HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-2013 B1 RowleyGoodwin, Heather
Grimes, Maeve ' - RECEIVED
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8:03 AM I
To: Goodwin, Heather ! Af R U 2 2013
Subject: FW: Minority Report - Better Copy
Attachments: Minority Report Neighborhood Mapping 4- 2- 2013.doc �. � 171 [. LFRK
Please distribute this document as part of Agenda Correspondence for LUCE Update.
Thank you. AGENDA
maeve kennec >y c:,rzlmes CORRESPONDENCE
Date 4/2115 lteL7i# � i
City Clerk
crty of san l.uls OLIISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
phone.: (805) 781 -7102
CMML: mgrimes@slocity.o_r
From: Sandra Rowley [ma lto:macsar99 @yahoo.coml
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:20 AM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy
Grimes, Maeve
�iect: Minority Report - Better Copy
Microsoft Word's margins gremlin struck again. This is a more readable copy, at least it should be.
NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY MAPPING, VISION STATEMENT AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
DIRECTION FOR THE LAND USE ELEMENT
MINORITY REPORT
Tuesday. April 2, 2013
In accordance with paragraph A6 of Council direction adopted January 17, 2012, and paragraph 6E
of the TF -LUCE Guidelines, undated, this minority report is submitted to clarify our minority
votes regarding 1) Defining Neighborhoods and 2) Grouping Neighborhoods into Areas.
Existing Land Use Element (LUE) Policies and Programs
We support these existing policies and programs as being supportive of Neighborhoods.
LUE policy 2.1.1: The City shall assist (emphasis added) residents to identify and designate
neighborhoods. The City will work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans, to facilitate
development of a sense of place within neighborhoods.
LUE policy 2.1.2: The City should encourage and support the formation and continuation of
neighborhood planning groups, composed of neighborhood residents.
LUE program 2.15, Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans, which implements the above policies, is
shown below. The verbiage in italics was omitted from the staff report, but when included, the
focus seems to be on resident and neighborhood actions, with the City providing assistance and
information to support them.
"To help residents preserve and enhance their neighborhoods, the City will:
A. Identify neighborhoods, and work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans that
empower them to shape their neighborhoods;
B. Help devise strategies to help stabilize the rental /owner ratio, to maintain neighborhood character,
safety, and stability;
C. Help identify neighborhood problems, and undertake a wide range of focused development -
review, capital improvement; and code - enforcement efforts;
D. Encourage the formation of voluntary (emphasis added) neighborhood groups, so residents
can become involved early in the development review process;
E. Involve residents early in reviewing proposed public and private projects that could have
neighborhood impacts, by notififing residents and property owners and holding meetings at
convenient times and places within this neighborhoods (emphasis added).
F. Provide appropriate staff support, possibly including a single staff person for neighborhood issues,
and train all staff to be sensitive to issues of neighborhood protection and enhancement."
Defining Neighborhoods and Grouping Neighborhoods into Areas
Neither current neighborhood associations nor homeowners' associations, like The Arbors, were
contacted to hold meetings so their ideas about these topics could be captured.
Defining Neighborhoods
Several neighborhoods within the City have defined themselves, established boundaries, and
formed into formal neighborhood associations (Attachment 1). However, there are large areas of
the City where this has not occurred; GIS staff, Community Development staff, consultants and
Task Force members devoted significant time trying to discover residents' concepts of their
particular neighborhoods and the boundaries of those neighbor- hoods. Nevertheless, it became
clear, as stated in the Staff Report, that there was not universal consensus on precise boundaries
(page 131 -3) and that the perception of what constitutes a neighborhood is highly subjective (page
Bl -4).
A workshop and six two -hour open houses were held in an attempt to obtain face -to -face input
from city residents; however, attendance was low. Of the 100 individuals present at the workshop
almost half were support staff, and three individuals lived in the county. During the all -day-
Saturday July and September open houses, only about twelve residents participated per day.
Neighborhood boundaries obtained at these events were not consistent; Task Force members who
were present on February 20f spent most of the evening discussing and tweaking boundaries and,
finally, produced the map included as Attachment 1 to the Staff Report.
Although the Planning Commission confirmed the neighborhoods shown on the map, they, also,
said that neighborhood sizes and shapes vary with the nature of issues and with the perspective of
the person considering his or her neighborhood (page 131 -5). Furthermore, they thought
neighborhoods should be self - defining (page B1 -5). We totally agree with these two statements.
Because of the lack of consensus on boundaries and the subjective nature about what constitutes a
neighborhood, and considering the guidance contained in LUE 2.15, it appears inappropriate for
the City to decide, even loosely, the sets of streets and boundaries that are to constitute individual
neighborhoods. The choice should remain with residents, if and when they choose to do so; they
are capable and should be treated as such.
The decision whether to form a neighborhood group, or not; whether to have defined boundaries,
or not; and, if so, the location of those boundaries should rest solely with the residents affected by
that decision. The City should not appear to be superimposing neighborhood boundaries on
residents, but be available to help residents self - define their own neighborhoods if they choose to
do so.
We strongly support those neighborhoods that have chosen to self- identify. Additionally, we have
concluded that since defining neighborhood boundaries is so difficult to do accurately, it should be
left undone until residents do it for themselves.
Determining Desirable Features
A pre - prepared, possibly standardized, list of features was provided by the consultant to attendees
at the workshop and, later, made available at the Saturday open houses. It did not appear that the
list had been modified with questions from the city -wide survey or otherwise adapted to San Luis
Obispo since, for example, there were no features included that addressed historic resources,
excessive alcohol use or late -night noise in neighbor- hoods. Additions to the list were allowed
with space available to do so; but, although these write -ins could be shared with others at the same
table, there was no opportunity to share from table to table until after the exercise was completed.
Also, there did not appear to be the capability to update the list since, even though some variation
of historic resources was added twelve times and some variation of noise/ quiet was added ten
times, they were not added to the list for participants at the subsequent open houses to consider.
The Planning Commission was not aware of the amount of discussion the topic of features
generated during Task Force meetings, with each of the top features being explored as it related to
where Task Force members live. Consensus on the universality of these features was not reached.
Grou ing_Neighborhoods into Areas
The Task Force was assured that grouping multiple neighborhoods into large areas was only a
"tool;" a way to describe or refer to a large area rather than saying "east of Santa Rosa and west of
Hwy 101." If used in this way only, we would have had little issue with the large area groupings.
However, we are concerned about references to "commonality of interests" and "providing context
for resident input related to neighborhood needs." Self - identified neighborhoods such as the Alta
Vista Neighborhood Association, Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association, Old Town
Neighborhood Association, San Luis Drive Neighborhood Association, Neighborhoods North of
Foothill and Laguna Neighbors have historically self- identified around issues specific to their
particular neighborhood. We are concerned about "lumping" dissimilar neighborhoods together
into a large area and then presuming they have a commonality of issues. We are also concerned
that neighborhood needs specific to one neighborhood may be diminished within the context of
the large area.
The inherent problem of combining dissimilar neighborhoods into a large area and assuming a
commonality of issues is apparent when looking at the large neighborhood area that encompasses
Laguna Lake. Within that area is a formal neighborhood association, Laguna Neighbors, and five
other identified neighborhoods. Laguna Neighbors and the area that is across Madonna from
them have more commonality of issues with the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhoods
and portions of the Highland Avenue neighborhood than they do with the other identified
neighborhoods in their area. Common problems include a high number of high - density rental
houses, garage and other room conversions and late -night noise from partiers, with attendant
behavior. These problems are not shared by the other four identified neighborhoods in that area.
For these reasons we did not vote to "lump" dissimilar neighborhoods together into larger areas.
The Roles of the City Re a� rdin,g Neighborhoods
We strongly support the Planning Commissions statement that a role of the City with regard to
neighborhoods should be "to provide support to local groups of residents who wish to organize
for civic and social purposes" (Page B1 -5).
However, we have concerns with the Planning Commissions statement that a role of the City with
regard to neighborhoods should be to "work toward those features of good neighborhoods that
were expressed by residents in almost all areas of the city," namely:
a. Pride of ownership and property maintenance (Pride of ownership should be viewed as
a resident/ citizen responsibility, not a City responsibility; code enforcement and
neighborhood services staff address property maintenance on an as- needed basis.)
b. Complete network of pedestrian connections (Discussed below)
c. Sense of safety (Discussed below)
d. Low crime rates
e. Safe streets for various modes of circulation
f. Strong neighborly relations (A resident responsibility, not a City responsibility)
Our concerns are as follows:
1. The pre - prepared, apparently unmodified, list of features has conceivably skewed the results of
the questionnaire. Also, terms like "pride of ownership" and "strong neighborly relations" are so
vague that they could result in activities by the City that are contrary to the needs and wishes of
affected residents.
2. Connections between neighborhoods or subdivisions may facilitate walking, biking and
neighborhood connectivity, but they can, also, facilitate the movement of strangers into and
throughout neighborhoods and negatively affect feelings of safety and security. Not having such
connections may be the preference of a neighborhood.
3. "Complete network of pedestrian connections" is, also, vague. It should not be interpreted to
mean sidewalks must be present along all residential streets; some long - established residential
areas prefer not having sidewalks.
4. There is no mention of the City's role in preserving the character of established neighborhoods.
5. Very good, time- tested residential neighborhood goals, policies and programs are contained in
the current Land Use Element that should not be replaced by the above six items. Additionally,
each item should be discussed in more depth by City residents and Task Force members before
being adopted.
Vision Statement
We support this unanimous recommendation of both the Task Force and the Planning Commission
to use the existing Vision Statement within the Land Use Element, with the minor edits that were
made (Pages B1 -6, B1 -7).
Guiding Principles
We strongly support the unanimous recommendation of both the Task Force and the Planning
Commission that the consultant team use the existing goals within the Land Use Element, rather
than the more abbreviated Guiding Principles suggested by the consultant team, in order to
develop alternatives for consideration (Page B1 -8).
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Rowley Carla Saunders
Attachment
Neighborhood Associations in San Luis Obispo
Group Established Boundaries
Neighborhoods 2001 Foothill north to city edge
North of Santa Rosa east to city edge
Foothill (NNOF)
Alta Vista
1979 -80
North boundary — Slack to Hathaway
Neighborhood
East boundary — Grand to Slack
Association
South boundary — Hwy 101 between Calif and Grand
(AVNA)
West boundary — California to Hathaway
Monterey Heights
about 1980
North boundary — Slack Street
Neighborhood
East boundary — Loomis Street
Association
South boundary — Hwy 101 west of Grand
West boundary — Grand Avenue
San Luis Drive
1987 (informal)
A loop that starts on San Luis Drive just past SLO HS
Neighborhood
1989 (formal)
grounds, goes around the housing and vacant lots to
Association
Hwy 101, then makes a U -turn and goes along the creek
back to the start point
Laguna Neighbors
2003
Boundaries: Oceanaire Drive from Madonna to LOVR
(w /bump -out to include Mariners Cove) and the interior
of both of both Madonna Road and LOVR that
completes the loop
Old Town
Neighborhood
Association
(OTNA)
Residents for
Quality
Neighborhoods
(RQN)
1978 (informal) Boundaries are Pismo (beginning at Johnson) to Carmel,
1981 (formal) Carmel to High, High to Church, Church to Osos then
Leff, Leff to Johnson, and Johnson back to Pismo
1989 (informal) Boundaries are the city limits
1990 (formal)