HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-2013 B1 ChristieGoodwin, Heather
jn: Codron, Michael
_at: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:12 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather; Grimes, Maeve
Subject: Fwd: LUCE update item for April 2 meeting
-- - - - - -- Original Message -- - - - - --
Subject: LUCE update item for April 2 meeting
From: Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club <sierraclub8@gmai1.com>
To: Council—ALL <Council_ ALL (c slucity.org>
CC:
�p Y SIERRA
-CLUB-
FOUNDED 1872
April 1, 2013
-- i ECEIVEU - - --
APR 0 12013
51 -0 CITY CLERK
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Cate 11211 S Iiem# -1I _
Santa Lucia Chapter
P.O. Box 15755
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(805) 543 -8717
w-ww.santal ucia. sierraelub.or
Re: 1. Unanimous Planning Commission and LUCE Task Force recommendations for the consultant to use the existing LUE
goals to develop and assess "alternatives"
2. Meaningful Community input
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We support the unanimous Planning Commission and LUCE Task Force recommendations for the consultant to use the existing LUE
goal to develop and assess "alternatives."
We applaud your Council's direction for beginning the Land Use and Circulation Element update with detailed surveys of more than
25,000 City households and city business owners. This provides assurance to both residents and business owners that they are central
to planning the City's future.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council eive direction to the consultant team that they be specific when
referring to "community input" supporting a recommendation or prolaosatl.
The issue is one of appropriate weighting. The responses of more than 2,100 city resident households and business owners to the
City's LUCE Survey, for example, should be weighted more heavily than the input from some of the approximately 50 residents who
participated in the first LUCE workshop at the Monday Club or other "lightly attended " open houses and workshops,
This passes the "common sense" test. An assertion that there is community input supporting a particular recommendation or position
is virtually meaningless without the provision of some numerical measurement to give an indication as to the actual level of that
support. Unfortunately, it has frequently been the case in the process thus far that statements have been made asserting support based
"community input" without this essential accompanying detail.
) understand that the task force discussed this issue at its last meeting and that there was no disagreement with the request that
,'fences to community input supporting a recommendation or position be more specific. This should be a requirement going
forward.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
r/
crew Christie
apter Director
Microsoft Word,- SLOGPU_TF LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05 materials.pdf
San Luis Obispo General Pla,r Update
Quality of Life
http: / /www.slo2035.com /images /meetings /tf /tf 0 erials.pcif
-
How would you rate the overall Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo? Approximately 81% of respondents rated the quality of
life as "high" with less than 2% rating it as "low ". That's a higher number than the 1988 survey, which had 76% of
respondents choosing "high" and less than 1% choosing "low ".
How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Luis Obispo?
S00 11100 7500 20M
Figure 1. Quality of Life, San Luis Obispo 2012
When asked to identify San Luis Obispo's greatest problem, respondent's top choices were the homeless (19%), traffic
(10 %), lack of jobs (9%), and affordable, housing (9 %). Downtown parking and congestion was cited by 8 %. Many
expressed concerns about future growth and development.
This shows a shift from 1988 responses more than doubling the percentage of people who cited homeless issues as the
City's greatest problem. Concerns about traffic actually went down from 1988 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
September 2012
23 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
Microsoft Word; SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials.pdf http: / /www.slo2035.com /images /meetings /tf /tf 05_materials.pdf
2012 Community Survey
Table 1. Greatest Problems Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012
Homeless
19%
347
Traffic
10%
180
Jobs
9%
166
Housing
9%
166
Downtown
8%
144
Growth
41DA
85
Business
3%
70
Cost of Living
3%
68
Streets
3%
67
Development
2%
44
Neighborhoods
2%
40
Quality
2%
39
Government
2%
38
Water
2%
36
Police
1%
33
Cal Poly
1%
23
City Council
1%
19
Big Box Stores
1%
19
Planning
1%
19
Shopping
1%
19
Regulation
1%
18
When asked about the City's greatest strength, the natural setting took most of the tap spots as it had in the 1988 survey.
Table 2. Greatest Strengths Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012
Weather
12%
221
Beauty
12%
220
Location
8%
147
Community
8%
144
Open Space
7%
133
Downtown
7%
133
Climate
6%
106
Small Town
5%
87
Quality of Life
3%
61
Cal Poly
3%
58
Culture
1%
31
Clean Air
1%
30
Natural Environment
1%
29
SLO
1%
23
Citizens
1%
23
Low Crime
1%
2
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
Page 3
24 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
Microsoft Word - SLOGPU_TF _LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials.pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
http: / /www.slo2035.com /images /meetings /tf /tf 05 materials.pdf
Listed below are several aspects of "quality of life" in San Luis Obispo. On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being LEAST important
and 5 being MOST important, respondents rated natural environment and crime as having the highest impact on quality
of life - echoing the sentiments expressed by 1988 respondents.
Table 3. Quality of Life Aspects identified, San Luis Obispo 2012
E__ 0
'. I .*
Natural environment (air quality,
2.1%
1.4%
5.5%
19.9%
71.1%
,
2,03,1
open space)
(42)
(29)
(110)
(401)
(1,429)
4.2%
7.7%
19.4%
30.7%
38.2%
Job opportunities
(83)
(153)
(387)
(613)
(763)
1,999
1.8%
4.6%
"20,0%
40.6%
32.9%
Recreation opportunities
2,006
(36)
(93)
(402)
(815)
(660)
2.1%
9.0%
33.5%
38.5%
16.9%
Entertainment opportunities
(43)
(181)
(673)
(773)
(340)
2,010
23%
5.8.6
16.6%
32.1%
42..8%
Educational opportunities
2,010
(54)
(116)
(334)
(646)
(860)
4.6%
13.9%
35.8%
30.0%
15.7%
Shopping opportunities
(92)
(280)
(720)
(603)
(316)
2,011
2.7%
41%
18.0%
33.2%
42.0%
Pace of life
1,999
(53)
(82)
(360)
(664)
(840)
2.5%
3.1%
9.2%
223%
62.9%
Crime levels
2,010
(51)
(62)
(184)
(448)
(1,265)
Opportunities to participate in
12%
8.0%
27.7%
35.3%
25.8%
7.,003
government decisions
(65)
(160)
(554)
(707)
(517)
Traffic Safety and Congestion
2.4%
5.1°6
18.4%
33.5 °%
40.7%
Management (local travel and
2'000
(47)
(102)
(368)
(670)
(813)
parking)
i ransportation choices - bus service,
2.4%
8.9%
22.1%
31.5%
35.2%
2,008
bicycle and pedestrian facilities
(49)
(178)
(443)
(632)
(706)
Housing opportunities (cost and
3.2%
7.9%
24.2%
29.3%
35.3%
2,005
choice of types)
(65)
(159)
(485)
(588.)
(708)
Cultural diversity (people with
5.3%
16.3%
31.3%
28.0%
191%
2,004
different backgrounds and interests
g )
106
( )
327
( )
628
( )
S61
(' )
( 382 )
3.2%
6.9%
19.4%
33.6°x6
36.9%
Downtown character and activities
2.008
(64)
(139)
(390)
(674)
(741)
Property maintenance (upkeep,
2.5%
6.3%
20.0%
34.8%
36.4%
2,008
junk /litter control)
(51)
(126)
(402)
(698)
(731)
Access to healthy foods -fresh
2.2%
5.9%
16.8%
295%
45.5%
2,001
produce and supermarkets
(44)
(119)
(337)
(590)
(911)
Next, respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the current conditions of each area with 5 being
MOST satisfied. Overall satisfaction was high but respondents indicated concern with job opportunities, housing, and
cultural diversity. Jobs and housing were also cited as areas with "dissatisfaction" in the 1988 survey.
Page 4 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
25 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
Microsoft Word - SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials.pdf http: / /www.slo2035.com /images /meetings /tf /tf 05 materials.pdf
2012 Community Survey
Table 4. Current Conditions Satisfaction, San Luis Obispo 2012
Natural environment (air quality,
open space)
Job opportunities
Recreation opportunities
Entertainment opportunities
Educational opportunities
Shopping opportunities
Pace of life
Crime levels
Opportunities to participate in
government decisions
Traffic Safety and Congestion
Management (local travel and
parking)
Transportation choices - bus service,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities
Mousing opportunities (cost and
choice of types)
Cultural diversity (people with
different backgrounds and interests)
Downtown character and activities
Property maintenance (upkeep,
junk /litter control)
Access to healthy foods -fresh
produce and supermarkets
1.8%(35)
2.8%(56)
6.8%(136)
38.4%(764)
50.2%
1,991
Mission
7%
122
Laguna Lake
(1,000)
69
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)
1,987
1.5%(30)
6.2%(124)
28.7%(572)
43.1%(859)
20.5%(409)
1,993
1.4%(27)
4.9%(97)
20.1%(399)
42.2%(840)
31.5%(627)
1,990
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)
1,986
2.2%(43)
9.1%(180)
23.1%(459)
42.2%(838)
23.4%(464)
1,984
3.1%(61)
8.2%(161)
37.0%(729)
36.2%(713)
15,5%(305)
1,969
7.0%(140)
21.3%(424)
28.2%(561)
33.8%(671)
9.7%(192)
1,988
2.9%(58)
12.4%(246)
31.2% (620)
37.1%(737)
16.3%(324)
1,985
8.7%(173)
23.2%(460)
40.0%(793)
20.5%(407)
7.5%(148)
1,981
5.5%(109)
13.2%(261)
41.5%(824)
25.8%(511)
14.1%(279)
1,984
2.5%(50)
7.4%(146)
20.8%(411)
43.1%(852)
26.2%(518)
1,977
3-3%(66)
9.9%(196)
27.4%(544)
44.5%(882)
14.9%(296)
1,984
1.7%(34)
4.1%(80)
18.4%(363)
40.4%(798)
35.4%(700)
1,975
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 1388 survey.
Table 5. Particular Place of Enjoyment, San Luis Obispo 2012
Downtown
37%
584
Park
11%
179
Mission
7%
122
Laguna Lake
4%
69
Open Space
4%
68
Creek
4%
66
Bishop Peak
3%
48
Walking
2%
40
Hiking Trails
2%
33
Railroad
2%
33
Irish Hills
1%
27
Madonna
1%
26
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
Page 5
26 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
0
r
Microsgft Word.- SLOGPU_TF LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials.pdf http: / /www.sio2035.com /ima,es /meetings /tf /tf 05 materials.pdf
San Luis Obispo General Pi, lUpdate 2o.
They were less enthusiastic about Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), which topped the list of "least" liked places. This question
yielded different responses from the 1988 survey as LOVR had not been expanded at that time. Both surveys identified
areas associated with traffic and higher ratios of rental housing.
Table 6. Least Liked Plates of Enjoyment, San Luis Obispo 2012
LOVR
14%
195
Downtown
13%
172
Madonna Road
8%
114
Parking
7%
97
Homeless
I%
93
Foothill Boulevard
4%
62
Streets (in general)
4%
It
53
Broad Street
Wo
51
South Hi8uera Street.
3%
46
I
Page 6 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
27 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
Microsoft Word - SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05— materials.pdf
http: / /www.sio2O35.com /images /meetings /tf /tf 05— materials.pdf
2012 Community Survey
City Growth and Relationship to the Region
When asked which of the following approaches to determining allowable growth in the City they supported, respondents
continued, but to a lesser degree, to support preservation of the natural environment. Sixty —six percent want to keep
growth in existing areas and 60% support avoiding harm to the natural environment. That's a change from the 1988
survey where over 85% of respondents sought to keep growth in existing areas and 79% supported avoiding hard to the
natural environment.
Which of tits following approaches to determining allowable growth in the City do you support?
Please select all thrae apply.
Keep growth wtfur.
avaftb* resources
Avad harm tc the
natural mvironmem isuch
as air quawy).
Look for opportumt
toqrowvMhm
Coy boundanes,
i:l.vW,w: the avwuq*
resdwml
gtamh rate at.1 %
Let the overall growth of
the corrvmuMy fcdow
from specdxc 9MK (f
rnorehead of houseWd
jobs or acquiring or
vmsemmnq ceawn open s .
Do not set
groMh Imits
200 400 M 3(Y 100r 1200 1400
Figure 2. Approaches to Allowable Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012
September 2012 Quality of life and Future Development Survey
Page 7
28 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
w
Microsoft Word - SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials.pdf http: / /www.slo2035.com /images /meetings /tf /tl' 05 materials.pcif
San Luis Obispo General Piz,,, Update
If the city was to chanp the current residential growth rate of 1 %, which one of the
following would you prefer?
No cr vqo - I7lainla -
tr* avetage re91defuit
9'0%th race at 1 %,
Sonw increase grealer than
1 "•�. = sFxw than ttrr:-
state or ttaecount
Gr -worg nofastet
than San Lurs Ctxs,po
cowly as a wh0&-
Tse the ftswientNo nth
rate to Ih4 root& of
camrrw t*t drwekVnv&nt
i do not favor
cttzrmh Ivm2s
M% 400 6W- VX towd
Figure 3. Preferences to Change Current Residential Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012
Nearly 55% of respondents support "No Change" in residential growth rate, with over 14% supporting some increases but
none greater than the County or the State as a whole. Just 10% supported no growth limits. This question also saw a shift
in responses from the 1988 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 unique
character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities and a vibrant economy. People were asked if the City has
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 1988 survey. Respondents then sought more housing (70 %), tourist /visitor serving
activities (53 %), shopping (58 %), and cultural activities (70 %).
Page 8 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
29 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
Microsoft Word -, SLOGPU,..TF, LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials.pdf
Table 7. Types of Development, San Luis Obispo 2012
http: / /www.slo2035.com /images /meetings /tf /tf 05_materials.pdf'
2012 Community Survey
Housing
33.0%(637)
58.9% (1,135)
8.1%(156)
1,928
Tourist /visitor serving
9.5%(184)
79.5% (1,538)
11.0 %(213)
1,935
Manufacturing
43.9%(827)
51.3%(967)
4.8%(91)
1,885
Business Park
23.5%(443)
65.2% (1,232)
11.3%(214)
1,889
Shopping /stores
21.3%(412)
59.5% (1,151)
19.1%(370)
1,933
Cultural /entertainment
21.5%(416)
73.4% (3,423)
5.2%(100)
1,939
Medical, legal, financial
0
14.7/0 (2$4)
0
77.Oh (1,484)
0
8.3/0 (3.59)
1,927
services
9.1%(175)
17.6%(340)
33,6%(648)
22.9%(442)
Government
4.4%(84)
69.4% (1,338)
26.3%(507)
1,929
age ncies /i nstitutions
At parks or recreation
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 the
1988 survey results.
Table 8. Quality of Life Influences, San Luis Obispo 2012
Air pollution
15.3%(301)
14.4%(283)
19.0%(373)
16.6%(325)
34.7%(680)
1,962
Car /truck traffic noise
6.2% (122)
14.2%(279)
25.1%(493)
25.8%15061
28,6%(561)
1,961
Aircraft noise
16.9%(331)
22.4%(439)
29.5%(590)
17.1%(336)
14.1%(277)
1,963
Crowding/delay on
6.8%(132)
15.9%(310)
25.9%(504)
25.3%(492)
26.1%(508)
1,946
streets & roads
Crowing /delay at parking
9.1%(175)
17.6%(340)
33,6%(648)
22.9%(442)
16.8%(323)
1,928
facilities
At parks or recreation
12.3%(235)
22.9%(440)
36.7%(703)
15.8%(304)
12.3%(236)
1,918
facilities
Development an
7.5%(142)
11.8%(222)
26.7%(504)
20.8%(393)
33.1%(624)
1,885
farmland, ranchland
Development on creeks,
6.8%(127)
10.1%(189)
25.7%(483)
19.1%(359)
38.3%(720)
1,878
marshes
Form of Development
5.0%(89)
10.0%(177)
32-5%(574)
22.3%(394)
30.2%(534)
1,768
Overall intensity of
4-6%(86)
10.4%(192)
30.1%(557)
22.8%(422)
32.1%(594)
1,851
development
Overall pace of life
5.3%(98)
9.7%(181)
27.8% (517)
22.5%(418)
34.7% (644)
1,858
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 9
30 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
r
Microsoft Word- SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo- tf 05_materials.pdf http: / /www.sio2O35.com /images /meetings /tf /tf 05 materials.pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update W2A
San Luis Obispo and the surrounding area includes about 34% of the jobs in the county, and about 18% of the houses and
apartments, which results in commuting. on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being no effort and 5 being high effort, respondents
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 2012
Expand roads and parking
18.3%(344)
facilities to reduce
193% (364)
congestion.
11.1%(212)
Discourage commuting by
13.5%(258)
individual drivers and
1,907
encourage use of busses,
23.8 %(447)
van pools, bicycles, and
9.9 %(186)
carpools.
16.5%(310)
Discourage additional
41.3% (775)
jobs in San Luis Obispo.
1,882
Encourage housing
19.7%(371)
development in San Luis
Obispo.
16.2%(304)
27.4%(516)
18.8%(354)
193% (364)
1,882
11.1%(212)
20.5%(391)
20.4%(389)
34.5%(657)
1,907
15.7/0(294)
23.8 %(447)
93%(174)
9.9 %(186)
1,876
16.5%(310)
27.8%(523)
16.5% (310)
19.6%(368)
1,882
Respondents indicated they would like the City to focus the most effort in discouraging commuting and the least effort in
discouraging additional jobs here in San Luis Obispo. More local employment translated to fewer commuters.
Page 10
Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
September 2012
31 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
Microsoft Word _ SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Merv,-1 tf 05_materials.pdf
Farm of Development
http: / /www.slo20�5 com /images /meetings /tf /tf 05 materials.pdf
2012 Community Survey
To accommodate new growth in the City, 71% of respondents supported using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods for
buildings like those that have been built in the neighborhood with over 63% supporting redeveloping underdeveloped
sites with buildings compatible with the neighborhood. A little more than half supported mixed -use infill development in
existing buildings. This was slightly less than responses in 1988 when 81% supported using vacant lots in existing
neighborhoods.
To accommodate new housing in the Cilty, I support: (Check sH that apply.)
Using rrocant k*s
existing neghbeAmd R
tuddungs lice those
Lis mg vacant lots
existing neighbolhcWs
s1gfWy more dense;
r��rvekasxn+� ur�elt�p
Dos wth twsldln
ccri)paltbk4 with the
Expanding the ctq
cis toarcornmodt
more its aslr
Emourvsgtng de-: edoprm
of riousmg an the gar
S40 as other cot ice f
Re;*fyctng carRmem
zoning
accommodate h=lf
0 200 400 tom; am Icon -' 1200 1 -1 ^K
Figure 4. New Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
32 of 52
Page 11
3/31/2013 5:23 PM
r
Microsoft Word - SLOGPU TF LUCE 05 MerD-)tf 05_materials.pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
http : / /www.slo203i .coin /images/meetings /tf /tf 05 materials.pdf
2DIM, '.
To accommodate new businesses, banks, and office buildings, the clear preference with 80% of respondents choosing it
was development in existing commercial areas, using vacant lots for new buildings generally like ones that have been built
there. In 1988 65% of respondents supported that idea with 37% supporting replacing existing buildings with larger ones,
To accommodate new stones, banks, business park developrrwnt and offices, I support
(Check all that apply,
In exiting cvrr►meMMI
areas, using v*^.,ont lots
(Of rw.% bulld+rgs 9"
1 n expst+ng commorctal
areas, re10CM9 snarler
bWdaVs with larder
Expen6i g at the cay's
to accommodate more
c0MMrt1cW d"eioprn...
Enc urn"g d$ve!apn t
of conunwc +al uses an thr
some 5" as Nxzing
RerAKwq rleskSemol
zor.1rg to accornaodate
cam -emol dwek)prnew
0 200 4CC 6M 1013D 1200 1400 16M
Figure S. 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 substantial
differences with 59% seeking fewer bars downtown and 71% seeking additional small city parks in residential areas. The
City received similar responses in 1988 with 63% of people seeking more small parks and 41% seeking fewer bars.
Page 12 Quality of life and Future Development Survey
September 2012
33 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
Microsoft Word - SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials.pdf
Table 10. Land Use Changes, San Luis Obispo 2012
http: / /www.sio2O35.com /images /meetings /tf /tf 05_materials.pdf
2012 Community Survey
Small second dwellings ( "granny units ") in
13.5%
7.6%
33.2%
24.6%
21.1%
areas that are most) individual houses.
256
144
632
468
401
1,901
Specialty stores (such as books or clothing)
7.5%
6.0%
32.8%
31.7%
22.0%
in small neighborhood shopping centers.
(143)
(115)
(624)
(603)
(418)
1'903
Offices (doctors, lawyers) in small
8.8%
10.4%
45.1%
23.7%
12.1%
neighborhood shopping centers.
(166)
(196)
(852)
(447)
(229)
1'890
Nursing homes, churches, or schools in
17.6%
13.0%
47.1%
15.6%
6.7%
areas that are most) individual houses.
336
248
896
297
127
1,904
Bars and nightclubs downtown.
43.3%
15.8%
31.4%
4.3%
5.1%
1,917
(831)
(303)
(602)
(83)
(98)
Restaurants and movie theaters downtown
11.1%
9.7%
54.6%
15.9%
8.7%
1'924
(214)
(187)
(1,050)
(306)
(167)
Retail stores downtown
7.2%
5.4%
48.0%
24.1%
15.3%
1,918
(139)
(103)
(921)
(462)
(293)
In residential areas, home businesses with
no employees other than residents of the
10.9%
8.1%
42.2%
22.7%
16.1%
house or apartment that may include small
p y '
205
( )
152
( )
790
( )
(426)
{301)
1'874
scale product assembly or customer visits.
Neighborhood markets or fresh produce
4.1%
5.2%
26.1%
35.2%
29.3%
markets in residential areas.
(79)
(99)
(497)
(671)
(559)
T,905
Auto repair downtown or in shopping
16.3%
14.7%
51.1%
12.2%
5.7%
centers.
(309)
(280)
(972)
(231)
(109)
1,901
Small city parks in residential areas.
3.0%
2.2%
23.9%
30.9%
40.0%
1,920
(571
(43)
(459)
(593)
(768)
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
Page 13
34 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
Microsoft Word- SLOGPU TF LUCE 05 Mem^ - tf 05_materials.pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Public Facilities and Services
http: / /www.sio2O3r, r:om /inia,,es /mectinbs /tf /tf 05 materials.pdf
EMM
2(0- 9 ` ",
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, 58% support acquiring open space peaks and
hillsides, 53% support more land for creeks and marshes, while 54% support more land for City's Greenbelt, These were
the very same items selected by respondents in 1988 with slight 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 and Services, San Luis Obispo 2012
Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths and
parking)
Bus service - more routes and more
frequent service
Traffic congestion management
Neighborhood traffic management
Emergency services /disaster readiness
Flood prevention /control
Preserving historic buildings
Housing for low- income families
Law enforcement: Violence /thefts
Law enforcement: Traffic safety
Law enforcement: Nuisances /zoning
Acquiring and maintaining open space for
peaks & hillsides
Acquiring and maintaining open space for
farm, ranchland
Acquiring and maintaining open space for
creeks & marshes
Acquiring and maintaining open space for
City greenbelt
Parking and access choices downtown
Parks /playfields
Performing arts
Public art
10:8%
63%
30.4%
19.8%
32.8%
1,850
(200)
(116)
(562)
(366)
(606)
8.2°x6
6,9%
45.7%
20.2%
19.0%
1,835
(150)
(127)
(838)
(371)
(349)
7.2%
6.5%
42.0%
25.2%
19.2%
1,814
(130)
(118)
(761)
(457)
(348)
10,4%
10.0%
49.0%
16.8%
13.8%
1,813
(188)
(181)
(888)
(305)
(251)
6.9%
7.1%
50.4%
21.0%
14.6%
1,825
(126)
(130)
(920)
(383)
(266)
103%
11.3%
55.6%
14.2%
816%
1,820
(187)
(205)
(1,012)
(259)
(157)
7.2%
9.9%
41.8%
22.8%
18.3%
1,837
(133)
(182)
(767)
(419)
(336)
16.9%
11.3%
34.7%
20.5%
-16.6%
1,838
(311)
(208)
(637)
(376)
(306)
5.3%
5.7%
47.1%
23.7%
383%
1,819
(96)
(103)
(856)
(432)
(332)
7.5%
8.5%
54.6%
17.4%
12.0%
1,819
(136)
(155)
(993)
(316)
(219)
13.4%
13.2%
46.2%
15.7%
11.5%
1,807
(242)
(239)
(835)
(284)
(207)
7.4%
5.1%
29.5%
23.2%
34.8%
1,840
(137)
(93)
(543)
(427)
(640)
8.9%
9.5%
43.2%
18.7%
19.8%
1,817
(361)
(172)
(785)
(340)
(359)
5.9%
6.44/0
34.7%
24.5%
28.4%
1,829
(108)
(117)
(635)
(449)
(520)
6.9%
6.4%
32.7%
24.0%
30.0%
1,822
(125)
(117)
(596)
(437)
(547)
11.9%
9.5%
43.9%
19.9%
14.9%
1,818
(216)
(172)
(799)
(361)
(270)
6.2%
73%
46.9%
23.4%
16.1%
1,830
(113)
(134)
(859)
(429)
(295)
11.3%
10.8%
513%
16.3%
10.0%
1,835
(207)
(199)
(945)
(300)
(184)
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
35 of 52
September 2012
3/31/2013 5:23 PM
Microsoft Word -. SLOGPU_TF -LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials.pdf http: / /www.sio2035.com /images /meetings /tf /tf 05_materials.pdf
2012 Community Survey
Recreation programs
7.4%
9.2%
51.2%
21.7%
10.6%
1,823
1,680
(134)
(167)
(933)
(395)
(194)
28.0%(455)
Shelter for homeless
17.4%
8.2%
27.3%
216%
215%
1,844
25.7%(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
19%
53%
46.2%
25.8%
18.3%
1,832
30,4%(508)
(72)
(105)
(847)
(473)
(335)
1,718
Street trees, landscaping along streets
63%
7.6%
44,0%
24.2%
17.6%
1,827
1,685
(122)
(138)
(803)
(443)
(321)
23.9%(397)
Street widening /signals
119%
13.4%
44.6%
17.2%
10.9%
1,811
33.0%(545)
(252)
(243)
(807)
(312)
(197)
1,755
Transit service - routes and frequency
9.7%
10.2%
46.0%
19.2%
14.9%
1,789
1,687
(173)
(182)
(823)
(344)
(267)
24.9%(411)
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
Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths and parking)
48.7%(8S3)
51.3%(900)
1,753
Bus service - more routes and more frequent service
38.6%(649)
61.49/.(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
Ernergency services /disaster readiness
41.7%(689)
58.3%(965)
1,654
Flood prevention /control
25.7%(418)
74.30.6 (1,210)
1,628
Preserving historic buildings
35.6%(605)
64.4% (1,094)
1,699
Mousing for low- income families
35.9%(618)
64.1% (1,104)
1,722
Law enforcement: Violence /thefts
41.9%(701)
58.1%(972)
1,673
Law enforcement: Traffic safety
28.9%(479)
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
54.1%(943)
45.9%(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 City greenbelt
51.6%(891)
49.4%1836)
1,727
Parking and access choices downtown
24,7%(417)
75.3% (1,268)
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
36 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
Microsoft Word - SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo �,tf 05_materials.pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan update
http: / /www.slo203�,.om /images /meetings /tf /ti' 05 materials.pdf
i
1 The 1988 survey showed support for paying more for bicycle paths, bus services, law enforcement, and performing arts
(63 %). There was also support for public art, recreation, and parks and piayfields,
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 taxi
services.
Page 16 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
September 2012
37 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM
Microsoft Word - SLOGPU._TF_ LUCE 05 Men,), tf 05 materials.pdf
Demographic Data
http: / /www.slo203om /images /meetings /tf /tf 05_materials.pdf
2012 Community Survey
The vast majority of respondents indicated they live in the City of San Luis Obispo with a little less than half working or
owning a business in the City. Seventy -three percent of respondents own their dwelling with 27% renting,
I irve rn thz City
of San Lws CAx:spc
I watts in t tie City
d San Luis Obispo
I o%n a business at the
Cdy 0f San Luis Otxspo
Please cheek all that npply.
Figure 6. Demographic Data, San Luis Obispo 2012
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
38 of 52
Page 17
3/31/2013 5:23 PM
n
i
Microsoft Word- SLOGPU_TF LUCE 05 Men tf 05_materials.pdf http: / /www.slo2035.com /images /meetings /tf /tf 05 materiais.pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan 1Update
S3.9%
Which of the following best describes your status?
-V 2 .
;'�i Sl[iC}Gnl
>� Employs.~
M Unemployed
1l11� Rebrez
4.2
Figure 7. Status, San Luis Obispo 2012
Page 18 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
39 of 52 3/31/2013 5:23 PM