HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2017 - CodronCOUNCIL MEETING: i
ITEM
ix�a
o Council• •
January 20, 2017
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
SUBJECT: Council Goal -Setting: LUCE Survey
RREIVED
JAN 2 0 2017
SE.O CITY -CLERK
A member of the Land Use and Circulation Element update Task Force made the suggestion that
the City Council would benefit from a review of the 2012 "Quality of Life and Future Development
Survey." This survey was conducted to inform the update of the LUCE and was widely distributed
to City residents and businesses.
If you have any questions about the information included, please feel free to contact me or Derek
Johnson, who was the Director when the survey was conducted.
Here is a link to a digital copy of the attached document:
http://www.slo2035.com/images/meetincis/tf/00-slogpu survey 2012.09.16-rrr. df
Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
Survey Overview
w, of
>..Vr tUIK 0ftIS�10
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 25,000 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
2. City Growth and Relationship to the Region
3. Form of Development
4. Public Facilities and Services
5. Basic Demographic Information
Summary
An overview of the final result from the 2012 survey is provided on the following pages. For questions that are similar to
those in the community survey conducted in 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 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 1
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
Quality of Life
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?
2M
NlEdILLM
Low
0 5M 1 QCkI
Figure 1. Quality of Life, San Luis Obispo 2012
V5%
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
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
4%
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 top 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
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
oto
r,rcr.ai>o-�
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
Natural environment (air quality,
2.1%
1.4%
5.5%
19.9%
71.1%
21011
open space)
(42)
(29)
(110)
(401)
(1,429)
Traffic Safety and Congestion
4.2%
7.7%
19.4%
30.7%
38.2%
Job opportunities
2.4%
5.1%
18.4%
33.5%
40.7%
1,999
Management (local travel and
(83)
(153)
(387)
(613)
(763)
2,000
1.8%
4.6%
20.0%
40.6%
32.9%
Recreation opportunities
2,006
Transportation choices - bus service,
(36)
(93)
(402)
(815)
(660)
2.1%
9.0%
33.5%
38.5%
16.9%
2,008
Entertainment opportunities
(49)
(178)
(443)
(632)
(706)
2,010
Housing opportunities (cost and
(43)
(181)
(673)
(773)
(340)
choice of types)
2.7%
5.8%
16.6%
32.1%
42.8%
2,005
Educational opportunities
5.3%
16.3%
31.3%
28.0%
19.1%
2,010
(54)
(116)
(334)
(646)
(860)
2,004
different backgrounds and interests)
4.6%
13.9%
35.8%
30.0%
15.7%
Shopping opportunities
3.2%
6.9%
19.4%
33.6%
36.9%
2,011
Downtown character and activities
(92)
(280)
(720)
(603)
(316)
2,008.
2.7%
4.1%
18.0%
33.2%
42.0%
Pace of life
2.5%
6.3%
20.0%
34.8%
36.4%
1,999
junk/litter control)
(53)
(82)
(360)
(664)
(840)
2,008
Access to healthy foods - fresh
2.5%
3.1%
9.2%
22.3%
62.9%
Crime levels
2,010
produce and supermarkets
(51)
(62)
(184)
(448)
(1,265)
Opportunities to participate in
3.2%
8.0%
27.7%
35.3%
25.8%
2,003
government decisions
(65)
(160)
(554)
(707)
(517)
Traffic Safety and Congestion
2.4%
5.1%
18.4%
33.5%
40.7%
Management (local travel and
2,000
(47)
(102)
(368)
(670)
(813)
parking)
Transportation 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%
choice of types)
(65)
(159)
(485)
(588)
(708)
2,005
Cultural diversity (people with
5.3%
16.3%
31.3%
28.0%
19.1%
2,004
different backgrounds and interests)
(106)
(327)
(628)
(561)
(382)
3.2%
6.9%
19.4%
33.6%
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%
junk/litter control)
(51)
(126)
(402)
(698)
(731)
2,008
Access to healthy foods - fresh
2.2%
5.9%
16.8%
29.5%
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
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
Housing 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
2012 Community Survey
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%(408)
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 1988 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
[ . ,.;Lo_ _1
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
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 Places of Enjoyment, San Luis Obispo 2012
LOVR
14%
195
Downtown
13%
172
Madonna Road
8%
114
Parking
7%
97
Homeless
7%
93
Foothill Boulevard
4%
62
Streets (in general)
4%
53
Broad Street
3%
51
South Higuera Street
3%
46
Page 6 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012
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.
VIIIF► ch of the fcjkorwhrrp j p p r•ca c 1, e : to d e w r „lin ft aflo ---o a L-1 a growth In 11,#- City do you suppart7
Pr t..1 -, Q: 4 f e (�. t all that apptr.
Keep growth wrth*
WSJ** re VX=es
AnW ho" to tto
nayturat&WrrOrrmom i1wh
M so quaky)
Loak for app�+nr►rt�ae
to vow Mth n
Cty oowr wwl
Mown.wn QM wrorap
�cs�l•a6
gMWth rets at 9 %
Lot IN ax� growth d
Hte c nunt..y tOw
pram spKgfic , ; It
Mo* how of
PM Ot ft1qLMW$9 (X
IM9 Corkin open! f
Da not so
qrMAh Wds
.N) SD, am 100GI 12M 9300
Figure 2. Approaches to Allowable Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 7
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
If the cls was to change the current residential growth rate of 1%, which one of the
follominq would you prefer?
No chamte , m a wason
!htr "D,-* M%4W9*
Srirw TC "a"b ,:riEr&r I ream
1':, txgs;.aeA+ I hair Iho
slat« w Ih* ccunl
�jrcwnq -KI fader
f"n San L!#I (-A*%W
as a v t6o
'+a�a Ir`ieza�4�aiEr�,�+�ak
pec} fC 11tt. rale *�'
i:„�141bffiC-9! �L'!i�'CdhdKltl
IW"IX f"vat
ytDth %M"
2k�
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
Table 7. Types of Development, San Luis Obispo 2012
Housing
Tourist/visitor serving
Manufacturing
Business Park
Shopping/stores
Cultural/entertainment
Medical, legal, financial
services
Government
agencies/institutions
2012 Community Survey
33.0%(637)
58.9% (1,135)
8.1%(156)
1,928
9.5%(184)
79.5% (1,538)
11.0%(213)
1,935
43.9%(827)
51.3%(967)
4.8%(91)
1,885
23.5%(443)
65.2% (1,232)
11.3%(214)
1,889
21.3%(412)
59.5% (1,151)
19.1%(370)
1,933
21.5%(416)
73.4% (1,423)
5.2%(100)
1,939
14.7%(284)
77.0% (1,484)
8.3%(159)
1,927
4.4%(84)
69.4% (1,338)
26.3%(507)
1,929
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%(506)
28.6%(561)
1,961
Aircraft noise
16.9%(331)
22.4%(439)
29.5%(580)
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 on
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
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
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)
16.2%(304)
27.4%(516)
18.8%(354)
19.3%(364)
1,882
facilities to reduce
congestion.
Discourage commuting by
13.5%(258)
11.1%(212)
20.5%(391)
20.4%(389)
34.5%(657)
1,907
individual drivers and
encourage use of busses,
van pools, bicycles, and
carpools.
Discourage additional
41.3%(775)
15.7%(294)
23.8%(447)
9.3%(174)
9.9%(186)
1,876
jobs in San Luis Obispo.
Encourage housing
19.7%(371)
16.5%(310)
27.8%(523)
16.5%(310)
19.6%(368)
1,882
development in San Luis
Obispo.
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
2012 Community Survey
Form of Development
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 s=omrnods►�- now housing lin the city, I support: (Check sl thet apply.)
Using YaICard Ids in
arr1s,_ fW
.:4. LIJ-fig. 1[K6 Ve"gQ
'A Wq Vacant to* In
CK W" ' <� lot
$tlq" Mb" dMfte p
pAdefrela�p ng .Tim i�v�ct��
sees WOh buds
co Thpatible It*
Expendrq sNe c4y's
449" 112 Mccomrnodais inol
MIn9
Encotwarq *w*kvmwR
a housmq an the sem.
$ as as 000 of" a
Wn CGMffWCIW I — -
aoso 1
acccrrn,rnd.or8 houaa,g
,:;(. ,4.4. aw ,,.)W '(zoo i_ca
Figure 4. New Growth, San Luis Obispo 2012
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 11
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
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 accomroodate now stofes, banks, business park development and oftes, E support
(Check all that apply.)
I R "19 tgNg CQ7T1-'riE�f �!
4iX f?L�lf i,ur4ir�s .fin
I n exVSbnj comme-m-j
Farr6r��n�t UNl� inrtjw
f ,KpgrAnj W. 16V fr'ry' 5
Ira or Ylirs odate 311t,,m
L"fT'�f31EfC�: �MBiC�¢=il
oo t;5'Mn fr101 L4" ')M I*
gam $ai as tw>asinq
I I I I I I
1 imm
I
i
R*0%1rig rtook4w'41
rorrnq 9a Wc'Yn4 I
Gtmrntlr'Cr�fl?jOY� I •, ••�...t
I�
41-T
r we i(M iAX 14W si-
Figure 5. 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
Table 10. Land Use Changes, San Luis Obispo 2012
Small second dwellings ("granny units") in
areas that are mostly individual houses.
Specialty stores (such as books or clothing)
in small neighborhood shopping centers.
Offices (doctors, lawyers) in small
neighborhood shopping centers.
Nursing homes, churches, or schools in
areas that are mostly individual houses.
Bars and nightclubs downtown.
Restaurants and movie theaters downtown
Retail stores downtown
In residential areas, home businesses with
no employees other than residents of the
house or apartment that may include small
scale product assembly or customer visits.
Neighborhood markets or fresh produce
markets in residential areas.
Auto repair downtown or in shopping
centers.
Small city parks in residential areas.
2012 Community Survey
13.5%
7.6%
33.2%
24.6%
21.1%
(256)
(144)
(632)
(468)
(401)
7.5%
6.0%
32.8%
31.7%
22.0%
(143)
(115)
(624)
(603)
(418)
8.8%
10.4%
45.1%
23.7%
12.1%
(166)
(196)
(852)
(447)
(229)
17.6%
13.0%
47.1%
15.6%
6.7%
(336)
(248)
(896)
(297)
(127)
43.3%
15.8%
31.4%
4.3%
5.1%
(831)
(303)
(602)
(83)
(98)
11.1%
9.7%
54.6%
15.9%
8.7%
(214)
(187)
(1,050)
(306)
(167)
7.2%
5.4%
48.0%
24.1%
15.3%
(139)
(103)
(921)
(462)
(293)
10.9%
8.1%
42.2%
22.7%
16.1%
(205)
(152)
(790)
(426)
(301)
4.1%
5.2%
26.1%
35.2%
29.3%
(79)
(99)
(497)
(671)
(559)
16.3%
14.7%
51.1%
12.2%
5.7%
(309)
(280)
(972)
(231)
(109)
3.0%
2.2%
23.9%
30.9%
40.0%
(57)
(43)
(459)
(593)
(768)
1,901
1,903
1,890
1,904
1,917
1,924
1,918
1,874
1,905
1,901
1,920
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 13
sLo__I
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
• •11 J1.� r
� 4 • � L
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, 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
10.8%
6.3%
30.4%
19.8%
32.8%
1,850
parking)
(200)
(116)
(562)
(366)
(606)
Bus service - more routes and more
8.2%
6.9%
45.7%
20.2%
19.0%
1,835
frequent service
(150)
(127)
(838)
(371)
(349)
Traffic congestion management
7.2%
6.5%
42.0%
25.2%
19.2%
1,814
(130)
(118)
(761)
(457)
(348)
Neighborhood traffic management
10.4%
10.0%
49.0%
16.8%
13.8%
1,813
(188)
(181)
(888)
(305)
(251)
Emergency services/disaster readiness
6.9%
7.1%
50.4%
21.0%
14.6%
1,825
(126)
(130)
(920)
(383)
(266)
Flood prevention/control
10.3%
11.3%
55.6%
14.2%
8.6%
1,820
(187)
(205)
(1,012)
(259)
(157)
Preserving historic buildings
7.2%
9.9%
41.8%
22.8%
18.3%
1,837
(133)
(182)
(767)
(419)
(336)
Housing for low-income families
16.9%
11.3%
34.7%
20.5%
16.6%
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: Traffic safety
7.5%
8.5%
54.6%
17.4%
12.0%
1,819
(136)
(155)
(993)
(316)
(219)
Law enforcement: Nuisances/zoning
13.4%
13.2%
46.2%
15.7%
11.5%
1,807
(242)
(239)
(835)
(284)
(207)
Acquiring and maintaining open space for
7.4%
5.1%
29.5%
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)
Acquiring and maintaining open space for
5.9%
6.4%
34.7%
24.5%
28.4%
1,829
creeks & marshes
(108)
(117)
(635)
(449)
(520)
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
11.9%
9.5%
43.9%
19.9%
14.9%
1,818
(216)
(172)
(799)
(361)
(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 Quality of Life and Future
Development Survey
September 2012
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%
23.6%
23.5%
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
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%
24.2%
17.6%
1,827
1,685
(122)
(138)
(803)
(443)
(321)
23.9%(397)
Street widening/signals
13.9%
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%(853)
51.3%(900)
1,753
Bus service - more routes and more frequent service
38.6%(649)
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%(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% (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)
48.4%(836)
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
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
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 playfields.
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
2012 Community Survey
Demographic Data
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.
Pie asie, check A thAt.iPPIV_
Ir4* in tl* City
al San L 44 Ct-S pyo
! *0* ,n OW City
of San L u4s Cbirspo
I own a busnums in 1h
CAy of Sail Lull Obispo
I Kul ism 2=
Figure 6. Demographic Data, San Luis Obispo 2012
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 17
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
53.9%
Figure 7.
Which of the following best describes your status?
362%
Status, San Luis Obispo 2012
5.5 -4
42%
i lcrrplar�!
Page 18 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 2012