HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRC Agenda Communication - Item 2, 12-02-2015 residents adjacent to Bishop Peak Natural ReserveNovember 30, 2015
To: The Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Residents of the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve
Subject: Draft "Open Space Maintenance Plan"
Dear Chairman and Honorable Members of the Parks & Recreation Commission,
We are very appreciative that the City Council made "Protection & Maintenance of Open Space" a
highest City goal for 2015 -2017, and that your Commission joined with the Planning Commission in
recommending, additional Ranger positions to add meaningful support to achieve this goal.
(attachment #1).
While we were disappointed that the Park & Recreation Department Director and Assistant City
Manager did not join the Commissions in supporting these additional Ranger positions, we believe that
Council's eventual addition of two part -time Rangers can help significantly in achieving the primary
purpose of open space - -- protection of natural resources - - -- IF A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF
THE TOTAL TIME OF RANGER STAFF IS DEDICATED TO RANGER PATROLS IN OPEN SPACES TO ENFORCE
THE WILDLIFE- PROTECTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S 1998 OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE. These
include; No nighttime use of Open Space, as wildlife moves freely through the open space at night, and
wildfire danger increases with night use; Stay on trails, as this protects both wildlife and their habitats;
Dogs must be on leashes, as this prevents unleashed dogs from "running" wildlife in protected open
spaces and protects habitats.
The recently featured, Tribune article on the City's Open Space highlighted this lack of enforcement as a
fundamental problem; "Night- hiking has been prohibited in San Luis Obispo since 1998, but the city has
never had enough ranger staffing available to consistently enforce that and other rules, such as keeping
dogs on a leash -- -and trail users knew it"
As residents of neighborhoods adjacent to the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, we have observed positive
beginnings of increased public awareness of the City's Open Space Ordinance requirements. But
unfortunately, there continue to be many incidents of disregard for them. These include;
• Almost nightly, after hours, night use of the Reserve
• Off -leash dogs that frequently "run" wildlife
• Illegal mountain biking in the Reserve, both on hiking trails and off -trail in wildlife habitats
• Hiking off trail
• Overnight camping
• Occasional, open fires at night in this very high fire area
During WOW Week, we were also very disappointed when hundreds of WOW Leaders and WOW
participants descended in one large gathering in the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve for a massive,
competitive group hike to the summit, spurred on by the top - decibel, blasting of multiple boom boxes.
The City's Open Space Ordinance's prohibition of "large gatherings" in open spaces was obviously
violated, and adjacent narrow residential streets were blocked and overwhelmed by the huge number
of cars. Fire trucks would have been unable to reach any number of houses during this large gathering.
But perhaps the worst part was the inadvertent message that was sent to hundreds of incoming
students being introduced to our City. When twenty or so WOW Leaders and participants were asked
about this WOW experience as they were coming out of the Bishop Peak trailhead, NOT ONE STUDENT
KNEW THAT THEY HAD BEEN IN A NATURAL RESERVE; NOR ANYTHING ABOUT THE NATURAL
RESOURCES BEING PROTECTED IN OUR CITY; NOR WHY THERE WERE REGULATIONS THAT THEY WERE
BEING ASKED TO FOLLOW. (if people don't know why they are being asked to follow a regulation, they
are less likely to do so .) Disappointingly, this occurred after Staff's "education of over 1,000 WOW
leaders about appropriate Open Space uses ".
We believe that in the future it is important that Natural Resource Staff "educate" WOW Leaders and
incoming students about the City's Natural Reserves; the rich wildlife and habitats that City residents
value and protect; and why it is important to follow the wildlife - protective requirements of the City's
Open Space Ordinance.
We also believe that new trailhead signage should emphasize, the words "NATURAL RESERVE ". (In a
number of existing trailhead signs the words "Natural Reserve" are in significantly smaller letters.)
We also respectfully request the following, critical clarification;
1. At the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting on December 2, we ask that the public and the
Commission be given "the big picture" of how Ranger Service time will be allotted, if the draft
"Open Space Maintenance Plan" is adopted. Specifically;
* The total number of full and part -time rangers.
* An estimate of what percentage of the estimated total, combined Ranger hours per
week /month, on the average, will be dedicated to atropin O en Spaces for enforcement of the
wildlife- _9 rotective requirements of the City's Open Space Ordinance. In other words, what
percentage of total Ranger time will be dedicated primarily to the primary purpose of Open
Space .... the protection of natural resources?
* A realistic estimate of what percentage of the estimated total, combined Ranger hours per
week /month, on the average, will be dedicated to maintenance of trails and the building of new
trails in the City's Open Spaces? This primarily supports passive recreation, the secondary purpose
of open space. Ranger Staff has said in meetings that the vast majority of their time in Open Space
is spent on trail building and trail maintenance, which supports passive recreation, the secondary
purpose of open space.
* The above estimates of Ranger Staff time division, applied specifically to the Bishop Peak
Natural Reserve.
* We request that a summary of the responses to the above be included in the minutes for this
meeting.
2. A reoccurring problem is also that there are apparently no telephone numbers to reach the
Ranger Service outside of regular City Hall hours. This is especially problematic, as night use of Open
Space is a large problem, but there seems to be no way to reach the Ranger Service at night.
Responding to last night's use of open space on the following day, does little to "educate" those
who were violating the City's Open Space Ordinance. As there is more use of open space on
weekends and holidays, there is also a correspondingly larger need to also reach the Ranger service
on weekends and holidays.
For your review, we have attached previous correspondences on this issue. (attachments #2, #3 )
Thank you for your consideration
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Eltzroth
Mary Kay Eltzroth
Richard Frankel
Marilyn Kinsey
Noni Smyth
Kathy apRoberts
Jim apRoberts
Julie Frankel
Phil Ruggles
Joanne Ruggles
Carla Saunders
Felicia Cashin
Carol Hall
Helen Sipsas
Don Ramirez
Leslie Stanley
Nita La Loggia
Janice Elliott
Keith Elliott
Peter Karacsony
Gail Karacsony
Michelle Clark
Suzie Beresky
David Stafford
Beverly Gingg
Bryan Gingg
B.K. Richard
Gail Steele
Roger Steele
(ATTACHMENT #1)
r
Council Memorandum
June 5, 2015
TO: City Council
FROM Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager and
Shelly Stanwyck, Parks and Z mation Director
VTA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
SUBJECT: June 9, 2015 Agendacorrespbndeace Item B -1
COUNCIL NIEETING: rst l bA
ITEM NO.: A
I
.JUN 05 2I11S
Al the May 27 meeting of the Planning Commission, following public testimony on the Bishop
Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update, the Commission discussed its
recommendation to Council. Included in that recommendation was an additive item related to
the proposed 2015 -17 Financial Plan. The Planning Commission's motion was as follows:
Multari moved, Riggs seconded, to approve the plan with these additions: address
[emergency] access alternatives; do not consider a Patricia Drive -side [emergency]
access; emphasize intent to encourage [transportation] mode shift in general terms
consistent with the LUCE; work with neighbors on parking control solutions; clarify
intent to reduce use as a tourist destination; and before the next budget is qdo led�udvise
the 01 t�.CCOancil that the Plannin g Commission considers additional ranger sta Ing be to
be a priority (Carried 5:0).
At the June 3 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), following public
testimony on the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update, the Commission
discussed the need for additional ranger staffing (in addition to the one new full time ranger
proposed) to address ongoing enforcement and maintenance issues.
The Commission requested that staff provide the following motion to Council prior to its
consideration and discussion of the 2015 -17 Financial Plan:
The Parks and Recreation Commission strongly encourages the City to hire more than
one new full time ranger in the 201 5 -17 Financial Plan. (Reiger /Baker 6 -0)
The City increased its staffing in the Ranger Services Program by one full -time regular position
in 2013, which has been a major benefit to the effectiveness of the program. With the Open
Space Maintenance Major City Goal, staff is proposing one additional full -time ranger position.
Both of these full time resources are proposed to be dedicated entirely to maintenance and
enforcement activities in the City's open space. As a result, staff does not recommend making a
change to the proposed work program at this point in time. However, the Council should be
aware that with the potential for major new open space acquisitions in the next two to three
years, the need for additional Ranger Services resources will be evaluated to make sure no
ground is lost in terms of our ability to effectively manage and maintain open space lands.
April 19,20-1-5- esi ents of the Bishop Peak Residential Neighborhoods
(ATTACHMENT #2)
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 3Rujeave adequate flexibility.in adopting eneral " Open-Space Work
Programs" so as NOT to reclude additional. "Work Pro arn" o bons and their financing) that may come out
of the "The BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN" UPDATE.
2_ THE DEFINITION & PURPOSE OI; t]PEN SPACE: These were not clearly stated in the format of the
Staff report, but are as follows;
"Open Space is land or water which remains in a predominantly natural or undeveloped state, and is
generally free oFstructures. Such lands protect and preserve the community's Natural and historical
PH1 - 58
resources define the urban boundary, and provide visual and physical relief from
(General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo)
The first sentence in the City's "Open Space Ordinance" states, " Purpose of open space lands: The till of
San Luis Obispo has developed a system of 2gcn space lands"....."far the en oYment of the natural
environment b our citizens ".
The 2006 "Conservation & Open Space Element" of the City's General Plan states: "The City will consider
allowing passive recreation in open spac!0 where it will not degrade or significantly impact open space
resources and where there are no significant neighborhood compatibility irn acts ".
"The main goal 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.
Tice Qven S ace Ordinance movisions protect both wildlife and their habitats in the City's Natural
Reserves (inclu&g the BISHOP PEAK NATURAL RESERVE and the "quality of life" in adjacent
residential neighborhoods. These Lotective rovisions include,
1. No nighttime use of Open Space. This is important as wildlife moves throu&h _the Natural Reserve at
night-, and residents of the adjacent nei borhoods try to sleep at ni Irt
2. Stay on trails (t13is protects the natural resouregs of the Natural Reserve):
3. Des must be on leashes. This prevents unleashed dogs from "rurutirl" the Natural Reserves' wildlife &
degodation of their habitats.
Unfortulalely, through "word of tnuufh" it is well known Llial 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 residents ofthe Bishop Peak trailhead neighborhoods did NOT move into
neiuhbarizovds adiacent to a publicly owned tradhead. Public tradheads were PUT INTO our well - established
residential ngighborhoods with the uaderstand'ing t/aax there would be rules far the use o the cft- acrrurred
rtatrtraI reserves: that tho.►e gr owdive provisions would be enforced;; and the general "level of use" oftke
natural reserve would be by the Citizens of our City.
PH1 - 59
Attachment 6
TILE. 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
woeFizl]y arzadequate , 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 hip-hest bud et primrity,
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 tremendously educational (and inexpensive) to use the term "NATURAL Open space" .
rather than iust "Open Space ", in the City- `s descriptions of the Open Spaces preserved primarily
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 LOSE. 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
PRO ILEIM:
PHI - 60
Attachment 6
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 2414 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.
PH1 - 61
Attachment 6
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. T%IC +OBVI(iUS FIII;ST STEP;
Tlae Cit should not make this overuse , roblern even worse by s eci acally advertisin for even
snore 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 Deserve. (In the accompanying video, the only sign identifying
an 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
PH1 - 62
Miriam Martin
Rachelle Paragas
Bradford Caligari
Nancy Caligari
Aron Schroder
Delores M. Quezadar
Pam Copeland
Tom Copeland
Robert Neal
Mary Neal
Angela Donath
Gary Donath
Harold Segal
Robert Duncan
Gloriann Liu
Judith A. Hiltbrand
Rush Hiltbrand
Gayle Cekada
D Elaine Patrick
Phillip Ruggles
Joanne B. Ruggles
Attachment 6
PH1 - 63
(ATTACHMENT #3)
May 27, 2015
Subject: Meeting Communty 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
Most Residents probably assume that City funding will reflect the priority they and their City Council
have planed 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.
PH1 - 79
21 full -time
Aurora, Colorado
7,000 acres
9 Ranger Patrol
12 Ranger Maintenance and Operations
11 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, 1 Full Time)
San Luis Obispo
4,000 acres
2 LBT Rangers
1 CW 5
Most Residents probably assume that City funding will reflect the priority they and their City Council
have planed 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.
PH1 - 79
Attachment 6
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,
PH1 - 80
*went 6
&a was oklp+
Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
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,QOO 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 S8S
respondents.
Mail and online surveys are not consideredlstatistically valid as they are "self- selected" — people choose to participate
based on their own desire to share their oOinirNK. The City Council opted for this course of action so that any and all
residents and businesses would have an opoortunity 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
2. City Growth and Relationship to theRegion
3. Form of Development
4_ Public Fatalities and Services
S. Basic'Demographic Information
Summary
An overview of the final result from the 2012 survey is provided an the following pages. For questions that are similar to
those in the comrrmunity survey conducted iii 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 p�ovided in the appendix.
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
Page 1
PH1 - 81
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Public Facilities and Services
Attachment
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, support acquiring open space peaks and
I
hillsides, 5x% suoonrt more land for cre sand marshes, while a% s m�gre Viand €or Citv's Greenha_ _I These were
the very same items selected by respondents in 1988 with sli tt variations in support; 44% bike lanes, 54% peaks and
hillside preservation, 50% creeks and marshes, and 43% preservation of farm land.
Table 11. Additional Fadlities and Services, San Luis Obispo 2012
Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths and
10.8%
6.3%
30.4%
19.8%
32.85eo
1,850
parking)
(200)
(116)
(S62)
(366)
(606)
B.us:service- more•routes and mare;
8.2%
6.996 -
.45-7%-: _
20.2%
19.0%
1,835
frequent service::,'
(350}
(127)
(838 }:::.
(71 };
(349)
Traffic congestion management
7.2%
6.5%
42.0•/o
25.2%
19.2%
1,814
(130)
(118)
(761)
(457)
(348)
Net Eaboti iovt3.traffic rrtaitage€f}eret
10:4%
i0_Ci3`?;
A9.0%
16.7
_a. at
(188)
(181)
(888)
Emergency services /disaster readiness
6.9%
7.1%
50.4%
21.D%
14.6%
1,825
(126)
(130)
(420)
(383)
(266)
Flacd prevention/oonti -61.
^ , _
( F
(2w-
31Al2- .•.:
{ W)
:,657) -
Preserving historic buildings
7.2%
9.9%
41.8%
22.8%
18.3%
1,$37
(133)
(182)
(767)
(419)
(336)
Housingfor low - income 4mih6g ;..'
16.9%
11:3%,
34:7%
205%,
if 69&
038,
(311)
(208)•"
(67�p•
076)::`. '
(306x• °"
Law enforcement: Violence /thefts
535A
5.7%
47.1%
23.7%
18.3%
1,819
(96)
(103)
(956)
(432)
(332)
Law errforcerrient':7raf # ic:safeLy : _:.
7.596-
5:59¢
54Z$ 0::':
17.456
" U.M.
1,839
Law enforcement: Nuisances /zoning
13.4%
13.2%
46.2%
15.7%
11.5%
1,807
(242)
(239)
(835)
(284)
(207)
k1'_ Acquiring:and maintairairigo*ft,space -for:
Z:b°lb :
5.1%
29Z% -.. '
23.2%,!.
34.8%.
1,840•
peaks 8i hillsides
(137)
(93)
(543)"
(427):, =
(644)
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)
Acquiring:and: maintaining open space for<
S.9SA
6.4% .
34.7 %,;
241 5%
28:4Ya:
1,aa
creeks & marshes
(108.):
(117)
(635'
(444)-
(520).
Acquiring and maintaining open space for
6.9%
6.41/a
32.7%
24.0516
30.056
1,822
City greenbelt
(125)
(117)
(596)
(437)
(547)
Parking and access choices downtown
119 % =
95%
439°x6
19.9%
149%
1818
(216)_
(172)'
(.799}
(36-1) :_
(270)
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 duality of Life and Future Development
Survey
September 2012
PH1 - 82
Attachment 6
2012 Community Survey
Recreation programs
T.4%-
9.2%
51.2%
21.7%
ULM
1,823
(134)
(167)
(933)
(395)
(194) -
Shelter for homeless
17.4%
8.2%
27.3%
23.6%
23.5%
1,844
(320)
(151)
(504)
(436)
(433)
Sidewalk improvements and pedestrian
7.1%
7.5%
41.8%
24.096
19.6%
1,828
connections
(130).
(138)
(764)
(438)
(358).
Street maintenance
3.9%
5.7%
46.2%
25.8%
18.3%
1,832
(72)
(105)
(8471
(473)
(335)
Street trees, landscaping along streets
6:7%
7.6%
44.0%
2:4.298
17.6%
1;827
(122)
(138)
(803)
(443)
(321).
Street widening /signals
13.9%
13.4%
44.6%
17.2%
10.9%
1,811
(252)
(243)
(807)
(312)
(197)
Transit service - routes and. frequency
9.7%
10:2%
46.0%
19.2% :
14.9%
1,789:
(173)
(182)
(9,23)
(3441,
(267)
Despite support for some services, only
a slight majority of resparidents Said they
would su art
a in more for ust two• I
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 and parking)
Bus service - mare. routes and .mare frequ4 rrt 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 forfarm, ranchland
Acquiring and maintaining open:space for creeks & marshes
Acquiring and maintaining open space for [ity greenbelt
Parking and access choices,downtown
Parks /playfields
Performing arts
Public art
Recreation programs
Shelter for homeless
Sidewalk improvements and pedestrian connections
Street maintenance
Street trees, landscaping along streets
Street widening /signals
Transit service - routes and frequency I
49.7%(853)
38:6 %:(649)
37.6%(631)
28.01%. (455)
41,7%(689)
35.6%(605)
35.9% (618)
41.9%(701)
283% (479)
24.1%(402)
54:1 %(943)
30.4%(508)
493%(847)
51,6%(891)
24.7%(417)
38.8%(655)
23.9%(397)
20,6%(345)
33.0% (545)
46.7%(820)
42.1%(709)
42.4%(716)
39.8%(666)
24.9%(411)
31,7%(520)
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future DeveiopmentSurvey
51-3%(9001
61.4%(1,031).
62.4% (1,049)
710%1(1,171)
58.3%(965)
743% (.1,210)
64.4% (1,094)
64.1% (1;104)
58.1%(972)
71.1 %(1,180)
75.9% (1,268)
45:9% (801)
69.6% (1,163)
50.7% {871)
48.4%(836)
61.2% (1,033)
76:1% (1;266)
79.4% (1,329)
67'.0% (1,106)
53.3%(935)
57.9% (977)
57.6%(971)
60.2%..(1,008)
75.1% (1,237)
68.3 %(1,121)
1,753
1;680
1,680
1,625
1,654
1,628
1,699
1,722
1,673
1,659
1,670
1,744
1,671
1,718
1,727
1;685
1,688
1,663
1,674
1,651
1,755
1,686
1,687
1,674
1;648
Page 15
PH1 - 83
tileasure G; I4,Extend Existing Tax for an Additional Eight Years I V... http:// votersedge.org/san- luis- obispol ballot- measures12014 /novemb...
Attachment 6
Election to extend the City's existing one -half
Transactions and Use Tax, Chapter 3.15, for
eight years, to March 31, 2023.}
NOW, EItEPORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the
Council a the People of the City of San Dais bispo
as follows: S ON 1. Chapter 3.15 of the 1ty's
Municipal Code . hereby amended and - enacted in
full to read as follows:
Chapter 3.15 ESSl
TRANSACTIONS
TAX
3.>,5.o10 Title. This ehapt s all be known as the
"city of San Luis Obis ent services
transactions (sales} d use tax o ance." The city
of San Luis Obis lereinaffier sh called the
"city." This cha er shall be applic�Ibl 'n the
inZf rritory of the city.
3se. This chapter is adopted to ieve
tmong other purposes, and directs that
th hereof be interpreted in order to
B. To adopt a re transactions and use tax chapter
that incorpo es p visions identical to those of the
sales and u tax law the state of California insofar
as those ovisions are n inconsistent with the
requi ents and limitatio ntained in Part 1.6 of
D' on 2 of the Revenue andT tnton. Code.
C. -To adopt a retail transactions and use tax chapter
that,imposes a tax, �o es,a_xrlea��e_tberefor _.
Pfi 3
5 of 12 Q672015 2:49 PM
, dccomplish those purposes:
A. To protect and maintain essential services and
facilities— such as O rYali; 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
z e provisions o Part 1.6
41permeen
omencing 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
o ative if two- thirds of the council and a majority
vote the electors votin�on measure, vote to
approve a extension oeral purpose
revenue so ce at an ction called for that purpose.
B. To adopt a re transactions and use tax chapter
that incorpo es p visions identical to those of the
sales and u tax law the state of California insofar
as those ovisions are n inconsistent with the
requi ents and limitatio ntained in Part 1.6 of
D' on 2 of the Revenue andT tnton. Code.
C. -To adopt a retail transactions and use tax chapter
that,imposes a tax, �o es,a_xrlea��e_tberefor _.
Pfi 3
5 of 12 Q672015 2:49 PM
V/
Attachme t
-San latis OhiM2 g Q 24,2 a& 3
City Manager L"ichtig presented the tabulated results as follows:
l Pa2015.17 FimnrW
PH1 - 85
(n
1
ty ct
th r
.r
V
O �
T
V
2
E
Vice
Cound
CouncH
CiOl111:8
T
R
Mayor
Mayor
Mambr r
Member
Member
A
G
GoW Statement
Marx
Ashbauaft
2WM,
Cbrist,=w
Riwire
r
.Open Space:
la2Ld—wlaraa#a ace
5
5
5.
3
2
20
4.0
J uld -Modal Transportatlon:
l rlaritize jTWomanigdon of the
bk y* master 2 am and irxrmrnm and
rnairii'eM bi st ' n, and,
transit facilities.
5
1 3
5
3
4
20
40
fiorrslrtg:
Implement the Housing Element
faaltiating workforce, affordable,
supportive and transriamal hoes"
npt ions, ftluding sMW &r°nBei7�
r ra c[rare within the Caty's fair
share_
3
4
5
4
4
20
4.0
Neighborhood Wellness:
Improve neighborhood wellness, work
with residents, Cuesta, and Cal Pply;
WaW pj&lic safety. code
LYfRIpliBac,e. 8ta_ f s 6Crative
so/ &
4
2
5
3
3
17
3A
Laguna Lake Restoration;
Inif+�ta 7r??AlerrfBrrt8tlOr! �{.tfr9 Lag�I,rra
3
3
4
4
3
17
3.4
Lake Natural Resewve Consawatidn
Plert.
Fismi Suslainability and
Responsibility:
Implement the CiVs Fiscal
Responsibility Philosophy with a fdcus
on the reduction of unfunded
liabilities.
2 1
0
5
3 1
4
14
2.8
Downtown:
Adopt a Downtown Concept Plan,
develop a plan for expansion of
Mission Plaza, and improve safe
inE2MbAgfure. and rnainfgWXce inithe
2
3
1
4
3
13
2.6
Downtown.
Parks and Recreation:
Update the Parks and Recreation
Element, create Master Plan, mair"n
and Lm roue qu nrt park farr_Iittas
and upd ate rstxeatonat ms.
2
3
0
3
2
10
2.0
PH1 - 85
(n
1
ty ct
th r
.r
V
O �
Attachment 6
Sin Ins [36ispn Cityr C Qf Sanuazy 24 201 S_� T_ -- 1'a—A
Climate Action Plan:
Implement the Climate Ammon Plan,
Including advocating a regional
feasibility study regarding
establishment of Community Choice
Awregatlon C+C . 1 5 0 0 4 10 2.0
Deferred Infrastructure
Maintenance:
Address deferred maitrt€rrrance of key!
c irrrria 3 2 0 3 1 a 1.8
TOTAL. 30 i 30 30 30 30 150
Points Key: 5. Most important; higher p6nhy for City to achieve over th&next two years; 4: Very important goal
to acMeve; 3.1714mm of goal to achievt� 2. Address if resources are avaiiabFs ; 1: Defer to 2017-19 for coonsidcsation;
0: Not a priority goat
MOTION By COUNCIL MEM13ER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
ASHBAUGH, CARRIED 5 -0, to adopt the City's Major City Goals and Other important
Objectives, as outlined below:
Mxiur ift Gtrt x
These represent the most iznpartant, highest - priority goals for Pe City to accomplish over the
next two years, and as such, �s to accol�lish there should be included in the 2015 -2017
Financial Plan-
Open Space: Protect and maintain_ opett space.
TOTAL POINTS: 20 AVERAGE POINTS: 4.0
Multi -Modal Transportation: Prioritize implementation of the [iicycle master plan and improve
and maintain bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.
TOTAL POINT'S: 20 AVERAGE POU1,aS: 4.0
Hou -8419: Implement the Housing Element, facilitating woTkfia'ce, affordable, supportive and
ifra
transitional housing options, including support for needed instrwtuxe within the City's fair
share.
TOTAL POINTS: 20 AVERAGE POINTS: 4.0
Other Lipp trtant Obiecdves
Goals in this category are implartwit for the City to accomplish; and resources should be made
available in the 2015 -2017 Financxai Plan ifat all gossiblc.
Neighborhood Wellness: Improve neighborhood wellness, work; with residents, Gtizesta, and Cal
Poly, increase public safety, code compliance, and collaborative solutions,
TOTAL POINTS: 17 AVERAGE POINTS. 3.4
Laguna Lake Restoration. Initiate implementation of the tuna Lake Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan,
TOTAL POINTS: 17 AVERAGE POINTS: 3.4
'' :.
Attachment 6
San Luis Obispo City Council lutes of January 24 201 S Pa ,e 5
Fiscal Sustainability and Respoobiiity. Implement the City's Fiscal Responsibility Philosophy
with a focus on the reduction ofunfunded liabilities.
TOTAL POINTS: 14 AVENGE 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 Do"owtL
TOTAL PO TS: 13 AVERAGE POINTS: 2.6
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council adjourned at 3:38 pan, to a Special ,MceWt to be held on Tuesday, January
27, 2015 at 3:40 p.nL in the :Council Hearing Room, 990- Palen Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, for the purpose of eopducting closed sessions.
The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on Tuesdhy, February 3, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.
in the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, Sari Luis Obis " California_.
4 i nY L
CAA} lerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL_ 03117/2015
PH1 - 87