HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-2015 B1 BlakelyLomeli, Monique
Subject: FW: Additional Ranger Positions
Attachments: 04 -21 -2015 131 Hall.pdf; OpenSpaceBishopPeak.pdf
From: David Blakely [b43 @outlook.com]
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 10:54 AM
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan
Subject: Additional Ranger Positions
Dear City Council Members,
Attached to this email you will find two letters.
One letter was sent to your Planning Commission from residents of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve neighborhoods
concerning inadequate ranger staffing. The other letter provides critical background information on the issue of
protecting the city's natural open spaces. This letter was sent to your council several months ago.
The issue supporting more than one additional ranger came up in the neighborhoods as a result of the discussions
surrounding the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan but the need for additional rangers is system wide and
not just specific to Bishop Peak.
As you know the addition of more than one ranger was also unanimously supported by your Planning Commission and
your Park and Recreation Commission.
It is unfortunate that other residential neighborhoods adjacent to all of the other city open spaces are not aware that
your council will be discussing this highest community priority ...protection of natural open space.
All the best,
David Blakely
JUN 0 9 2015
COUNCIL MEETING:_ f I Oil l5 _
ITEM NO.'_,_ _---b ]_.
Lomeli, Monique
Subject:
FW: Residents of Bishop Peak Residential Neighborhoods and your April 21st City
Council meeting
RECEIVED COUNCIL MEETING: 4121 IS
APR 91 2015 ITEM NO.:_ &
From: Carol Hall [mailto: carol Cd)slohall.com] SLD CITY CLERK
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 9:09 PM
To: Marx, ]an; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Rivoire, Dan; Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Residents of Bishop Peak Residential Neighborhoods and your April 21st City Council meeting
April 19, 2015
From: Residents of the Bishop Peak Residential Neighborhoods
Subject: "STRATEGIC BUDGET DIRECTION AND MAJOR CITY GOAL WORK PROGRAMS"
(April 21, 2015, City Council Meeting)
Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council,
We strongly support your Council's commitment to "Protect and Maintain Open Space" as a Major City
Goal. We want your efforts to be successful, especially as it affects The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve and our
residential neighborhoods near the Reserve's Highland Drive and Patricia trailheads. Therefore we offer the
following;
1. THE BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN UPDATE: The City's update of
" The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan" will take place very shortly AFTER your April 21, 2015
initial approval of "Work Programs" to implement the GENERAL Major City Goal of "Protecting &
Maintaining Open Space ". We ask that you leave adequate flexibility in adopting general" Open Space Work
Programs" so as NOT to preclude additional "Work Prow m" orations (and their financing) that may come out
of the "The BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN" UPDATE.
2. THE DEFINITION & PURPOSE OF OPEN SPACE: These were not clearly stated in the format of the
Staff report, but are as follows;
"Oven Space is land or water which remains in a predominantly natural or undeveloped state, and is
izenerally free of structures. Such lands protect and-preserve_ the community's natural and historical
resources define the urban boundary, and provide visual and Physical relief from urban development".
(General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo)
The first sentence in the City's "Open Space Ordinance" states, "Purpose of open space lands: The city of
San Luis Obispo has developed a system of open s ace lands". ...."for the en'o meat of the natural
environment by our citizens ".
The 2006 "Conservation & Open Space Element" of the City's General Plan states: "The City will consider
allowing_ passive recreation (in open space) where it will not degrade or significantly impact open space
resources and where there are no significant neighborhood compatibility impacts".
"The main izoal is to protect open space and wildlife habitat, with a secondary goal of providing passive
recreation where it will not harm the environment." (2006 COSE)
3. THE FUNDAMENTAL OPEN SPACE PROBLEMS TO BE ADDRESSED:
A. Lack of enforcement of the City's Open Space Ordinance.
The Open Space Ordinance provisions protect both wildlife and their habitats in the City's Natural
Reserves (includiniz the BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE) and the " uality of life" in adjacent
residential neighborhoods. These protective provisions include;
1. No nighttime use of Open Sp Ace. This is important as wildlife moves through the Natural Reserve at
night, and residents of the adjacent neighborhoods try to,sl;eepttt night),
2. Stay on trails (this protects the natural resources of the Natural Reserve.
3. Dogs must be on leashes. This prevents unleashed dogs from "running" the Natural Reserves' wildlife &
degradation of their habitats.
Unfortunately, through "word of mouth" it is well known that the City's Open Space Ordinance is rarely
enforced. In the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, dogs routinely run off- leash; reserve "users" (city word) go off -
trail; and groups of people nightly enter and use the reserve. (The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation
Plan notes that night use of the Natural Reserve increases the danger of wildfires in this "very high fire danger"
area.)
It is important to note that the ravidents of'the Bishop Perk trailheacl ng hborhoods did ,NUT move into
neifhborhoods adiaeent to a publicly owned trailheacl. Public trailheads were PUTI1VTO our well- established
residential reeiZhborhoods_with the understandin that there would be rules for the use of the city- acguired
natural reserves; that those protectiveprovisions would be eat orced • and the enee�l ` "level o use , of the
natural reserve would be by the Citizens of our City.
THE FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION TO "LACK OF ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT;
Hire adequate Ranger Staff to provide meaningful enforcement of the City's Open Space Ordinance. The level
of City Ranger Staffing should be proportionately within the range of staffing in the communities listed in the
staff report chart.(pg.BI -29 )
As clearly noted in the staff report chart, the proposed addition of only one position to the ranger staff is
woefully inadequate , and would not bring the City anywhere near the lowest standards of ranger coverage in
comparison to the other cities. (staff report, pg BI -29 ) .
The Staff Report notes that the 4,000 volunteer hours per year are primarily for building and maintaining
TRAILS, not enforcement of the City's Open Space Ordinance.
FUNDING: We note that in the 2012 LUCE SURVEY of City residents and business owners, "Acquiring
and Maintaining Open Space to Protect Peaks & Hillsides" was THE highest budeet priority.
OTHER SOLUTIONS:
1. We support Staff's recommendations for new trailhead signage which clearly emphasizes the specific
Open Space Ordinance requirements that are routinely violated, and states the fines associated with
them (no night use of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve; dogs must be on leashes; and visitors to the
reserve must stay on trails).
2. We support Staff's recommendation for regularly emptied, garbage containers at Natural Reserve
trailheads where littering is a significant problem ( Bishop Peak Natural Reserve).
3. We also support "Mutt Mitts" at trailheads where there are corresponding problems with dogs.
4. The term "Natural Reserve" immediately conveys the purpose of the City's protected Open Spaces . It
would be tremendous) educational and inexpensive) to use the term "NATUR,4L Open-Space"
rather than 'ust "Oven Space", in the City `s descriptions of the Open Spaces preserved primaril
for that purpose.
5. It is very important that all surveys, staff proposals, etc. be made within the framework of
clearly allowed, "open Space uses" in the City's COSE. Proposals that are not within this
framework of clearly allowed "open space uses" should go through the public process of a general
plan amendment to the COSE.
B .INCREASING OVERUSE OF THE BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE. A FUNDAMENTAL
PROBLEM:
Overuse of the relatively small Bishop Peak Natural Reserve is a fundamental problem;
Residents of the neighborhoods adjacent to the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve and the Highland &
Patricia Drive Trailheads report ever - increasing overuse of the Natural Reserve, and resulting,
proportionately increasing conflicts with the residential neighborhoods. These conflicts include;
increasing numbers of cars speeding through family neighborhoods ; increasingly severe parking
issues on narrow residential streets; increasing day and night trespass onto private property; littering
of front yards ; graffiti ; increasing noise , etc..
The increasing overuse and crowding of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve is degrading the very
purpose this land was "protected " by the City - -- "for enjoyment of the natural environment by our
citizens "(1998 Open Space Ordinance). Natural Reserves can be "loved to death" by overusing
them.
A City survey recently acknowledged this increasingly very high. "level of use ", finding that there
are about 1,000+ daily "users" of the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve at peak times, and there can be
500+ "users" of the Natural Reserve on an "average day" (probably more if users at all of the
Reserve's trailheads were counted).
A February 2014 Staff report stated, "In the case of Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, the more
fundamental issue seems to be that this open space amenity has become very popular, it is in strong
demand, and the effects of the level of use it receives are evident. "( Lichtig, Codron, Hill ; Staff
Report)
The City's 2004 "Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan " states;
" It is a concern of the public that the Reserve is not publicized in such a way as to attract large
numbers of additional, non local, tourists to an already heavily used resource. City Natural
Resources staff are of the opinion that the (educational) information currently available strikes
the appropriate balance between public education and active promotion of the Reserve ". (the
natural resource educational materials referred to were a natural resource focused brochure, a natural
resources focused website, and trailhead signage).
NOTE: The above concern seems to be increasingly ignored as an unwritten City " vision" appears
to have emerged which views the BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE more and more, as a
commercial "asset" to be "capitalized on " as it relates to the "tourist industry", with little or no
acknowledgement of the increasing "costs" to the impacted residential neighborhoods.
4
SOLUTIONS TO OVERUSE OF THE BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE;
1. ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OVERUSE OF THE BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE IS A
PROBLEM & ADDRESS IT.
2. THE OBVIOUS FIRST STEP;
The City should not make this overuse Problem even worse by Weci ccallu advertising for even,
more use of the already overused BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE.
Despite some assurances that specifically soliciting for even more use of the already overused
Bishop Peak Natural Reserve in the City- supported tourism campaigns could be "downplayed ",
the latest SanLusObispoVacations tourism campaign on the City's Website ( "copyright, City of
SLO, 2015 ") includes obvious inducements for new users to come to the City and specifically
use The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. ( In the accompanying video, the only sign identifying
place is a clearly emphazied "Bishop Peak Trail" sign; there is new emphasis on the
excitement of rock climbing on Bishop Peak; new users are encouraged to specifically bring
their dogs to Bishop Peak and hike; etc.)
We look forward in the next few months to the meaningful involvement of the Bishop Peak residential
neighborhoods in seeking more specific solutions through the Update of THE BISHOP PEAK NATURAL
RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN.
Sincerely,
Carol F. Hall
Michael Morris
Sandy Morris
James R. Hall
Carla Saunders
James F. Hall
Leah Forsythe
Tim Caldwell
Manuel f. Quezada
Sabina Quezada
Felicia Cashin
Jack Cashin
Richard Fleming
Maureen Fleming
Sylvia C. Soto
Dawn Janke
James M. Agee
Danika Stokes
Miriam Martin
Rachelle Paragas
Bradford Caligari
Nancy Caligari
Aron Schroder
Delores M. Quezadar
Pam Copeland
Tom Copeland
Robert Neal
Mary Neal
Angela Donath
Gary Donatb
Harold Segal
Robert Duncan
Gloriann Liu
Judith A. Hiltbrand
Rush Hiltbrand
Gayle Cekada
D Elaine Patrick
Phillip Ruggles
Joanne B. Ruggles
May 27, 2015
Subject: Meeting Community Expectations in the Bishop Peak_ Natural Reserve
Dear Members of the San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission,
The highest budget priority in the City's 2012 Luce Survey of business owners and city residents was to
"Acquire and Maintain Open Space to Protect Peaks and Hillsides ".(attachment #1) .
When City residents were subsequently asked to tax themselves through Measure G, "Open Space
Preservation" was the first funding priority listed on the Measure G Ballot. (attachment #2)
The City Council then honored the expressed will of City residents to "Protect and Maintain Open
Space" by giving this their highest priority; it is one of their three "Major City Goals ". (attachment #3)
The April 21, 2015 City Council Staff report then highlighted the following, major area of understaffing
& underfunding in the City's efforts to "Protect & Maintain Open Space';
RANGER SERVICE STAFFING LEVELS COMPARED TO OTHER COMMUNITIES
Aurora, Colorado
7,000 acres
21 full -time
9 Ranger Patrol
12 Ranger Maintenance and Operations
I 1 rangers
Boulder, Colorado
6,555 acres
9 maintenance workers
3 education and outreach
17 rangers and maintenance workers
Bend, Oregon
2,500 acres
26 seasonal staff
2 Rangers (1 Supervisor, l Full Time)
San Luis Obispo
4,000 acres
2 LBT Rangers
1CW5
Most Residents probably_ assume that City funding will reflect the priority_ they and their City Council
have placed on their shared goal of "Protection & Maintenance of Open Space ".
Unfortunately, the budget proposal put forward to address this major "Open Space Protection
Problem" was to fund only one addition to the extremely understaffed "Ranger Service Program ".
That is obviously very inadequate given the above chart, and the increased input from the Community
that there is very little enforcement of the wildlife - protective provisions of the City's Open Space
Ordinance due to lack of ranger coverage.
Please honor the clearly expressed will of City Residents to "Protect and Maintain" their natural Open
Spaces by recommending the necessary funding for the meaningful protection of the City's Natural
Reserves.
Sincerely,
sLO
Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
..rTCity Of
San leis
Survey Overview
The City. of San Luis Obispo conducted a survey of its residents and businesses to gauge their opinions of overall quality of
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,{]00 residents and businesses via utility bill inserts and direct mail. it was also
made available online. It was completed by 2,029 people via return mail and 169 people online, for a total of 2,198
respondents _ nearly four times the number of respondents that would have been necessary for a statistically valid
telephone survey. This was also a substantially higher sample size than achieved in the 1988 survey, which had 585
respondents.
Mail and online surveys are not considered ;statistically valid as they are "self- selected" — people choose to participate
based on their own desire to share their opinions. The City Council opted for this course of action so that any and all
residents and businesses would have an opportunity to participate in the effort. Given the enthusiastic responses, we
believe this is a good indicator of the opinions of San Luis Obispo residents and business owners.
Survey Questions
The questions were based on a Survey conducted by the City in 1988 and included five major topic areas:
1. Overall Quality of Life i
2. City Growth and Relationship to the! Region
3. Form of Development I
4_ Public Facilities and Services
S. Basic'Demographic Information
Summary
An overview of the final result from the 201.2 survey is provided on the following pages. For questions that are similar to
those in the community survey conducted irk 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 main
report. A complete listing of responses is provided in the appendix.
September 2012
iu.alaY of Life and Future Development Survey Page 1
San Luis Obispo General Plan 6pdate
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 respondents
seeking additional facilities and services; 50% would like more bicycle lanes, 5 su ort acquiring opens ace peaks and
hillsides, S % r land for creeks hes, while , These were s
the very same items selected by respondents in 1988 with sligq variations in support; 44% bike lanes, 54% peaks and
hillside preservation, 50% creeks and marshes, and 43% preservation of farm land.
Table 11. Additional Facilities ant Services, San Luis Obispo 2012
Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths and
10.8%
6.3%
30.4%
19.8%
32.8%
1,850
parking)
(200)
(116)
(562)
(366)
(606)
B.us;.service - .more: routes and- .more; ;'
:81% -
6,9./a _
45J%
2012%
19:096
1,835
frequent service: -: :. .'`::
(ISUj
:(127).
(838):
(371);
(349)
Traffic congestion management
7.2%
6.5%
42.0%
25.2%
19.2%
1,814
(130)
(118)
(761)
(457)
(348)
Neighbdritood traffiEiimanageerrt ,.
10:4%
lO:Qyo
!l9.URa
.18> , >
13:8%
1,813'
(188ik
(181)
(B88)
(M1
Emergency services /disaster readiness
6.9%
7.1%
50.4%
21.0%
14.6%
1,825
(126)
(130)
(920)
(383)
(266)
Flood preV6ntPaq /contrdl .
10:3.%• .
113%
SS;69k
,:1aG2� :
S:fi%
1;820
(isiy
Preserving historic buildings
7.2%
9.9%
41.8%
22.8%
18.3%
1,837
(133)
(182)
(767)
(419)
(336)
Housinglor low:- income families.,
16.995
11.3%,
.
343%
20.5% -
16:635 '
1,838'
(311)
(208)
(637
(376)::
(306)"
Law enforcement: Violence /thefts
5.3%
5.7%
47.1%
23.7%
18.3%
1,819
(96)
(103)
(856)
(432)
(332)
Law enforcement ;Trafficsafety °
7.5%7
8.5%
54.696+:
17.4 %,
12`095,
1,819
(13fi)
(155)
;(19)?
Law enforcement: Nuisances /zoning
13.4%
13.2%
46.2%
15.7%
11.5%
1,807
(242)
(239)
(835)
(284)
(207)
Acqulrin &and•maii►taining.:open.space for
7:4%,.'
5:1%
19.5.%
23.2%
34:8%
1,840
peaks& hillsides
(137)
(93)
(543) :
(427):
(640).
Acquiring and maintaining open space for
8.9%
9.5%
43.2%
18.7%
19.8%
1,817
farm, ranchland
(161)
(172)
(785)
(340)
(359)
Acquir'iing:and: inaintatning open: space
5:9. %:`
6.4%
34:7%,
Z4i5%
28:.4%; .
10829•
creeks .& marshes
(108):
(117)
(635)
'(449)-
Acquiring and maintaining open space for
6.9%
6.4%
32.7%
24.0%
30.0%
1,822
City greenbelt
(125)
(117)
(596)
(437)
(547)
Parking and access choices "downtown
I:L9 %:.
9.5%
43:9%
19.9%
14.90A
1;818
(216)
(172)'
(799)
(361). `.
(270 j
Parks /playfields
6.2%
7.3%
46.9%
23.4%
16.1%
1,830
(113)
(134)
(859)
(429)
(295)
Performing arts
11.3%
10.8%
51:5%
16.3%
10.0%
1,835=
(207)
(199)
(945):
(300):
(184)
Public art
17.0%
13.0%
46.0%
14.5%
9.4%
1,832
(311)
(239)
(843)
(266)
(173)
Page 14 Quality of
Life and Future Development Survey
September 2012
2012 Community Survey
Recreation programs
7.4%
9.2%
51.2%
21.7%:
38:6 %:(643)
10823
1;680
(134)
(167)
(933)
(395)
(1941
28.0 %.(455)
Shelter for homeless
17.4%
8.2%
27.3%
23.6%
23.5%
1,844
25.7 °4 - (418)
(320)
(151)
(504)
(436)
(433)
1,699
Sidewalk improvements and pedestrian
7.1%
7.5%
41.8%
24.0%
19.6%
1,828
connections
(130)
(138)
(764)
(438)
(358)'.
24.1%(402)
Street maintenance
3.9%
5.7%
46.2%
25.8%
18.3%
1,832
30.4%(508)
(72)
(105)
(847)
(473)
(335)
1,718
Street trees, landscaping along streets
6.7°(,
7.6%
44:0%
2:4.2 %•
17.6%
11827
75.3 %11,2681
(122)
(138)'
(803)
(443)
(321)
Performing arts !
Street widening /signals
13.9%
13.4%
44.6%
17.2%
10.9%
1,811
Recreation programs
(252)
(243)
(807)
(312)
(197)
53.3%(935)
Transit service - routes and frequency
9.7%
10.2%
46.0%
19.2%
14:9%
1,789:
57.6%(971)
(173)
(182)
(823)
(344)
(267)
Street widening /signals
1 Despite support for some services, only as slight majority of respondents said they would support paying more for just two;
`J 4% 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
Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths ane parking)
48.7%(853)
51.3%(900)
1,753
Bus service - moree, routes.and more frequ6t service
38:6 %:(643)
61.4%(1,031)
1;680
Traffic congestion management
37.6%(631)
62.4% (1,049)
1,680
Neighborhood traffic management
28.0 %.(455)
72.0%(1,171).
1,626
Emergency services /disaster readiness
41,7%(689)
58,3%(965)
1,654
Flood prevention /control
25.7 °4 - (418)
74.3% (.1,210)
1,628
Preserving historic buildings
35.6%(605)
64.4% (1,094)
1,699
Housing for: low-income families
35.9 %(618)
64:1°(0 (1;104)
1,722
Law enforcement: Violence /thefts
41.9%(701)
58.1%(972)
1,673
Law enforcement: Traffic safety
28.9 9/6 (4791
71.1%.(1,180)
1,659
Law enforcement: Nuisances /zoning
24.1%(402)
75.9% (1,268)
1,670
✓' Acquiring and maintaining open space for peaks & hillsides
54- AW(943)
45.9%p;(801)
1,744
Acquiring and maintaining open space for farm, ranchland
30.4%(508)
69.6% (1,163)
1,671
Acquiring and maintaining open:space for Creeks & marshes
49.3%(847)
50.7% (871),.:
1,718
Acquiring and maintaining open space for ity greenbelt
51,6%(891)
48.4%(836)
1,727
Parking and access choices.downtown
24.7 %(417) ::
75.3 %11,2681
1,685
Parks /playfields
38.8%(655)
61.2% (1,033)
1,688
Performing arts !
23.9 %(397)
76.1%(1,266)
1,663
Public art
20.6%(345)
79.4% (1,329)
1,674
Recreation programs
33.0% (545)
67,.0% (1,106)
1,651
Shelter for homeless
46.7%(820)
53.3%(935)
1,755
Sidewalk improvements and pedestrian connections
42.1%(709)
57.9%(977)
1,686
Street maintenance
42.4%(716)
57.6%(971)
1,687
Street trees, landscaping along streets
39.8% (666)
60.2%:(1,008)
1,674
Street widening /signals
24.9%(411)
75.1% (1,237)
1,648
Transit service - routes and frequency
31.7%(520)
68.3 %(1,121)
1,641
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 15
Measure G;14,Extend Existing Tax for an Additional Eight Years I V... http: / /votersedge .org/san - luis- obispo/ballot- measures /2014 /novemb...
eneral Election to extend the City's existing one -half
p cent Transactions and Use Tax, Chapter 3.15, for
€i�A� er eight years, to March 31, 2023. -
NOW, 'EREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the
Council the People of the City of San Luis bispo
as follows: S ON 1. Chapter 3.15 of the >ly's
Municipal Code ' • hereby amended and - enacted in
full to read as folio s:
Chapter 3.15 ESSENI" SERV'I
TRANSACTIONS (SALEL AN USE TAX
/Purpose. 0 Title. This chapt s a!! be known as the
f San Luis Obisp scent t services
ctions (sales) d use tax o `nance." The city
Luis Obisp ereinafter sha ye called the This rha ex shall be appiicabt� 'n the
orate erritory of the city.
Purpose. This chapter is adopted to ieve
owing, among other purposes, and directs that
visions hereof be interpreted in order to
plish those purposes:
B. To adopt a re transactions and use tax chapter
that incor/thoseovisions or cs p ti�isions identical to those of the
sax law the state of California insofar
as are n inconsistent with the
rend limitation ntained in Part 1.6 of
Di e Revenue and Ta 'on Code.
C. -To adopt a retail transactions and use tax chapter
- - tha imuQss.
m_ajid_pi1 a mP sa , rg thrr�fQr
5 of 12 5/26/2015 2:49 PM
A. To protect and maintain essential services and
facilities-- such as open .= rP =atinn; bike
lanes, sidewalks and other traffic congestion relief
a ,
projects; public safety; neighborhood street paving
and code enforcement; flood protection; senior
citizen programs including services and facilities; and
other vital general purpose services and capital
improvement projects - -by extending a general
purpose retail transactions and use tax of one -half
percen 1 f Me provisions of Part 1.6
commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 7285.9 of
Part 1.7 of Division 2, which authorizes the city to
adopt this general purpose tax chapter, which shall be
op ative if two- thirds of the council and a majority
vote the electors voting otz measure, vote to
approve a extension of Os general purpose
revenue so ce at an XC6011 called for that purpose.
B. To adopt a re transactions and use tax chapter
that incor/thoseovisions or cs p ti�isions identical to those of the
sax law the state of California insofar
as are n inconsistent with the
rend limitation ntained in Part 1.6 of
Di e Revenue and Ta 'on Code.
C. -To adopt a retail transactions and use tax chapter
- - tha imuQss.
m_ajid_pi1 a mP sa , rg thrr�fQr
5 of 12 5/26/2015 2:49 PM
(I )
n ;s Cibispa City Cgwm€t Mmutes a fa una y 24 2o1
E FW AND TI)FiNTIFV MALO-R CITY GO AI.S
City Manager Lichtig present the tabulated results as follows:
2015-17 Financial Plan
T v
II- O E
Vice Cout" Council Council n a
Goal Statement
Mayor Mayor Member Member Member � c
MArx Ashba h er ChrManson Rivoire E
Op" sparer
.5 5 5 is 3 2 20 4.0
Multi -Modal Transportation:
Prioritize imnismantadon of the
blcWk master laian and kpmve and
mei tein PicygLe Pedestrian, and
transit facilities.
5 3 5 3 4 20 4.0
Housing:
Implement the Housing Element,
facilitating workforce, affordable,
supportive and transitional housing
options, including gy2gort for ,ngetteg
in !&ct+ure within the City's fair
share.
3 4 5! 1 4 4 20 4.0
Neighborhood Wellness.
Improve neighborhood wellness, work
with residents, Cuesta, and Cal Poly;
increase public safetv..code
compliance, aad•colk0 ative
col
4 2 5 3 3 17 3.4
Laguna Lake Restoration:
ftW-q&imD1emqt#atjdn of Hre Ia una
Lake Natural 69serytgonservation
+.a
3 3 4 4 3 17 3 -4
Fiscal Sustainability and
Responsibility:
Implement the City's Fiscal
Responsibility Philosophy with a focus
on the reduction of unfunded
liabilities.
2 0 5 3 4 14 2.8
Downtown:
Adopt a Downtown Concept Plan,
develop a plan for expansion of
Mission Plaza, and Improve
infiaskuOUM and mainbiMWe i2,the
Lowntcaw
2 3 1 4 3 13 2.8
Parisi and RecreaWn:
Update the Parks and Recreation
Element, create Master Plan, MLmein
Wd irnnro+re current mark fsciiifies.
and y2gale recreational Drograms.
2 3 0 3 2 1 10 2.0
d
`O
V
V
I.
ID
Scan Lgis QbiW Citv Council Minutes of Jan 24 2415 Page 4
Climate Action Plan:
Implement the Climate A Wn Plan,
Including advocating a regional
feasibility study regarding
establishment of Community Choice
Aggregation C+CA 1 5 0 0 4 10 2.0
Deferred Infrastructure
Maintenance.
6Iddresss def main en ncQoFke
3 1 2 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 9 1 1.8
TOTAL _ 30 39 _J_30 1 30 I 30 1 150
Points Key: 5. Most important; highest priority for City to achieve over the! next two years; 4: Very important goal
to achieve; 3: Important goal to achievu, 2: Address if resources are available; 1: Defer to 2017 -19 for consideration;
0: Not a priority goal_
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 5 -0, to adopt the .City's Major d.ity Goals and Other Important
Objectives, as outlined below:
Maier City .Goals, ii
These represent the most important, highest - priority goals for the City to accomplish over the
next two years, and as such, resoiurces to accomplish them should be included in the 2015 -2017
Financial Plan-
Open Space: Protect and maintain open space,
TOTAL POINTS: 20 AVERAGE POINTS: 4,0
Multi -Modal Transportation: Prioritize implementation of the bicycle master plan and improve
and maintain bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.
TOTAL POINTS: 20 AVERAGE POINTS: 4.0
Housing: Implement the Housing Element, facilitating workf"drce, affordable, supportive and
transitional housing options, including support for needed infrastructure within the City's fair
share.
TOTAL POINTS: 20 AVERAGE POINTS: 4.0
Other Important Obiectives
Goals in this category are important for the City to accomplish; and resources should be made
available in the 2015 -2017 Finandjal Plan if at all possible.
i
Neighborhood Wellness: Improve neighborhood wellness, work] with residents, Cuesta, and Cal
Poly, increase public safety, code compliance, and collaborativeiolutions.
TOTAL PO1N*: 17 AVERAGE POINTS: 3.4
Laguna Lake Restoration: Initiate implementation of the ILaguna Lake Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan.
TOTAL POINTS: 17 AVERAGE POINTS: 3.4
San Luis Obispo cay Cpu=i lut es of Jart ary 24.2015 Page 5
Fiscal Sustainability and Resp ' sibility: Implement the City's Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy
with a focus on the reduction ofunfimded liabilities.
TOTAL POINTS: la AVERAGE POINTS: 2.8
Downtown: Adopt a Downtown Concept Plan, develop a plan for expansion of Mission. Plaza,
and improve safety, infrastructure, and maintenance in the L1OI *'t� town.
TOTAL POU4TS: 13 AVERAGE POINTS: 2.6
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council adjourned at 3 :38 p.m., to a Special Meeti,n6 to be held on Tuesday, January
27, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. in the ,Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, for the purpose of conducting closed sessions.
The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.
in the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
+Ciryierk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 03/,17/2015