HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-2013 pc cooperRECEIVE D
JAN 0 8 201 3
SLO CITY CLER K
•
Date:
January 7, 2013
Regarding : "Community Forum" regarding Budget Prioritie s
for the 2013-2015 Financial Plan on Tuesday ,
January 8, 2013 @ 6:00 RM. @ the Ludwic k
Community Cente r
From:
Allan Cooper, Chair
Save Our Downtow n
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the Council :
Save Our Downtown appreciates the opportunity to provide inpu t
during this important budget process . In this regard, we woul d
like to "coat tail" onto several Advisory Body budget prioritie s
with some "provisos" and noting a few minor objections .
Moreover, S.O.D. supports some, but not all, of the City's Lon g
Term Capital Improvement Programs . Save Our Downtow n
supports RQN's position that "Neighborhood Wellness" shoul d
remain a top priority within the 2013-2015 Financial Plan bu t
with an important caveat that the Downtown Core be regarded a s
one of those "neighborhoods". And finally and most importantly ,
Save Our Downtown is urging funding for the development of
ordinances and other planning mechanisms for "setting th e
appropriate mix" of bars and retail (Le., through "cumulativ e
impact zones") within the Downtown Core.
L Save Our Downtown would like to "coat tail" onto th e
following Advisory Body budget priorities with som e
"proviso's" and noting a few minor objections :
1 .Architectural Review Commission :
o Update and further expand the Downtow n
Concept Plan with focus on the following:
■S.O.D. believes that the Downtown Concep t
Plan should be incorporated into a n
"enforceable" Urban Design Element an d
integrated into the new Pedestrian Plan .
•We agree with James Lopes that a n
updated Downtown Concept Pla n
should reassess expanding its
borders to include some portions of
Monterey Street east of Santa Rosa .
We also recommend expanding th e
Downtown Concept Plan to include
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENC E
Date I I9h -3 Item#
•
•
•
portions of the Old Tow n
Neighborhood and that section of
town circumscribed by Peach an d
Palm and Nipomo and Chorro .
•Enlarge and improve Mission Plaza to th e
Broad Street dogleg.
•S.O.D. does not feel this is a hig h
priority item .
•This design proposal has bee n
opposed by residents of th e
surrounding neighborhood in th e
past and I believe this oppositio n
still exists.
•We disagree with the SLO Chambe r
of Commerce's position tha t
Mission Plaza is "blighted", unles s
they are sadly and obliquely
referring to the human "blight" of
homelessness which presently exists
there.
•We disagree with the SLO Chambe r
of Commerce's position that more
night lighting is needed in Missio n
Plaza to make it a "safer" place a s
the Police crime logs do not indicat e
that crimes are committed here .
Instead, we would like to preserv e
the pastoral quality of Missio n
Plaza and the Creek Walk area .
•Extend and improve facilities along th e
downtown creek-walk.
•S.O.D. agrees with the proviso that
the City develop a "Downtow n
Creek-Walk Masterplan "
■Implement pedestrian plaza in front of
Government Center on Monterey Street.
•S.O.D. does not feel this is a hig h
priority item.
•We agree with James Lopes on this
point for the reasons he articulate d
in his letter to Council.
o Downtown Beautification & Maintenance :
▪Provide funding for ongoing maintenanc e
activities like shrub and flower planting in
landscaped areas and the steam cleaning of
sidewalks to improve the appearance of the
•
•
•
downtown .
•S.O.D. recommends not only on-
going maintenance but also
recommends increasing th e
landscape amenity in the Downtow n
Core to include hangingflower
pots, increased planting of trees
thematic to each street, sidewal k
widening,bulbouts,medians, etc.
•Expand the uniform streetscape
improvements to other areas .
•S.O.D. agrees that this leads t o
more seamless neighborhood
"connectivity "
o Why it's important:
•Makes downtown an attractiv e
environment to encourage mixed-us e
developments .
•Save Our Downtown agrees that th e
City should encourage mixed-sue
developments to be located withi n
the Downtown Core. But S.O.D.
does not believe that Downtown
beautification and maintenance wil l
necessarily lead to more mixed-us e
development. In order to achiev e
this, the City should take a mor e
proactive role in curbing th e
proliferation and concentration of
Downtown alcohol outlets, to
discouraging the growth of offic e
space in the outlying annexatio n
areas (contrary to the S.L.O.
Chamber's recommendation) and i n
encouraging (through the City's
Office of Economic Development)
more necessity goods stores, offices
and workforce housing to be locate d
within the Downtown Core.
o How to make it happen :
•Encourage public private partnerships wit h
the Downtown Association and individua l
businesses to take on the responsibility of
downtown maintenance .
•S.O.D. believes that public private
partnerships should include
•
•
•
"Adopt-A ... Programs"for th e
following additional items :
crosswalks,bulbouts and hangin g
planters.
•S.O.D. also believes that the City
should call upon the voluntee r
efforts of service organizations,
local nurseries and the Cal Poly
horticultural program.
2.Planning Commission :
o Implement the Economic Development Strategi c
Plan, including a focused attention to retail uses
in the downtown .
■S.O.D. believes that focused attention t o
retail (and office) uses in the Downtown
will:
•Discourage urban sprawl.
•Encourage a sustainable balance of
interdependent uses (i.e., live-work,
shopping and entertainment) wit h
pedestrian access to one another.
•Contribute to the economic vitality
and quality of life of the Downtown
Core.
3. Promotional Coordinating Committee :
o Concentrate on median beautification and create
an "Adopt a Median" program .
▪S.O.D. believes that an "Adopt a Median "
program could apply to not only landscap e
maintenance but also to the construction of
new medians.
4.Mass Transportation Committee:
o Save Our Downtown supports funding for a future
Transit Center as a high priority.
■Why is this important?
•We support the Mas s
Transportation and Bicycl e
Committee's position tha t
alternative transportation should b e
encouraged within the Downtow n
Core to reduce "traffic congestion "
(another historically high priority
for past Councils) and to reduce th e
necessity for building additiona l
parking garages.
•How will this be implemented?
•
•
•
• Initially through funding a
$300,000 E.I.R. for this Transit
Center proposal.
ii. Save Our Downtown supports some, but not all, of th e
following Long Term Capital Improvement Projects :
1 .High priority items for Long Term CIP: Pedestria n
o We support a Complete Community Sidewal k
System per Circulation Element, CI 5 .1 .2 at a cost
of $18,254,00 0
o We recommend continuing a Program of
Replacing Existing Curbs with Handicappe d
Ramps per Circulation Element, CI 5 .1 .3 at a cost
of $6,273,00 0
o We recommend repaving Pedestrian Crossings
and installing Pedestrian Bulb-Outs pe r
Circulation Element £0.5B. at a cost of
$523,00 0
o We do not recommend the Monterey Street Civic
Center Plaza Installation at a cost of $2,379,00 0
■S.O.D.objects to this expenditure for a
street closure which will disrupt circulatio n
and create a possible "no man's zone".
o We do not see the need for an expenditure of
$345,000 for a Garden Street Makeover pe r
Circulation Element D .4
■S.O.D. believes that the developer of
Garden Street Terraces should bear the ful l
brunt of this cost
o We do not see the need to complete Downtow n
Mission-Style Sidewalks per the Downtown Pla n
and Resolution No. 9114 at a cost of $4,280,00 0
■S.O.D.questions the pedestrian safety of
these sidewalks . Many pedestrian s
complain that this style of sidewalk is slic k
when wet
iii. Save Our Downtown supports RQN's position tha t
"Neighborhood Wellness" should remain a top priority
within the 2013-2015 Financial Plan but with a n
important caveat that the Downtown Core be regarde d
as one of those "neighborhoods".
5. Why is this important ?
o Because all of the original objectives of
"Neighborhood Wellness" have not bee n
addressed per RQN's letter to Council .
o Because this objective has not been addressedfor
•
•
•
the Downtown Core "neighborhood"...perhaps
the least "well" neighborhood within the City.
iv. Save Our Downtown is urging funding for th e
development of ordinances and other planning
mechanisms for "setting the appropriate mix" of bar s
and retail (i.e., through "cumulative impact zones').
1 . Why this is important ?
o A recent Public Utilities Survey (which i s
surprisingly not included within your staff report!)
indicated that 59% of the respondents did not wan t
to see more nightclubs and bars (alcohol outlets)
within the Downtown Core . And, high priority
items culled from the Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin ,
Metz & Associates public opinion poll complete d
November 1, 2011 indicated that for "alcohol-
related crimes and problems", 60% consider thi s
"very serious" or "somewhat serious". This wa s
only exceeded by : "The availability of stable, goo d
paying jobs in the local area" (77%);
"Homelessness and transients" (70%); and "Th e
availability of affordable housing for middle-clas s
families" (79%).
o The concentration of bars and nightclubs alon g
Higuera Street is displacing offices and retail fro m
the center of Downtown .
o The concentration of bars and nightclubs is no t
compatible with the City's objective to place mor e
residential development within the Downtow n
Core.
o Numerous studies indicate that alcohol-relate d
crime increases with the concentration of bars an d
nightclubs.
o San Luis Obispo has a disproportionately hig h
number of alcohol outlets relative to its
population .
2.How will this be implemented ?
o By exploring excerpts from "Strategizer 55" (Apri l
2011) - The Centers for Disease Control an d
Prevention and a Johns Hopkins Bloomber g
School of Public Health (JHSPH)publication
titled "Regulating Alcohol Outlet Density : An
Action Guide":
• The argument against clustering :
Geographic areas with numerous alcoho l
outlets located in close proximity to on e
another may pose greater community risks
than having outlets more geographically
dispersed. For example, many cities hav e
tried to revitalize dying downtown areas b y
creating "entertainment districts" tha t
includeahigh concentration of bars an d
restaurants. These may devolve into areas
with high levels of alcohol-involve d
violence,public intoxication, and othe r
nuisance behaviors.
•GeographicRestrictions on Alcohol Outlets
can be effective:This limits the number o f
alcohol outlets per specific geographic .
This mechanism is particularly useful i n
addressing the tendency for alcohol outlets
to cluster and create an over-concentratio n
in specific areas .
•Population-Level Restrictions on Alcoho l
Outlets can be effective :This limits th e
number of alcohol outlets per populatio n
and, while less useful than more local-level
restrictions, can establish an outer limit o n
the total number of alcohol outlets in a city
or county.
■Commercial Restriction on Alcohol Outlets
can be effective:This establishes a cap o n
the percentage of retail alcohol outlets pe r
total retail businesses in a geographi c
area—another method to address
clustering and promote retail diversity .
■Time/Space Restrictions on Alcohol Outlet s
can be effective:This limits the locatio n
and operating hours of alcohol outlets.
Location restrictions can be applied t o
protect sensitive land uses such as schools ,
parks, etc. and to address clustering by
establishing minimum distanc e
requirements between alcohol outlets .
Limits on hours of operation, while no t
technically a feature of alcohol outle t
density, can mitigate density-relate d
problems .
Thank you for your time and attention and the opportunity t o
provide these comments.
•Sincerely,
•
•
Allan Cooper, Chair
Save Our Downtown