were, also, made. 3. Recorded votes, not consensus. Had it not been for the 2012 Council's specific direction, it is possible that assenting and dissenting votes would not have been recorded. Initially, as well as 1 periodically thereafter, it was necessary for staff and other task force personnel to be reminded of the requirement to proceed by recorded vote and not by consensus. On September 18, 2013, the Task Force received the first, partially completed, element from the consultants to review. Shortly thereafter repeated consensus "straw votes" were taken followed by official votes for each section because it was faster. 4. Council directed that definitions should be consistent with the present LUCE and any proposed changes should be treated like any other proposed language changes in Public hearings. The current definition of "infill" in the General Plan Glossary is development on vacant (emphasis added) sites which are essentially surrounded by urban development, and inside the City limits existing when this element was adopted. " Infill" is now used to denote development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas. A partial explanation of what this means can be found in the following statement that refers to new housing built within an existing neighborhood: A mix of housing types, and a range of density within a neighborhood is desirable. This implies that the San Luis Drive neighborhood and other established neighborhoods will be retrofitted with a mix of housing types, a range of density and new commercial development, including a grocery store. 5. Use of the LUE and CE Goals to wide the development of new policies and programs or revise existing ones. The Task Force and Planning Commission voted unanimously for the existing Goals in both elements to be the "Guiding Principles" for the development of new policies and programs. Council agreed. Thus, all proposed changes were to support the existing Goals prior to being provided for Task Force review. However, after approving some of the text changes, the Task Force was advised that some of the Goals might need to be revised in order to conform to new policies or programs. 6. Staff should identify what language it thinks needs to be updated, with documentation of said need. Documentation of need was often not provided. Many substantial changes had "style" or "clarity" shown as the reason for the change. 7. Legislative Draft. Both Councils directed that a legislative draft be used. The 2012 Council further directed that everyone needs to know at every stage exactly what language is being proposed for deletion (strike out), or addition (underlined), and by whom. Several task force members thought the Task Force would be reviewing the elements and preparing the legislative draft. However, that was not the case. The consultant team drafted all of the policy language in the legislative drafts. Then their proposed policy language was provided to the Task Force for consideration, putting Task Force members in the position of being reactive instead of proactive. MAIN DRIVER FOR THE UPDATE PROCESS We believe the update process was driven primarily by the grant application, not by the Council. The grant's primary focus was on infill, but infill was not mentioned in the 2008 Council's direction. The 2008 Council directed that the process was to be primarily resident and neighborhood based, but that was not in the grant application. It does not appear that the inclusion of infill was a requirement for grant approval because grant requests by other cities for General Plan updates that were approved at the same time as our grant request did not focus on infill nor on complete neighborhoods as ours does. 2 COMMUNITY OUTREACH We are, also, extremely disappointed in the community outreach process. The process that was chosen did not result in significant input from city residents. We think one of the reasons residents were not involved was the absence of meetings in the neighborhoods that, among other things, would have informed them of the process and their part in it. In general there was low resident attendance at workshops (about 50 each) and open houses (about 12 each). Attendance was higher at the Future Fairs with, we think, 125 being the highest number of attendees. This is a very small percentage of the City's 44,000 residents. The turnout of residents from neighborhoods that could be affected by proposed land use and /or circulation changes was not good either. Of approximately 38 neighborhoods that could potentially be affected by proposed update changes, only six were sent post cards and only on one occasion (after repeated queries to staff asking whether any of the affected neighborhoods would receive notification). Unfortunately, the post cards were unclear about what was being proposed and few residents responded. A few neighborhoods were energized, incidentally being informed on a someone - who - knew - someone basis... of those, four of the five were able to influence the outcome to some extent. When staff was asked why notification post cards were not sent to all affected neighborhoods, they said it was because of the cost. However, recently, informatively worded post cards were sent by the Police Department to every, or at least most, addresses in the city notifying residents of double fines during WOW Week. Apparently meaningful notification can occur. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION During the meetings that were held at the library, the only public comment allowed occurred at the end of the meeting, after the Task Force had discussed, deliberated and, in some cases, voted. Needless to say, after three or four meetings, attendance by the public was minimal. Meetings at City Hall were handled differently, with a public comment period at the beginning and several opportunities to speak throughout the meeting. Attendance improved, but it was still not good. A large percentage of the meetings had only a handful of residents or less. Participation was not easy for the public because, unlike Council agendas, Task Force agendas only generally described items /areas to be covered; it was not until later meetings that more specifics were shown. Occasionally, the Task Force did not know what it would be covering until the meeting began. In many cases too many sections were agendized and the Task Force did not complete all of them in the allotted three hours. Probably as a result of the lack of notice of topics to be covered and the inability to participate initially, there was minimal public input provided during meetings. City staff and consultant input were the primary sources of information that we considered. TASK FORCE ADVOCACY The vast majority of the task force had no history of being advocates for the preservation of the City's established neighborhoods. However, many of the task force members were board members of and /or active in organizations that advocate for real estate development interests. 3 SUMMARY In our opinion, the process failed to follow Council guidance at every step of the process. The City never received meaningful input from residents of the various neighborhoods concerning problems they want corrected or characteristics they liked about their unique neighborhoods and wanted to have protected, what city -wide problems they wanted to have corrected or what they considered to be City assets that needed to be protected. NEXT STEPS 1. Focus on what residents said on the survey. Responses were received from about 2,200 resident households and San Luis Obispo business owners. 2. Bring Neighborhood Mapping back to Council and do away with the Area designations (Staff Report, April 2, 2013) 3. Provide input for the EIR preparation as follows: a. Evaluate the effects of both text changes and alternatives proposals on the City's established neighborhoods. b. Evaluate the effects of both text changes and alternatives proposals on the potential for increased noise impacts by student /young adults on the City's established neighborhoods. c. Ensure that early and meaningful notice to City residents is part of the EIR community outreach process in accordance with our above comments. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Rowley Carla Saunders Sharon Whitney 4 TF -LUCE Minority Report January 14, 2014 SUBJECT: Draft Land Use Element Review INTRODUCTION We are not opposed to new neighborhoods of diverse character, mixed uses and increased being created through annexation. Nor are we opposed to new neighborhoods being density i ng created in undeveloped areas within the city specifically identified for increased density and development. We are, however, opposed to adding mixed uses, a variety of housing types and crea of densities in our established neihborhoods, tin g g a range The Task Force was assured early -on that our established residential neighborhoods would Protected. Unfortunately, that has not proven to be the case. Proposed changes to he LU be encourage increasing both density and non - residential uses in the city's established residenti neighborhoods — even if those neighborhoods oppose the density and use changes. T al be consistent with enabling the large -city planning theory of "complete neighborhoods g his seems to (appropriate for San Francisco's large neighborhoods) to be Ina " significantly smaller neighborhoods of a small city of 44,000. ppropriately applied to the ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTIONS For the past twenty years residents of San Luis Obispo have depended on the protecti s for established neighborhoods that are found in the current Land Use Element (LUE). These neighborhood protections assume even greater importance as our City's exceptional) I of owner - occupied residences continues to decline. Y ow number Neighborhood protections were weakened or eliminated by expanding the definitions o removing content that provided protection for established neighborhoods and by adding words, by Policies and programs that encourage compact, mixed -use nPlhUo►hraacls with a variety goals, g housing densities in all residential zones. We believe that established neighborhoods ty of d must be protected from such retrofitting. GOALS Two Community Goals were added that we strongly believe must be modified in order reflect the desires of city residents and foster or maintain the stability of our established _u better neighborhoods. Our recommended additions to these goals are shown as underlined t d ext. ale I. Goal #I0 (page PHI -45). Support statewide and regional efforts that the Gt deems �ry ocallu aopro riate to create more sustainable communities, reduce greenhouse as to be and develop transportation systems that support all modes of du It 8 missions, tes '9 it. circulation to meet the needs of the mu 2. Goal # 34 (page PHI -48). Create compact, mixed -use neighborhoods within the Ci eg` expansion areas that locate housin recreation, y - t s one another. g. lobs and other Bail needs in close proximity to Adding goals, Policies and established residential neighborh ads v i Promote and r and types could place residents in a virtuall untenable P ovide for the retrofitting of the City's Y position. They °€ housing densities changes that residents of that neighborhood policies that Promote would be required to try to P mote and provide for neighborhood may strongly oppose. The right of established neighborhoods to protect their by such proposed new, thane eir unique neighborhoods t© initiate such a LUE. There has been no outcry should not be organization d changes, nor has there been an input from the City's orho shed Weakened Pportirag such changes. Y put from any neighborhood RECOMMENDATIONS We strongly encourage Council to: 1• Modify Goals # 10 and 34 as shown on to conform to the goals. Page 1, above, and revise the draft LUE as 2• Delete the paragraph � I 1 that is vn necessary numbered 2.1.7), aria, direct that the cure glossa used within the body o, die LUE as well $d {that ,probably should have been 3• Ensure that "mixed uses, a variety of �' definitions l "infifr" and "' as retained in the General Plan Glossary, infilJ housing•, be to paragraphs related to our established m c .ousing tYPes and a range of r►,�n�.�. _„ 4. oploto the first nutlet point in "'d� neighborhoods. are not added Characteristics." paragraph 2.1.6 and chap 5. Delete sub- Be the heading to "Neighborhood 6. Delete paragraph 2.2,9 Fl g P 2.4.2. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Rowley Carla Saunders Sharon Whitney f ,2.1.7. ibe 4 2