HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-2013 b1 luce neighborhood mapping[Meet,Date
April2,2013
;Item Number
B Z
counci lAacenba RepotRt
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :
Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r
Prepared By :Kim Murry, Long Range Planning Divisio n
SUBJECT : NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY MAPPING, VISIO N
GUIDING PRINCIPLES DIRECTION FOR TH E
CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE (GPI 15-12 )
RECOMMENDATIO N
1.Receive and file recommendations by the TF-LUCE and Planning Commission tha t
identifies neighborhood boundaries, areas, vision statement, and guiding principles for th e
Land Use and Circulation Elements update and provide adjustments as needed by the Cit y
Council ; and
2.Provide direction to staff regarding the filling of vacancies on the Task Force-Land Use an d
Circulation Element .
REPORT-IN-BRIE F
• The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains a program that directs the City to identify
neighborhoods as part of supporting neighborhood wellness . The effort to identify neighborhood
boundaries was initiated in 2011 and wrapped into the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE )
update process . The Task Force for the LUCE update (TF-LUCE) reviewed the draft boundarie s
and made recommendations that were reviewed and endorsed by the Planning Commission . Thos e
recommendations are being considered by Council . Staff requests that Council provide direction i f
the Task Force and Planning Commission's recommendations differ from the Council's view o n
these issues .
The LUCE update process has involved gathering resident input regarding the future vision for the
community at large and input regarding several opportunity areas . In order to develop alternative s
for consideration, the consultant team is seeking guidance for screening those alternatives to ensur e
they meet the community's expectations . The TF-LUCE and Planning Commission reviewed the
existing Vision Statement from the Land Use Element in context of community input throug h
workshops, surveys, and the on-line MindMixer tool, and recommended minor edits to the Visio n
Statement for Council consideration .
The TF-LUCE reviewed Guiding Principles the consultant team developed based upon community
input and existing general plan goals to evaluate proposed alternatives for focus areas . Both the TF-
LUCE and the Planning Commission recommended that the consultant team use the existing goal s
within the Land Use and Circulation Elements rather than the more abbreviated Guiding Principle s
suggested by the consultant team in order to develop alternatives for consideration .
STATEMENT AN D
LAND USE AN D
•
LUCE Update — Neighborhoods and Guiding Principles Page 2
•Finally, there have been two resignations from the 17 member TF-LUCE over the past year .
Council has the purview to advertise to refill those vacancies, however, staff recommends not fillin g
the vacancies .
DISCUSSIO N
Backgroun d
The Council identified update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements as an important objectiv e
in the 2011-2013 Financial Plan and augmented grant funding ($880,000) secured through the
Strategic Growth Council with $435,000 in General Funds for the work effort . With the grant
secured, staff prepared and the Council reviewed a scope of work for the LUCE update . The scop e
of work outlined nine topical focus areas . These areas included :
•Incorporating the nearly complete South Broad Street Area Pla n
•Addressing Avila Ranch development concept in visioning and alternatives developmen t
•Healthy Cities Initiative s
•Pedestrian Circulation Plan for Downtow n
•Regional Blueprint consideratio n
•Nightlife Public Safety Assessmen t
•Airport issues
•Policy components from existing Land Use and Circulation Element to be updated t o
address neighborhood needs or legislative change s
•Policy components to be updated as needed to provide appropriate mitigation (as determine d
through the update's EIR)
With this funding, the City was able to contract with a consultant team to assist the City in th e
update process . The Council also appointed a 17-member resident task force 'to assist in th e
process called the TF-LUCE (Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update).
To date, the consultant team has assisted City staff and the Task Force with efforts related to :
•Discussing neighborhood boundaries through a workshop, open houses, and task forc e
meetings ;
•Identifying community opportunities and challenges in the upcoming years through a
workshop and open houses ;
•Performing a community-wide survey based on the 1988 survey ;
•Learning about new legislation related to "Complete Streets" and multi-modal levels o f
service (MMLOS);
•Developing a background report of where the City is today for a variety of demographic an d
environmental factors .
•Visioning for the future through a workshop (Future Fair) and interactive on-line tool calle d
MindMixer.
This staff report is focused on gaining Council direction for the consultant team regardin g
neighborhood definition and guidance to help the consultant team screen alternatives under
development for consideration as part of the next steps in the update process if it differs from th e
'Task Force Members Miller and Lamb have resigned, leaving 15 remaining members .
•
B1-2
LUCE Update - Neighborhoods and Guiding Principles Page 3
•
recommendations from the Task Force and Planning Commission . Each item will be discusse d
separately below .
Neighborhood s
Neighborhoods are a key component of the City's character and the current Land Use Elemen t
Policies include several policies that address them .
LUE 2 .1 .1 : The City shall assist residents to ident and designate neighborhoods . The City
will work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans, to facilitate development of a sens e
of place within neighborhoods
LUE 2 .1 .2 : The City should encourage and support the formation and continuation o f
neighborhood planning groups, composed of neighborhood residents .
Program 2 .15,which implements these policies is entitled "Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans "
and indicates the City "will : identify neighborhoods, and work with residents to prepar e
neighborhood plans ; encourage formation of voluntary neighborhood groups so that residents ca n
become involved in the development review process ; help identify neighborhood problems ;" and b e
involved in reviewing public and private projects . In addition, this program which directs the City
to identify neighborhoods envisions working with residents to prepare neighborhood plans .
• Initial efforts to define neighborhood boundaries and desirable features began in 2011-12 .City GI S
staff developed on on-line interactive program for residents to identify their address, drag a lin e
around the area that they identified as their neighborhood and then answer a series of question s
regarding what they liked about their neighborhood and what they wished to improve . This effort t o
define neighborhoods was assisted by a Cal Poly student who leveraged City resources b y
advertising the effort through newspaper ads ; emails, and posters placed around the community .
Handouts were developed for High School student participation and they were enlisted to assis t
residents to fill out paper copies of the survey at Farmers' Markets and grocery stores . In total ,
almost 400 residents participated in the survey and GIS staff worked with the input from the on-lin e
tool to develop a draft map of 28 neighborhood boundaries .
This information formed a starting point from which to initiate discussions for the first LUC E
workshop held in May 2012 .The consultant team arranged the draft 28 neighborhood areas into si x
sub-areas for purposes of being able to group workshop participants by geographic area . The TF-
LUCE and workshop attendees further explored draft neighborhood boundaries for eac h
neighborhood and included a discussion regarding desirable neighborhood features . The
information was subsequently explored at a series of open houses in the neighborhood sub-areas i n
July and September 2012 .
The survey and workshop results (Attachment 3) indicate that there are common features mos t
resident's value : Features such as a sense of personal safety, safe streets for pedestrians and
cyclists, and strong neighborhood relationships were ranked highly by most participants . A greater
challenge was in reaching agreement on specific boundaries of neighborhoods .
While the initial outreach efforts began to develop a sense of the general neighborhood boundaries ,
it was clear that there was not universal consensus on the precise boundaries of each neighborhood .
B1-3
LUCE Update —Neighborhoods and Guiding Principles Page 4
•To see if additional data could further clarify boundaries, the consultant team took discrete pieces o f
geographic information and overlaid them on a base map to determine if there were areas wher e
boundaries coincided . The layers include :
1.Historic District s
2.Residential parking district s
3.Specific Plan area s
4.Fire response zone s
5.Voting precinct s
6.Elementary school district s
7.Resident input from workshops and open house s
8.Boundaries produced from input from the interactive on-line too l
What was discovered with both the resident input and GIS layer overlays is that perception of wha t
constitutes a neighborhood is highly subjective. There is no one correct answer to definin g
neighborhoods, however, general practice indicates most residents will relate to an area withi n
about ''A mile walking distance of their residence . Circulation connections and physical bather s
(such as intervening hills, arterials, freeways or the railroad tracks) also help define the edges of a n
area residents will relate to . For example, residents in the subdivisions to the west of Los Oso s
Valley Road felt their neighborhood boundaries corresponded to their individual subdivisions . In
looking at this area more closely, it is evident that these subdivisions have few, if any, streets tha t
provide internal connections between the areas .
Overall, staff recommends that the Council embrace the concept that neighborhood boundaries ar e
blurred and will likely shift over time with the perceptions of the residents who live within eac h
respective neighborhood .
The Task Force and Planning Commission also endorsed the use of groupings of neighborhoods .
These groupings of underlying neighborhoods into larger areas is seen as a way to review and
address common issues such as circulation challenges, transit service needs, or the need for area -
serving land uses such as neighborhood stores . Grouping these areas may be more intuitive base d
on perceived barriers such as Highway 101 or other major transportation corridors of the City .
This information will be used in the update to help inform consideration of connections betwee n
home and a variety of needs such as jobs, shopping, schools, and recreation opportunities . It will
provide context for resident input related to neighborhood needs . It may also be used outside of th e
LUCE process as an organizing framework for assigning resources and providing notification .
While not all neighborhood residents feel strongly about having an association or organizatio n
through which to provide input on City initiatives or service, there is still an opportunity to suppor t
neighborhoods that do have this desire . With current technology, noticing, outreach, and staf f
assignments can be organized around identified neighborhood boundaries .
This neighborhood area approach is being explored by the Police and Public Works Department s
where identified staff are being assigned to specific park areas . Residents can get to know thei r
assigned staff and have a main point of contact and staff can become more familiar with the are a
and the residents leading to more tailored service provision .
•
•
LUCE Update – Neighborhoods and Guiding Principles Page 5
TF-LUCE and Planning Commission Recommendations :
The TF-LUCE reviewed the information on February 20 `h and March 7`h and provided
recommended boundaries that define 33 neighborhoods and seven area groupings as show n
respectively in Attachments 1 and 2 . The Planning Commission reviewed the TF-LUC E
recommendations on March 13 `h and confirmed the neighborhoods and areas, but expressed a desir e
to see this information included in the appendices of the updated Land Use and Circulatio n
Elements rather than as part of the body of the document . The Commission acknowledged th e
amount of input and work that the community and the Task Force had put into the effort to defin e
the neighborhoods and expressed a desire to see the boundaries shown as fluid lines that would hav e
the flexibility to change over time based on resident sentiments .
The Planning Commission supported referencing both neighborhoods and neighborhood areas (th e
larger groupings of underlying neighborhoods) and unanimously supported direction as follows :
In San Luis Obispo, neighborhoods are organic . Their sizes and shapes vary with the natur e
of issues and with the perspective of the person considering his or her neighborhood .
Neighborhood boundaries are affected by one's perceptions of how places are linked alon g
psychological, social and physical dimensions .
Neighborhoods, therefore, should be self-defining, fluid and changeable over time .
The roles of the city with regard to neighborhoods should be :
1)To provide support to local groups of residents who wish to organize for civic and socia l
purposes ; and
2)To work toward those features of good neighborhoods that were expressed by resident s
in almost all areas of the city, namely:
a.Pride of ownership and property maintenanc e
b.Complete network of pedestrian connection s
c.Sense of safety
d.Low crime rate s
e.Safe streets for various modes of circulatio n
f.Strong neighborly relation s
Council should provide direction to staff if the recommendations from Task Force and Plannin g
Commission differ from the sentiments of the City Council regarding both neighborhoods an d
areas .
Vision Statement and Guiding Principle s
The graphic below shows where the Vision Statement falls in the General Plan hierarchy .
Attachment 4 describes these General Plan components in more detail . While the Vision Statement
will appear in the General Plan, Guiding Principles are not typically incorporated into the Genera l
Plan. These broad statements provide direction to the update process as alternatives are prepare d
•
for review . Council endorsement of both the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles will help th e
consultant team evaluate alternatives for how closely they correspond to these concepts .
•
LUCE Update – Neighborhoods and Guiding Principles Page 6
The Planning Commission reviewed both Vision Statement and Guiding Principles and mad e
recommendations based upon TF-LUCE recommendation and other resident input received at th e
workshop and through Mind Mixer. Goals, policies, and programs contained in the current Lan d
Use and Circulation Elements will be brought to the Council at a future date for evaluation .
General Plan
Vision Statement
Circulatio n
Policy
r
Policy Program
Program
Progra m
TF-LUCE and Planning Commission Recommendations regarding Vision Statement :
The Vision Statement recommended by the TF-LUCE and Planning Commission is listed below .
TF-LUCE and community input supported continuation of this Vision Statement with very littl e
change (recommended change from existing Vision Statement shown in underline and strikeout).
The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the statement . Several Commissioner s
expressed concerns about the length of the statement, the lack of clarity in the language, and th e
"datedness" of the statement . Other Commissioners expressed concerns that changes should b e
considered very carefully due to the extent of prior input and evident resonance with th e
community . Ultimately, the Commission moved to recommend the Vision Statement endorsed by
the TF-LUCE as shown below. The first paragraph remains unchanged while the second paragrap h
has minor edits :
"Our vision is of a sustainable community, within a diverse natural and agrarian setting ,
which is part of a larger ecosystem upon which its existence depends . San Luis Obispo wil l
maintain its healthy and attractive natural environment valued by residents, its prosperity ,
and its sense of safety and community, within a compact urban form . Our community will
LUCE Update –Neighborhoods and Guiding Principles Page7
• have a comprehensible scale, where people know each other and where their participatio nin government is welcome and effective . The general plan outlines basic features of the cit yneeded to sustain our livelihoods, our natural and historical heritage, and our needs fo r
interaction and expression. The general plan is a benchmark in the continuing plannin g
process, reflecting the desires of citizens with different backgrounds to sustain th e
community's qualities for themselves and for future generations ."
The City should provides a setting for comfortable living, including work and recreation .
The City should lives within its resources, preserves the relatively high levels of service ,environmental quality and clean air valued by its residents, and strives to provide additiona lresources as needed.
A workshop participant had suggested addition of a second paragraph to the Vision statement tha t
specifically addresses a vision for the Downtown . The TF-LUCE recommended this statement b e
considered when policies and programs are evaluated for the Downtown section in the Land Us e
Element instead of adding the language to the overall Vision for the General Plan . The Planning
Commission concurred that the statement specific to the Downtown would be more appropriatel y
considered when that section of the General Plan comes forward for review .
The Planning Commission wanted to ensure that as the community, the TF-LUCE, the Commissio n
and Council review alternatives and proposed updates to the elements, edits to the language may b e
considered .
TF-LUCE and Planning Commission Recommendations regarding Guiding Principles :
The consultant team had drafted Guiding Principle statements after reviewing the existing goals an d
policies in the General Plan and considering the public input to date . The principles weren't ne w
policies or goals, but were intended to be broad statements to be used as a screening tool fo r
evaluating land use and circulation alternatives . The intent of identifying draft Guiding Principles i s
to provide a link from the more general vision statement to increasingly specific other guidance .
The Vision Statement guides the entire General Plan and touches aspects of all elements . Th e
guiding principles (which are not included in the General Plan) then link the Vision Statement to th e
goals, policies and implementation measures (programs) developed for each element .
Currently, the General Plan elements contain a mix of vision statement, goals, objectives, strategies ,
overall intent policies, overall policies, specific policies and programs . While some members of th e
TF-LUCE and the Planning Commission expressed interest in exploring a more consistent hierarch y
with the LUCE update, both bodies were respectful of the Council direction from January 2012 tha t
stated, "Review of the Elements should be recognizably based on present document, keeping th e
same numbering whenever possible." Attachment 10 has a more complete summary of Counci l
direction regarding the LUCE update and how it is being followed .
The consultant team's suggested Guiding Principle statements were displayed at the Decembe r
Future Fair workshop and posted on the MindMixer interactive site in order to get reactions for ho w
• well they characterize the input received to date . The statements were then reviewed by the TF-
LUCE and Planning Commission . Community input regarding the draft statements provided mor e
specific information rather than suggesting the statements failed to reflect the correct sentiment .
•
B1-7
LUCE Update — Neighborhoods and Guiding Principles Page 8
•
The TF-LUCE reviewed the recommended Guiding Principles and expressed that the statements di d
not capture the more comprehensive guidance provided in the existing goals from the Land Use an d
Circulation Elements . The TF-LUCE recommended the consultant team use the statements fro m
the existing Land Use and Circulation Elements to guide development of alternatives fo r
consideration .
The Planning Commission discussed the TF-LUCE recommendation as well as reviewed th e
consultant team's Guiding Principles . The Commission expressed a desire to maintain the ability t o
update goals to accommodate positive change in the community in the future . The Commissio n
ultimately recommended the TF-LUCE endorsed goals for guiding development of alternatives fo r
Council consideration . The goals recommended by the TF-LUCE and Planning Commission fo r
use in developing alternatives are shown in Attachment 5 .
Council should provide direction to staff if the recommendations from Task Force and Plannin g
Commission differ from the sentiments of the City Council regarding the recommended visio n
statement and goals .
Task Force Vacancie s
Two of the 17 members have resigned since the Task Force began their work in April 2012 .
Stephen Lamb and Dean Miller resigned . Section 5 C . of the Guidelines provide the followin g
when task force vacancies occur :
A vacancy or vacancies on a TF-LUCE shall exist :
1)When the committee is create d
2)When a member or members is/are formally removed by the City Council, o r
3)When the Council receives and acknowledges a letter of resignation from a n
incumbent .
Vacancies on the TF-LUCE shall be advertised by the City Clerk in the same manner as th e
original appointments by the Council . Applications for TF-LUCE membership shall be
submitted on forms provided by the City Clerk, and shall be accepted by the Clerk . The
temporary absence of members to fill vacancies as described in this section shall not affect a
recommendation by staff and/or the TF-LUCE to Advisory Bodies or to the Council .
Staff s recommendation is that the Council continues the update process with the remaining 1 5
members and not to refill the current vacancies . Current members continue to provid e
representation from all geographic areas of the community (Attachment 9). There has been a
tremendous amount of completed work to inform the current task force and engage the communit y
on the issues within the scope of the focused update . To that extent, any new members would hav e
a tremendous learning curve and staff feels that the 15 members will be able to continue the proces s
and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council by the Novembe r
2014 .
•
•
LUCE Update - Neighborhoods and Guiding Principles Page 9
•Conclusio n
The consultant team requires guidance to take the next steps in developing alternatives fo r
consideration as part of the LUCE update . As recommended by the TF-LUCE and Plannin g
Commission, Council should receive and file the recommended neighborhood boundaries, areas ,
vision statement, and goals to direct alternatives development reviewed by the TF-LUCE an d
Planning Commission . Council should provide direction on neighborhoods, neighborhood areas ,
vision statement or guiding principles if Council's sentiments are different from these tw o
respective advisory bodies .
Next Step s
The progress to date has been focused primarily on data gathering and getting a sense from Cit y
residents regarding neighborhoods, opportunities, and areas or issues of concern for both land us e
and circulation, and the vision for the future . The next steps focus on using the input and directio n
from the Council (guidance from the goals and Vision Statement) to develop several focuse d
alternatives that capture that vision and protect and enhance neighborhoods . These concepts will b e
reviewed by the Task Force and discussed with the community at a workshop on June l s`
Once alternatives are endorsed, current policies are then evaluated for how well they serve th e
future vision and recommendations for modifications, deletions or additions to support th e
alternatives will be brought forward for consideration . Any recommended changes will be shown i n
•
a legislative draft format so that the Task Force, Planning Commission, Public, and City Counci l
can identify and track any proposed changes .
CONCURRENCE S
All City departments have staff involved in this effort . Public Works and Community Developmen t
Department staff are lead on the effort.
FISCAL IMPAC T
The City secured an $880,000 grant from the Strategic Growth Council (Proposition 84 funds) an d
augmented the grant with $435,000 in General Funds in the 2011-2013 Financial Plan to pay fo r
environmental review and assistance for Public Works staff . The project is on time and withi n
budget to date .
ALTERNATIVES
Council is being asked to endorse recommendations of the Planning Commission . Council may op t
to make changes to the approach to identifying neighborhood boundaries or neighborhood areas .
Council may also opt to change the language of the Vision Statement or to recommend a differen t
set of statements to guide development of alternatives .
•
ATTACHMENT S
1 . TF-LUCE and Planning Commission recommended Neighborhood Boundaries
B1-9
LUCE Update — Neighborhoods and Guiding Principles Page 10
•2.TF-LUCE and Planning Commission recommended Neighborhood Area s
3.Neighborhood Workshop Summary
4.General Plan Component s
5.TF-LUCE and Planning Commission recommended guidance – Existing LUCE goal s
6.Draft minutes from 2-20-13 TF-LUC E
7.Draft minutes from 3-7-13 TF-LUC E
8.Draft minutes from 3-13-13 Planning Commissio n
9.Map showing representation of TF-LUCE member s
10.2008 and 2012 Council directio n
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFIC E
Task Force Binders with agendas and material s
T:\Council Agenda Repodss\2013\2013-03-05\LUCE Neighborhood Mapping (Johnson-Many)\GAR-LUCE_Neighborhoods_GuidingPdnapies .docx
•
•
B1-10
Attachment 1
Alta Vista Neighborhoo d
o - ey Heights borhood
s Drive Neighborhoo d
siti \1
S.\1
\1
Neighborhoo d
Legen d
NeighborhoodBou n
railroadtrack s
citylimit
streets
LagunaLake
openspaceeasements D borhood Boundarie s
Neighborhood
B1-11
Attachment 2
Legen d
NeighborhoodBou n
railroadtrack s
- - - citylimi t
streets
LagunaLak e
openspaceeasements ood Boundaries and Area
•
•
B1-12
Attachment 3
LAND USE &
CIRCULATIO N
U P D A T E
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 SUMMAR Y
MAY16,2012
tea'city o fsantuts oslspo
On May i6, zoiz, almost loo people met at the Monday Club to attend and participate in the firs t
Community Workshop held for the San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Elements Update . Th e
purpose of this workshop was to :
■Provide an overview of the Update process ,
■Describe opportunities for public involvement throughout the Update process, an d
■Hold small group discussions designed to gain a better perspective on San Luis Obispo
neighborhoods .
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION S
The workshop began with a welcome by Eric Meyer, Chairperson for the Task Force for the Land Use an d
Circulation Elements update (TF-LUCE). Mr . Meyer introduced the TF-LUCE members in attendance an d
highlighted that the TF-LUCE members would be facilitating the small group exercise later in the program .
He also highlighted the role the TF-LUCE would plan in this Update process and encouraged the public t o
join them at their meetings .
•Mr . Meyer was then followed by Kim Murry, the City's Project Manager for the Update . Ms . Murry
identified members of the City Council and other City staff members in attendance . Ms . Murry als o
introduced the Consulting Team for the Update .
PRESENTATIO N
The Consulting Team members (Larry Mintier and Rick Rust) provided a presentation to the audience .
Mr . Mintier started the presentation with an overview of the Update process, including the Update's
schedule. He also reviewed what was covered under the Land Use and Circulation Elements and how thi s
Update relates to the rest of the City's General Plan .
Mr . Rust followed with a description of the opportunities and methods for public outreach that will b e
used during the Update . This includes a special website dedicated to the Update (www,,slozo35corri).
Asking for a show of hands for those that had used the website, about % of the audience had visited th e
project website .
SMALL GROUP EXERCIS E
Following the presentation, Mr . Rust provided the audience with instructions on the small group exercis e
that was the focus of this workshop .
As part of the setup for this exercise, when the public arrived for the workshop, they were asked t o
•identify the location of their home or business . The City was divided into general areas : six were base d
upon neighborhood boundaries identified through the interactive web program and one was identifie d
for Cal Poly . Each person was then assigned to an area table based on the location given . As a table fille d
up, another table was set up to address that area with a total of ten tables filled . As the workshop wa s
B1-13
•~city o f
.. !, sail Wm osisp o
designed to discuss neighborhoods, the table groupings helped bring together audience members wit h
the most knowledge on the locations discussed .
Figure i highlights the six areas of the City plus Cal Poly (Area G) used for grouping workshop participants .
Figure 1 . Areas (lettered A though G) used to assign participants to a grou p
The location of those attending the workshop is shown by the blue dots on Figure z . While not everyon e
marked their location, a majority of attendees did make this mark . As shown, the workshop had a goo d
distribution of attendees from around the city and Cal Poly .
•
SLOCPU_Workshop o1 Summary_2012 05 25 RRR.docx Page 2
B1-14
•
•
•
7 crty o f
Sail Luis onisp o
Figure 2 .Location of workshop attendee s
Setup
One or two TF-LUCE members were assigned to each table to assist in facilitating the discussion at th e
table . The role of the facilitator was to help participants with the discussion questions, serve a s
timekeeper, and to ensure a productive discussion . Consultant Team members and City staff circulate d
between tables during the workshop session to answer questions and assist the TF-LUCE members i n
facilitation .
SLOGPU_Workshop cm Summary_zorz 05 25 RRR .docx Page 3
B1-15
city of4;x san tuts ordsp o
Small Group Exercise q uestions
Each of the table groups had the same questions to guide participant discussion . The questions, and tim e
allotted to each question, are shown below .
KeyNeighborhood Feature s
Questions 1 and 2 were targeted at getting participant's input on the key features that they felt coul d
be used to define a neighborhood . A list of 33 common features was provided to each participant .
Working individually (Question i)and as a group (Question 2), participants/groups rated the ke y
features presented . Participants were also encouraged to add their own features .
In Question z, participants at each table were asked to work together to identify their top 1 0
features . The result of each group's assessment (including three new features added by two of the •
groups) are shown on the following table (top io features are marked with a ■ symbol with a yello w
background).
5 minutes ma x
Using the score sheet, ask each participant to read the list of potential neighborhoo d
features on the left and mark whether each feature is i)Very Important, 2) Somewha tImportant, or 3) Not Important . If they think of features that are not listed on the scor e
sheet, add these in the blank rows at the bottom of the sheet . These should be answered a s
they might apply to any neighborhood in the city and are not specific to their neighborhood .
15 minutes ma xWorking as a group, share ideas on which features are Very Important . Identify up to ten (io )
Key Features that the group would agree are the ones that define a good neighborhood .
Once agreed, the Facilitator, and others at the table, should mark an X on the row of th e
selected features under the Q2 column on their score sheet .
20 minutes max
On the table is a map showing the area assigned to your group . On the map are dashed line s
that represent neighborhood boundaries as defined in the recent online neighborhoo d
survey . Using the Key Features identified for Q2, have the group discuss the boundarie s
shown and make adjustments to the neighborhoods in their area (they can change th e
boundaries to extend into areas not covered by this table). Combining some or all of th e
neighborhoods shown by the dashed lines is OK . Give each neighborhood identified a
number (can use numbers on map or create your own).
io minutes ma xHow does my neighborhood measure up ?
On the score sheet, have each person write down the neighborhood (from Q3) that they liv e
in . Each person should then score if their neighborhood contains the Key Features identifie d
in Q2, or whether this feature needs to be augmented or improved .
15 minutes ma x
What would you change about the area your table is discussing?
•
•
SLOGPU_Workshop o7 Summary_zoiz 05 25 RRR .docx Page 4
B1-16
C-rcyo tn,,,a san tuts ontsp o
Table 1 . Top 10 Key Featured,Table #s
Housing Choice s
1.Range of Housing Type s
(e .g ., single family,multi-family).
2.Range of Affordability
(from very low to above moderate, ownership t o
renter)
Aesthetics and Personalit y
•
3.Known or Defined Edges, Geographic Boundaries,
and Entrances
4.Unique Neighborhood Character (e .g ., architectura l
style or features )
5.Positive Image, Attractive, Welcoming – "Cur b
Appeal "
6.Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenance
(e .g ., paint, landscaping )
Neighborhood Gathering Place s
7.Accessible Districts of Commercial or Civic Activity
(e .g ., downtown,shopping center )
8.Neighborhood Serving Retai l
(e .g .,grocery/drug store )
9.Restaurants and Cafe s
Neighborhood Services & Facilitie s
10.Elementary School and Easily Accessible Middle
Schoo l
11.Community Center, Library, or Public Meeting Hal l
12.Neighborhood Parks and Playground s
Mobility & Accessibilit y
13.Highly interconnected System of Street s
14.Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestria n
Paths
15.Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s
16.Accessible and Frequent Public Transit Service
17.Good Connections with Surroundin g
Neighborhood s
Environmental Quality
18.Tree Canopy (urban forest )
19.Attractive Streetscapes
20.Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s
SLOGPU_Workshop or Summary_2o12 05 25 RRR .docx Page 5
B1-17
sae tits 061Sp 0
Table 1 .Top 10 Key FeatureTable #s y
Safety
21 . Low Crime Rate
A-1 B-1 C-1 D-1 D-2
■
E-1 F-1 F-2 1
z:
F-3 F-4
1 r
22 . Sense of Personal Safety <°;/ '■
23 .Neighborhood Visibility and Good Lightin
g 24. Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s
(e.g ., crossings, signage, bike lanes )
25. Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Tim e
Economic Strength s
Neighborliness and Sociabilit y
29 .Defined Center or Focal Point of Interaction an d
Activity
■■■.■
30 .Strong Neighborly Relationship s
(neighbors know and look out for each other )
31 .Intergenerational and Multicultural Interactio n
Healt h
Other (Added by Participants )
34 .Noise Quality
35 .Preservation of Historic Resources
36 .Sidewalks / Bike Paths with High Visibility
As shown on Table 1,a number of factors were selected by several of the groups . While not intended t o
be a statistical assessment, counting the number of groups that independently selected the same factor s
can be used to gain insight on the key features that may apply citywide .
Figure 3 shows the number of groups that selected each feature (the numbers along the horizontal axi s
correspond to the numbers listed on the left edge of Table I).
•
•
•
SLOGPU Workshop of Summary_2o12 05 25 RRR .docx Page 6
B1-1 8
Sib tults owspo
•
Figure 3 . Number of Groups Selecting a Feature
•The top 11 features selected by four or more groups (out of the 10 total groups) are as follows :5.Positive Image, Attractive, Welcoming -"Curb Appeal "6.Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenance (e .g., paint, landscaping )
12 .Neighborhood Parks and Playground s
14.Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s
15.Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s
20.Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s
21.Low Crime Rat e
22.Sense of Personal Safet y24.Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclists (e .g ., crossings, signage, bike lanes )25.Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Time
3o . Strong Neighborly Relationships (neighbors know and look out for each other)
Detailed breakouts of the scoring to each questions is attached at the end of this summary .
Neighbor ood Boundaries
After the groups had identified their top ten neighborhood features, they were asked (Question 3) ho w
these features impact what they consider to be the boundaries of their respective neighborhoods .
Workshop Small Group Reportin g
At the end of the time allotted to the five questions, each table was asked to get a volunteer from thei r
table to report back to all workshop participants . Each volunteer was asked to read off the top 1 0
• neighborhood features they identified (as part of Question 2)and to describe the changes they made t o
their maps to reflect neighborhood boundaries (Question 3). The results from each table are describe d
on the following pages .
8
7
6
5
4 -
3
2
1
0 i —H I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_2o12 0525 RRR .docx Page 7
B1-19
WI§aty of..- San has OBlsp o
■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e
■Restaurants and Cafe s
■ Neighborhood Parks and Playground s
■Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s
■Accessible and Frequent Public Transit Servic e
■Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s
■Low Crime Rat e
■Sense of Personal Safet y
■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s
■Strong Neighborly Relationship s
Neighborhood Map
•
•
•
SLOGPL Workshop of Summary_2o1x 05 25 RRR .docx Page 8
B1-20
•
•
qlllrj city of.1'a A sari tuts omsp o
■ Positive Image, Attractive, Welcomin g
Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e
Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s
Low Crime Rat e
Sense of Personal Safet y
Neighborhood Visibility and Good Lightin g
Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s
Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Tim e
■ Strong Neighborly Relationship s
Neighborhood Ma p
SLOGPU_Workshop co Summary_2o12 05 25 RRR .docx Page 9
B1-21
UIMP7 arty o rinsan tuns osisp o
■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e
■Neighborhood Parks and Playground s
■Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s
■Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s
■Low Crime Rat e
■Sense of Personal Safet y
■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s
■Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Time
■Stable, Steadily Increasing Property Value s
■Strong Neighborly Relationship s
Neighborhood Map
•
•
•
SLOGPU_workshop 0t Summary_2012 05 25 RRR.docx Page t o
B1-22
•
•
0sawntutsowsp o
■ Range of Housing Type s
Positive Image, Attractive, Welcomin g
Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e
Accessible Districts of Commercial or Civic Activit y
Attractive Streetscape s
Sense of Personal Safet y
Neighborhood Visibility and Good Lightin g
■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s
■ Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Tim e
■Strong Neighborly Relationship s
Neighborhood Ma p
SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_zmz 0525 RRR .docx Page n
B1-23
till"city orsan taus ouisp o
■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e
■Elementary School and Easily Accessible Middle Schoo l
■Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s
■Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s
■Good Connections with Surrounding Neighborhood s
■Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s
■Low Crime Rat e
■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s
■A Range of Jobs (in neighborhood or nearby )
■Strong Neighborly Relationships
Neighborhood Map
•
•
•
SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_zolz 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 2
B1-24
•
•
•
city of•e sail wrs oaisp o
■Positive Image, Attractive, Welcomin g
■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e
■Neighborhood Parks and Playground s
■Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s
Attractive Streetscapes
Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s
Low Crime Rat e
■Sense of Personal Safet y
■Strong Neighborly Relationship s
■Noise Quality
Neighborhood Ma p
sLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_zolz 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 3
B1-25
A san tws osisp o
■Neighborhood Serving Retai l
■Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s
■Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s
■Tree Canopy (urban forest )
■Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s
■Low Crime Rat e
■Sense of Personal Safet y
■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s
■Preservation of Historic Resource s
■Sidewalks / Bike Paths with High Visibilit y
Neighborhood Ma p
f~'4S-';vim°:}}
•
•
SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_2o12 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 4
B1 -26
•
•
•
city ofsanlW5 ouispo
■Positive Image, Attractive, Welcomin g
■ Neighborhood Parks and Playground s
■Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s
■Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s
■Connections to Natural Systems and Open Space s
■Low Crime Rat e
■Sense of Personal Safet y
■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s
■Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Tim e
■Strong Neighborly Relationship s
Neighborhood Ma p
SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 5
B 1-27
arty o L; san tuisosisp o
■Unique Neighborhood Characte r
■Pride of Ownership, High Standard of Maintenanc e
■Neighborhood Parks and Playground s
■Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian Path s
■Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s
■Tree Canopy (urban forest )
■Low Crime Rat e
■Sense of Personal Safet y
■Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s
■Short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response Tim e
■Strong Neighborly Relationships
Neighborhood Map
•
•
•
SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 6
B 1-28
$Nrjaty o fsan tuts owspo
■ Neighborhood Serving Retai l
Neighborhood Parks and Playground s
Complete Network of Bicycle Lanes and Bikeway s
Accessible and Frequent Public Transit Servic e
Good Connections with Surrounding Neighborhood s
Low Crime Rat e
Sense of Personal Safet y
Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s
Strong Neighborly Relationship s
Accessible Healthy Food s
Neighborhood Ma p
•
•
SLOGPU_workshop o1 Summary_2o12 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 7
B1-29
q1r*crty';o L
:r„:SM) (UIS OoispO
•
APPENDIX
•
SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_zoiz 05 25 RRR .docx Page 1 8
B1-30
Question r Other Features Added by Individuals (Sorted Alphabetically )
■Accessibility of Airport and Rai l
■Accessible to Transpor t
■Air Qualit y
■Bike and walk paths highly visibl e
■Canopy tree maintenanc e
■Choice of street desig n
■Choice of street design and rate s
■Crossing Tank Farm to Von's is very dangerou s
■Dark sky nigh t
■Easier stroller/bike access at the subway under the RxR at spanish oak s
■Efficiency of roadways
■Family Friendl y
■Fewer drunk people on Thurs, Fri, and Sat night s
■Historic resource s
■Historic resource s
■Historic significanc e
•■ Historica l
■Historical Importanc e
■Historical Significanc e
■Historical Significanc e
■Historical Significanc e
■Historical Significanc e
■HOA
■HOA
■HO A
■Homeless encampment s
■I feel like we are dealing with ghettos instead of neighborhood s
■Less Vandalis m
■More Owner / Occupier or Long-term Renter s
■Name of neighborhoo d
■Name of neighborhoo d
■Name of the neighborhoo d
■Name of the neighborhoo d
■Name of the neighborhoo d
■Noise Qualit y
•■ Noise quality
■Noise quality
■Noise quality
SLOGPU_Workshop w Summary_2o12 05 25 RRR .docx
Ral
cJtyo r
san Luis os4spo
•Noise qualit y
Normal Density for Zonin g
Preservation of existing historic resource s
Preservation of existing historic resource s
Preservation of existing historic resource s
Pride of Ownershi p
Quiet and calming surrounding s
Quiet, clean, secure
Range of housing sizes and household type s
Ranged house sizes and type s
Rodriquez Adobe Park is a passive park without a bathroo m
Safe Traffic Speed on Street s
Sidewalk and bike lanes - Highly visibl e
Sidewalk repai r
Sidewalks and Bikepaths - High visibilit y
Stop Signs
Stop Signs / Speed Bump s
Stop Signs / Speed Bump s
Stop Signs / Speed Bump s
Tank Farm - safe crossin g
Traffic Efficiency - Round abouts instead of traffic sign s
Traffic Safety
Trash Ca n
Tree canopy extensio n
Voter Approval for Garbage Can
•
•
SLOGPU_Workshop co Summary_2012 05 25 RRR .docx Page z o
B1-32
Ulllr7 city o r
xx47 :,2 San Juts oslsp o
•Question t :Scoring of Feature s
1 . Range of Housing Type s
2 . Range of Affordabilit y
3. Known or Defined Edges, Geographic .
4 . Unique Neighborhood Characte r
5 . Positive Image, Attractive, Welcoming-"Curb .
6. Pride of Ownership, High Standards of .
7 . Accessible Districts of Commercial or Civic Activity
8. Neighborhood Serving Retai l
9. Restaurants and C
10 . Elementary School and Easily Accessible Middl e
11 . Community Center, Library, or Public Meeting .
12 . Neighborhood Parks and Playground s
13.Highty Interconnected system of Streets
14 . Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestria n
15. Complete Networks of Bicycle Lanes an d
16 . Accessible and Frequent Public Transit Service
17 . Good Connections with Surroundin g
18. Tree Canopy
19 . Attractive Streetscap e
20. Connections to Natural Systems and Ope n
21 . Low Crime Rate
22 . Sense of Personal Safety
23.Neighborhood Visibility and Good Lightin g
24.Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclists
25.short Emergency, Fire, and Police Respons e
26.Stable, Steady Increasing Property Valu e
27.Strong Investor Confidence
28.A Range of Jobs
29.Defined Center of Focal Point of Interaction an d
30.Strong Neighborhood Relationship s
31.Intergenerational and Multicultural Interactio n
32.Accessible Healthy Food s
33.Limited Tobacco and Off-Site Alcohol Sale s
•
•
■ Very Important ■Somewhat Important 0 Not Importan t
Figure 4. All Responses to Question 1
SLOGPU_Workshop o1 Summary_2o12 05 25 RRR .docx Page 21
B1-33
■IlUpll pity o fasantuts oaIspo
Question 4 : Does Your Neighborhood Have This Feature Today ?
33. Limited Tobacco and Off-Site Alcohol Sale s
32 . Accessible Healthy Food s
31 . Intergenerational and Multicultural Interactio n
30 . Strong Neighborhood Relationship s
29. Defined Center of Focal Point of Interaction and ...
28 . A Range of Job s
27 . Strong Investor Confidenc e
26 . Stable . Steady Increasing Property Valu e
25. short Emergency, Fire, and Police Response ...
24. Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclist s
23. Neighborhood Visibility and Good Lightin g
22 . Sense of Personal Safety
21 . Low Crime Rat e
20 . Connections to Natural Systems and Open ...
19 . Attractive Streetscape s
18 . Tree Canop y
17. Good Connections with Surrounding ...
16 . Accessible and Frequent Public Transit Servic e
15 . Complete Networks of Bicycle Lanes and ...
14 . Complete Network of Sidewalks and Pedestrian ...
13 .Highly Interconnected system of Streets
12 . Neighborhood Parks and Playground s
11 . Community Center, Library, or Public Meeting ...
10. Elementary School and Easily Accessible Middle...
9. Restaurants and Cafe s
8 . Neighborhood Serving Retai l
7 . Accessible Districts of Commercial or Civic Activity
6. Pride of Ownership, High Standards of...
5. Positive Image, Attractive, Welcoming- "Curb...
4 . Unique Neighborhood Characte r
3 . Known or Defined Edges, Geographic Boundaries,.
2 . Range of Affordability
1 . Range of Housing Types
0 10 5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
■Yes ■Need more or Improve q N o
Figure 5 . All Responses to Question 4
•
•
•
SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_2o12 05 25 RRR .docx Page 2 2
B1-34
city o fsan Wts osisp o
•Question 5 : What would you change about the area your table is discussing ?
▪Improve Chorro underpass for pedestrians and bicycles, more attractive and safe r
▪Slow down speed on peach between Broad and Chorr o
▪Emphasize balance connection to open space of Cerro San Luis .
▪Better bike lanes .
▪More frequent public traffic.
▪More street lighting.
▪More bike lanes .
▪Extend the railroad safety trail .
▪I'd like to prevent overflow parking from downtown into residential BUT I DONT want parking districts .
▪We're very affected by drunken pedestrian traffic .
▪I'd like more ways to cross Broad Street .
▪More interaction with Spanish speaking and low income residents / renters and other homeowners .
▪There were multiple tables labeled "F" but results should be combined for statistical accuracy, no t
considered separately .
▪More vibrant and interesting upper Monterey Street
▪Less cut through traffic on Grove Stree t
Better street tree canop y
▪More affordable housing option s
▪More stores in neighborhood s
▪More street lightin g
▪Overall safety is good but needs to be supported with walkin g
▪Unique architecture and building s
▪More street lights .
▪More parks .
▪Chorro Street runs through the neighborhood which is that the speed is too fas t
▪Tree planting in street margins .
▪A good grocery store, less drunks
▪More connections from town to tow n
▪Too many cars per unit .
▪Bright lights shining at nigh t
▪Stroller friendly sidewalks
▪Overcharged rental s
▪Larger street tree s
▪Need a department store downtow n
▪Fewer bars
▪Grocery stor e
▪Fewer homeless/drunks in par k
▪Enforce illegal motorcycle noise and truc k
SLOGPU_Workshop m Summary_2o12 o5 25 RRR.docx Page 23
B 1-35
II*city o f„„,San WIS oBISpo
•■We need a grocery store
■Enforcement of noise ordinanc e
•More street tree s
■Enforcement re : curb appea l
■Lower crime rat e
■Attractive streetscape s
■We need a grocery store
■Enforcement of noise ordinanc e
■More street tree s
■Enforcement re : curb appea l
■Lower crime rat e
■Attractive streetscape s
■Need good grocer y
■Plant more tree s
■Access to hiking trail s
■More bike lane s
■Make foot traffic same priority as auto traffi c
■Management of neighborhood parking being sued by outside employees and Cal Poly student s
■Complete the Railroad safety trai l
■Integrate biking into the new transit cente r
■ A safe place to cross the street between Johnson and Orcutt when walking .
■More accessible bike path s
■Better bike path s
■Brood Street needs to be crossable and pedestrian friendly - sidewalks to o
■ Homeless need a better path through Meadow Park than Brood and R .R tracks
■Railroad safety trail extende d
■Area could use a discrete nam e
■How to get better restaurants and motel s
■Block club s
■ Make streets smalle r
■Access to park s
■Slow traffic on Johnso n
■ I'm interested in the area adjacent to the city or South Higuera (near the octagon Barn).
■It is vital that the city collaborate with the county on key elements. Buckley Road extension, the thre e
bike road connection .
■Also there is an issue of landscaping to shield the Octagon Barn from RV storage areas .
■Question : How will the development in the Margarita Area (adjacent to airport) affect traffic o n
Buckley/Vacherl and South Higuera .
■ Note : The Octagon Barn could act as a community center for the southern part of area "C".
■Homeless in Creekside areas
•
•
SLOGPU Workshop 01 summary_2012 05 25 RRR.docx Page 24
B1-36
o rTuts ostspo
•
•
•
■Traffic bottle neck by Fortinis Figuera should be 4-lane from Madonna Road sout h
[Ed : Believe comment is on a traffic bottle-neck by Fortinis (a business) on South Higuera and that th e
street should be widened to four lanes in this area .]
■More planned open/rural areas in lieu of developmen t
■Let Ernie develop his property .
■No more density in SFK neighborhood .
■Any and All 'N' Ordinances [Ed : Neighborhood Ordinances] that are going Imposed upon all Citizen s
Should Require Line Vote by a Min . of Registered Voter s
■Noise Quality and Contro l
■Control density in R-i
■Rethink the mixed use projects
■Highway Blocking my Connection to Downtow n
■Make Santa Rosa and Foothill More Walkable .
■Slowing Traffic on Santa Ros a
■Too many motels by Santa Rosa and Olive- Unsafe Activities, Dirty .
■More Owner Occupied Houses in Neighborhood is needed to accomplish many of these goal s
■Fix connection Across Foothill to Shopping Cente r
■ Foothill Beautificatio n
■Walkable in front of Foothill Plaza and University Squar e
SLOGPU_Workshop of Summary_2012 05 25 RRR.docx Page 2 5
B1-37
The updated Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City of San Luis Obispo's General Plan will includ e
statements organized in a hierarchy from the general to the specific : a vision statement that guides th e
entire General Plan, goals, policies, and implementation measures (programs) that will be developed fo r
each element . The current General Plan elements contain a vision statement, goals, objectives ,
strategies, overall intent policies, overall policies, specific policies, and programs . During the TF-LUC E
update process, these existing statements will be reviewed, revised, edited, and incorporated into th e
hierarchy described above and illustrated on the figure below (extended hierarchy is shown for Land Us e
and Circulation element will have similar hierarchy).
General Pla n
sion Stateme n
Land Use Circulatio n
Pol
ATTACHMENT 4
city o fA.san tuffs of tsp o
GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT COMPONENTS •
•
)a lGoal Goa l
licy
Policy
Pe
P
P
The purpose of reaffirming a vision statement and creating guiding principles at this point in the updat e
process is to create a high-level context to guide the development and evaluation of alternatives in th e
next phase of the LUCE update . The vision statement may be revised before it is ultimately incorporate d
into the new Land Use and Circulation Elements before their adoption .
The following definitions are based on the California General Plan Guidelines and the current General Plan .
B1-38
•
IWO city o f,an Luis MVO
•VISION STATEMEN T
A vision statement defines key community values and aspirations for the future . A vision statement set s
the framework upon which the rest of the General Plan, including the Land Use and Circulation Elements ,
is built.
GUIDING PRINCIPL E
A principle is an assumption, fundamental rule, or doctrine that guides goals, policies, an d
implementation measures . Principles flow from the vision statement and are based on communit y
values, generally-accepted planning principles, and current technology .
The current General Plan does not contain Guiding Principles and they are not proposed to be added t o
the General Plan . For this Update, a set of Guiding Principles was seen as an important bridge betwee n
the City's Vision and Goal statements and the development of alternatives for consideration during th e
General Plan Update .
Examples of principles :
■The residential neighborhoods within a city should be within a convenient and safe walkin g
distance of an elementary school .
■Risks from natural hazards should be identified and avoided to the extent practicable .
The TF-LUCE and Planning Commission reviewed and considered the proposed guiding principles an d
•determined that the existing goal statements better reflected the broad range of direction that shoul d
guide development of alternatives .
GOA L
A goal is a general direction-setter . It is an ideal future end related to the public health, safety, or genera l
welfare. A goal is a general expression of community values and, therefore, may be abstract in nature .
Consequently, a goal is generally not quantifiable or time-dependent .
In the existing San Luis Obispo Land Use Element, goals are described as follows :
Goals describe desirable conditions . In this context, they are meant to express th e
community's preferences for basic future directions . In the goal statements, "San Luis Obispo "
means the community as a whole, not just the City as a municipal corporation. The statement s
also indicate what the City should do and what it should influence others to do . The goals stat e
San Luis Obispo's basic positions on the extent, rate, composition, and financing of growth .
Examples of goals :
■San Luis Obispo should actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to resident s
with very low, low, and moderate incomes within existing neighborhoods and within expansio n
areas .
■San Luis Obispo should serve as the county's hub for : county and state government ; education ;
transportation ; visitor information ; entertainment; cultural, professional, medical, and socia l
services ; community organizations ; retail trade .
■Provide a system of streets that are well-maintained and safe for all forms of transportation .•
WS city o f
-;SAT W IS ORISFW
POLIC Y
A policy is a specific statement that guides decision-making . It indicates a commitment of the loca l
legislative body to a particular course of action . A policy is based on and helps implement a general plan's
goals .
A policy is carried out by implementation measures . For a policy to be useful as a guide to action it mus t
be clear and unambiguous . Adopting broadly drawn and vague policies is poor practice . Clear policies are
particularly important when it comes to judging whether or not zoning decisions, subdivisions, publi c
works projects, etc ., are consistent with the general plan .
When writing policies, be aware of the difference between "shall" and "should ." "Shall" indicates a n
unequivocal directive . "Should" signifies a less rigid directive, to be honored in the absence of compellin g
or contravening considerations . Use of the word "should" to give the impression of more commitmen t
than actually intended is a common but unacceptable practice . It is better to adopt no policy than t o
adopt a policy with no backbone .
Examples of policies :
■The City should support county-wide and community programs in order to substantially reduc e
the number of vehicle trips and parking demand .
■Commercial and industrial uses should have access from arterial and collector streets, and shoul d
be designed and located to avoid increasing traffic on residential streets .
■Broad, undeveloped open spaces should separate the City from nearby urban areas . This elemen t
establishes a final edge for urban development .
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE (PROGRAM )
An implementation measure is an action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out general pla n
policy . Each implementation measure should succinctly describe the proposed action, identify which city
department or policy body is responsible for carrying out the action, and set a time frame for it s
accomplishment .
Examples of implementation measures :
■The City will identify suitable sites for new or expanded neighborhood centers as it prepare s
specific plans .
■Subdivision approval in hillside planning areas will include designation of "sensitive sites", whic h
are subject to architectural review .
■The City will continue to provide reserved commercial truck loading zones in all appropriat e
downtown areas .
•
•
•
•
•
•
Attachment 5
city of
san Luis oslsp o
THE GENERAL PLAN
Community's Goal s
Introductio n
Goals describe desirable conditions . In this context, they are meant to express th e
community's preferences for basic future directions . In the goal statements, "San Lui s
Obispo" means the community as a whole, not just the City as a municipal corporation . The
statements also indicate what the City should do and what it should influence others to do .
The goals state San Luis Obispo's basic positions on the extent, rate, composition, an d
financing of growth . The following Growth Management section includes policies an d
programs which offer more specific guidance on these topics . Later sections, dealing wit h
pads of the City and with land-use categories, give more detailed direction on preservin g
neighborhoods and designing new development .
Approach to Plannin g
San Luis Obispo should :
1.Choose its future, rather than let it happen . San Luis Obisp o
should be proactive in implementing its vision of the future, and shoul d
work with other agencies and institutions to create our desired mutua l
future .
Environmen t
San Luis Obispo should :
2.Protect and enhance the natural environment, including the qualit y
of air, water, soil, and open space .
3.Protect, sustain, and where it has been degraded, enhance wildlife
habitat on land surrounding the city, at Laguna Lake, along creeks and
other wetlands, and on open hills and ridges within the city, so that diverse ,
native plants, fish, and animals can continue to live within the area .
4.Protect public views of the surrounding hills and mountains .
5.Recognize the importance of farming to the economy of th e
planning area and the county, protect agriculture from development an d
from incompatible uses, and protect remaining undeveloped prime
agricultural soils .
6.Protect and restore natural landforms and features in and near th e
city, such as the volcanic morros, hillsides, marshes, and creeks .
7.Foster appreciation among citizens of the complex abundance o f
the planning area's environment, and of the need to respect natura l
systems .
8.Identify, map and monitor our community's natural assets t o
preserve and protect them .
Society and Econom y
San Luis Obispo should be a well balanced community . Environmental, social, an d
economic factors must be taken into account in important decisions about San Lui s
Obispo's future . A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment . The social fabric of
the community for both residents and visitors must also be a part of that balance .
Therefore, complementary to the goals and objectives of this element, the City shal l
maintain and bi-annually review goals and objectives that promote the economic well bein g
of the community .
San Luis Obispo should :
9.Provide employment opportunities appropriate for area residents '
desires and skills .
Land Use
Land Us ecftyof`g san tuts osispo
•
THE GENERAL PLAN
10.Provide goods and services which substantial numbers of are a
residents leave the area regularly to obtain, provided doing so is consisten t
with other goals .
11.Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodat e
expansion of existing businesses, consistent with other goals .
12.Emphasize more productive use of existing commercial building s
and land areas already committed to urban development .
13.Provide an adequate revenue base for local government an d
public schools .
14.Provide high quality public services, ensuring that demands do no t
exceed resources and that adequate facilities and services can b e
provided in pace with development .
15.Cooperate with other agencies in the county to assure tha t
increases in the numbers of workers and college and university students i n
the San Luis Obispo area do not outpace housing availability .
16.Accommodate residents within all income groups .
17.Preserve existing housing which is affordable to residents wit h
very low, low, and moderate incomes .
18.Actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable t o
residents with very low, low, and moderate incomes, within existin g
neighborhoods and within expansion areas .
19.Encourage opportunities for elder care and child care within th e
city .
20.Enrich community cultural and social life by accommodatin g
people with various backgrounds, talents, occupations, and interests .
21.Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in it s
parts without causing overall harm to the community .
22.Have developments bear the costs of resources and service s
needed to serve them, except where the community deliberately choose s
to help pay in order to achieve other community goals .
23.Provide for high quality education and access to related service s
such as museums, art galleries, public art, and libraries .
24.Serve as the county's hub for : county and state government ;
education ; transportation ; visitor information ; entertainment ; cultural ,
professional, medical, and social services ; community organizations ; retai l
trade .
25.Provide a wide range of parks and sports and recreational facilitie s
for the enjoyment of our citizens .
26.Retain accessible, responsive, and capable local government .
27.Ensure that residents' opportunities for direct participation in Cit y
government and their sense of community can continue .
City For m
San Luis Obispo should :
28.Maintain the town's character as a small, safe, comfortable plac e
to live, and maintain its rural setting, with extensive open land separating i t
from other urban development .
29.Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new developmen t
occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern .
30.Keep a clear boundary between San Luis Obispo's urba n
development and surrounding open land .
31.Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimat e
boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form .
•
•
1-15 B1-42
”, city,of
i,.ID san tuns ostspo Land Us e
•
THE GENERAL PLAN
32.Foster an awareness of past residents and ways of life, an d
preserve our heritage of historic buildings and places .
33.Develop buildings and facilities which will contribute to our sens e
of place and architectural heritage .
34.Develop buildings and places which complement the natura l
landscape and the fabric of neighborhoods .
35.Focus its government and cultural facilities and provide a variety o f
business services and housing in the downtown .
36.Provide a safe and pleasant place to walk and ride a bicycle, fo r
recreation and other daily activities .
37.Be a safe place to live .
•
•
1-16 B1-43
Cfty Ofsanluis otmspo
THE GENERAL PLAN
Circulation
•
1 .5 Goals and objectives
Goals and objectives describe desirable conditions . In this context, they are meant t o
express the community's preferences for current and future conditions and directions . I n
the following statements, San Luis Obispo means the community as a whole, not just th e
city as a municipal corporation .
Transportation Goal s
1.Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obisp o
while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goa l
of achieving State and Federal health standards for air quality .
2.Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives suc h
as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools .
3.Provide a system of streets that are well-maintained and safe for all forms o f
transportation .
4.Widen and extend streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when th e
projects will cause no significant, long-term environmental problems .
5.Make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians .
6.Promote the safe operation of all modes of transportation .
7.Coordinate the planning of transportation with other affected agencies such as Sa n
Luis Obispo County, Cal Trans, and Cal Poly .
8.Reduce the need for travel by private vehicle through land use strategies ,
telecommuting and compact work weeks .
Overall Transportation Strateg y
Meet the transportation needs of current and planned-for population by :
1.Managing city and regional growth consistent with the Land Use Element ;
2.Funding alternative forms of transportation ;
3.Sponsoring traffic reduction activities ;
4.Providing the infrastructure needed to accommodate the desired shift i n
transportation modes ;
5.Focusing traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways ;
6.Accepting some additional traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes an d
Highways ;
7.Providing facilities that improve transportation safety .
Transportation Objective s
1 .6 Encourage Better Transportation Habit s
San Luis Obispo should :
1.Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation (as shown on Figure #1) an d
depend less on the single-occupant use of vehicles .
2.Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objectiv e
similar to #1 and support programs that reduce the interregional use of single -
occupant vehicles and increase the use of alternative forms of transportation .
1 .7 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportatio n
San Luis Obispo should :
1.Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian path s
within existing developed parts of the city by 2000, and extend the system to serv e
new growth areas .
2.Complete improvements to the city's transit system serving existing develope d
areas by 2000, and provide service to new growth areas .
2-8
•
•
B1-44
Circulatio n
•
•
•
crtyof
a .san tits owspo
THE GENERAL PLA N
3.Support the efforts of the County Air Pollution Control District to implement traffi c
reduction programs .
4.Support and develop education programs directed at promoting types o f
transportation other than the single-occupant vehicle .
1 .8 Manage Traffic
San Luis Obispo should :
1.Limit traffic increases by managing population growth and economic developmen t
to the rates and levels stipulated by the Land Use Element and implementin g
regulations . Limit increases in ADT and VMT to the increase in employment withi n
the City's Urban Reserve .
2.Support county-wide programs that manage population growth to minimize county -
wide travel demand .
3.Support county-wide programs that support modal shift while utilizing our existin g
road system and reducing air pollution and traffic congestion .
4.Provide a system of streets that allow safe travel and alternate modes o f
transportation throughout the city and connect with Regional Routes an d
Highways .
5.Manage the use of Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways so that traffi c
levels during peak traffic periods do not result in extreme congestion, increase d
headways for transit vehicles, or unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists .
6.Ensure that development projects and subdivisions are designed and/or retrofitte d
to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrian connections .
7.Consistent with the Land Use Element, allow neighborhood-serving business an d
provide parks and recreational areas that can be conveniently reached b y
pedestrians or bicyclists .
8.Protect the quality of residential areas by achieving quiet and by reducing o r
controlling traffic routing, volumes, and speeds on neighborhood streets .
9.Coordinate the management of San Luis Obispo County Airport and the planning o f
land uses around the airport to avoid noise and safety problems .
1 .9 Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancemen t
San Luis Obispo should :
1 .Promote the use of quiet, fuel-efficient vehicles that produce minimum amounts o f
air pollution .
A.The City will continue to support the use and development of compresse d
natural gas fueling stations in the San Luis Obispo area .
B.When replacing any City vehicle or expanding the City's vehicle fleet, the Cit y
will consider purchasing alternative fuel vehicles that reduce air pollution .
C.The City encourages the use of alternative fuels on a regional basis .
2 . Advocate the use of communication systems that enable the transmission o f
information to substitute for travel to work or meetings . Develop goals and policies
for City employee participation in telecommuting systems .
3 .Solicit ideas from private industry for the development and implementation o f
innovative transportation technologies in San Luis Obispo .
4 .Support the use of alternative pavement materials for public streets, roads an d
other transportation corridors .
1 .10 Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation .
San Luis Obispo will :
2-9
MY O fml!5311 tuts OBlSp o
THE GENERAL PLAN
Circulation
•
Physically monitor the achievement of the modal shift objectives shown on Figur e
#1 and bi-annually review and adjust transportation programs if necessary .
1 .11 Establish and maintain beautiful and livable street corridors .
The City will :
1 . Pursue changes to existing corridors and support the design of new corridors tha t
create safe, attractive, and useful environments for residents, patrons of adjoinin g
land uses and the traveling public .
•
•
2-10
B1-46
Attachment 6
DRAF T
SAN LUIS OBISP O
TF-LUCE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 20, 201 3
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC E
ROLL CALL :
Present : Task Force Members, Russell Brown, Jon Goetz, Chris Richardson ,Sandra Rowley, Sharon Whitney, Walter Bremer, Carlyn Christianson ,Dave Juhnke, Matt Quaglino, Carla Saunders, Rob Rossi, and Chuc kCrotser Vice-Chair Pierre Rademaker, and Chairperson Eric Meye r
Absent :Task Force Members Hema Dandekar and Stephan Lam b
Staff : Deputy Director of Community Development Kim Murry, Associat ePlanner James David, Peggy Mandeville and Recording Secretary Daw nRudder
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA :The agenda was accepted as presented .
MINUTES : Minutes of January 16, 2013, were approved as amended .
•DISCUSSION ITEMS :
Neighborhood Boundarie s
Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development provided an overview of th emaps of Neighborhood Boundaries . The General Plan supports identification o fneighborhoods and having these areas mapped will help provide a basis for publi cnotifications and potentially for staff assignments . GIS staff has provided layered PD Fmaps to show boundaries of various mapped areas such as school districts, vote rprecincts, fire districts, parking districts, and neighborhood boundaries identified throug hthe interactive on-line program and those identified at the May 2012 workshop . Thes eare proposed to be grouped to assist in identifying where collections of smalle rneighborhoods may have similar issues for circulation or needs . The Task Force wil lreview and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission .
There was a general discussion between Task Force members and staff commentin gon the pre-defined neighborhood boundaries . They discussed and determine dboundaries for each neighborhood taking into consideration public input from th eworkshop and on-line determinations in order to connect the neighborhoods . There wasa majority vote determined after each neighborhood was discussed separately .
•
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
Steve Del Martini, San Luis Obispo, provided input on boundary of Johnson Avenu eneighborhood.
•
B1-47
Draft IF-LUCE Minute s
February 20, 201 3
Page 2
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION :
The Task Force voted 11-3 (Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney voting no ; Dandekar an d
Lamb absent) to recommend the neighborhood boundaries to the Planning Commissio n
as developed at the Task Force meeting .
Committee Member Whitney commented that she didn't vote because she didn't kno w
the neighborhoods and she was confused going through the maps .
Vision Statement and Guiding Principle s
Committee Member Saunders commented expressed 'ncern that the consultant tea mwas introducing new statements (guiding principl idn't have enough input fro m
the residents of the community . She indicated that it anges were going to b erecommended, the Task Force should be looking at the ang General Plan goal s
statements and recommending changes .
Committee Member Crotser concurred with Saunders comments . He noted that th e
Guiding Principles suggested were too limited and that the Ahwahnee Principles in th eConservation and Open Space Element might be,-appropriate to bring forward fo r
consideration .
PUBLIC COMMEN T
There were not a n
CONFIRM TIMEE.FO R
There was an agreement between all members and staff to continue the meeting t o
March 7, 2013 to complete the discussion of the remaining items on the agenda .
ADJOURNMENT :The meeting was adjourned at 8 :30 p .m .
4,7
Dawn Rudde r
Recording Secretary
•
•
•
Attachment 7
DRAFTSAN LUIS OBISP OTF-LUCE MINUTE SMARCH7,201 3
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC E
ROLL CALL :
Present : Task Force Members, Russell Brown, Jon Goetz, Chris Richardson ,Sandra Rowley, Sharon Whitney, Walter Bremer, Carlyn Christianson ,Dave Juhnke, Carla Saunders, Chuck Crotser, Vice-Chair PierreRademaker, and Chairperson Eric Meye r
Absent :Task Force Members Hema Dandekar, Stephan Lamb, Matt Quaglino ,and Rob Ross i
Staff:Deputy Director of Community Development Kim Murry, Peggy Mandevill eand Recording Secretary Dawn Rudde r
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA :The agenda was accepted as presented .
MINUTES :There were not any minutes to approve .
•DISCUSSION ITEMS :
1 .Neighborhood Boundarie s
Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development provided an overview of the 3 3Neighborhood Boundaries identified at the last meeting . Additional discussion occurre dto determine the grouping of the neighborhoods into "districts or areas".
There was a general discussion by the Task Force members who determined the large rgroupings should be called "areas" instead of "districts" to reflect the informal use of th egroupings. The Task Force members marked a map to show where barriers mad elogical boundaries for these larger collections of neighborhoods into areas .
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were no comments from the public at this time .
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION :
On motion by Task Force Member Crotser, seconded by Task Force Member Juhnke t oapprove the lines drawn to recommend neiqhborhood areas to be forwarded to th e
•
Planninq Commission .
AYES :Task Force Members Brown, Goetz, Richardson, Rowley, Whitney ,Bremer, Christianson, Juhnke, Saunders, Crotser, Rademaker, and Meye r
•
B1-49
Draft TF-LUCE Minute s
March 7, 201 3
Page 2
NOES :Task Force Members Rowley and Saunder s
RECUSED :Non eABSENT:Task Force Member Dandekar, Lamb, Quaglino and Ross i
The motion passed on a 10 :2 vote .
2 . Vision Statemen t
Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Development, presented the existing adopte d
Vision Statement with edits offered by the public at the December workshop . The Tas k
Force members discussed the potential changes .
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were not any comments from the public at this time .
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION :
•
On motion by Task Force MemberRademaker to recommend the Visio n
Commission .
Brawn,... seconded by Task Force Membe r
statement with minor edits to the Plannin g
hardson, Rowley, Whitney ,
er, Rademaker, and Meyer •AYES :Task Force Members
Bremer, Christianson,J
NOES :Non eRECUSED:Non eABSENT:Task Force Member. Dandeka amb, Quaglino and Ross i
3 .guiding pdriciples%omment s
Task Force Member Saunders expressed concern about the draft Guiding Principle s
offered by the consultant teat), She as concerned about including the proposed draft
principles in the General Platt-as well as the actual language in the statements an d
recommended usi the existing goals from the General Plan . Ms . Murry indicated tha t
the intent of the guiding principles was to provide guidance for the consultant team a s
they develop alternatives;for consideration . The consultant team needs a screening too l
to ensure that the alternatives being developed meet the expectations of th e
community . If these statements are not representative, the Task Force should provid e
other guidance for the team . Once the draft alternatives are developed, the concept s
will be presented to the TF-LUCE for review .
There was a general discussion between Task Force members to determine what th e
Guiding Principles should consist of .
Chairperson Meyer would prefer to use the existing goal statements of the general plan
•
B1-50
Draft TF-LUCE Minute s
March 7, 201 3
Page 3
•Task Force member Juhnke agreed with Chairperson Meye r
Task Force member Crotser indicated that he appreciated the idea of having a moreconsistent hierarchy to the General Plan and asked whether this could be considered .Staff responded that Council direction was that "Review of the Elements should b erecognizably based on the present document, keeping the same numbering wheneve r
possible". However, where changes are recommended, staff will ensure that they ar e
presented in a legislative draft format .
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were not any comments from the public at this t i
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION :
On motion by Task Force Member Ju seconded.by Task Force Membe rChristianson recommend the Consultan the existing gdals statements from th eLand Use and Circulation Elements, w ~i . king into consideration the public inpu toffered with some caution .
AYES :Task Force Me Brown, Goetz, Richardson, Rowley, Whitney ,Bremer, Christianson, Juhn , Saunders, Crotser, Rademaker, and Meye rNOES:None w-.RECUSED :Non eABSENT:Task Fs ce t ,.er Dar d ar,L .. , Quaglin nd Ross i
The Task- ice member •icat =® ~a it support for continuing to meet in the Counci lHearing Ro {t'The venu `=`.g •pears 6 facilitate discussion and Task Force member sappreciated b- ®-ble to ba ~ see and hear each other . Staff committed to explorin gmoving the Task €ae mee to the Hearing Room for future meetings .
CONFIRM TIME FOR'F-LUCE MEETING :
Kim Murry gave an agenda forecast . The March 20 th meeting will be cancelled and th enext meeting will be held on April 17 tH
ADJOURNMENT :The meeting was adjourned at 7 :42 p .m .
•Respectfully submitted by,
Dawn Rudde rRecording Secretary
•
B1-51
Attachment 8
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISP O
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S
March 13, 201 3
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC E
ROLL CALL : Commissioners John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, Airli n
Singewald, Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chairperson Eric Meyer, an d
Chairperson Michael Draz e
Absent :Non e
Staff :Deputy Community Development Director Kim Murry, Assistant Cit y
Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Dawn Rudde r
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA :
The agenda was accepted as presented .
MINUTES :
Minutes of February 27, 2013, were approved as amended .
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS :
There were no comments made from the public .
PUBLIC HEARINGS :
1 .City-Wide .GPI 12-13 : 2013 Annual Report on General Plan progra m
implementation ; City of San Luis Obispo — Community Development Dept .,
applicant .(Continued to March 27, 2013, Planning Commission meeting )
(James David)
Kim Murry, Deputy Community Development Director, recommended this item b e
continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on March 27, 2013 . Information t o
be included was not ready in time to meet the print deadline for the Commission .
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were no comments made from the public .
COMMISSION COMMENTS :
There were no comments made from the Commission .
On motion by Commr . Larson, seconded by Commr . Sinqewald, to continue this item t o
March 27, 2013 .
B 1-52
•
•
•
Draft Planning Commission Minute s
March 13, 201 3
Page 2
•AYES :Commrs . Fowler, Larson, Multari, Singewald, Stevenson, Meyer, an dDrazeNOES:Non eRECUSED:Non eABSENT:Non e
The motion passed on a 7 :0 vote .
2 .City-Wide .GPI 15-12 : Land Use & Circulation Elements Update : Status update anddiscussion of neighborhood boundaries, vision statement, and 'guiding principles ;City of San Luis Obispo – Community Development Dept .,applicant .(Continued
from February 27, 2013, Planning Commission meeting)(Kim Murry)
Kim Murry, Deputy Community Development 4 presented the staff report ,recommending the Planning Commission review t ae Task once recommendations an dprovide a Commission recommendation to Oeuncil regarding0ighborhood boundarie sand areas, Vision Statement and principles-10 guide developmen of alternatives for th eLand Use and Circulation Elements update . he suggested a sej agate motion for eac hsection.
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were no comments made fro m
COMMISSION CO
4Neighborhood di s
Commr . S
Commr :., ewald, subscribed to the idea of large rto larger areas .
Commr . Laneighborhood sof grouping the rithem.
ere it 'I lead . Ms . Murry indicated that effort to defin ecurrent General Plan policy and program . The concep twas to provide a larger framework in which to organiz e
Commr . Multari is uncoortable with the boundaries presented . He would propos eneighborhoods be self-defining and the City should provide support .
Commr . Fowler is impressed with the effort and outcome and is in favor of th eboundaries as is .
• Vice-Chair Meyer stated that the people were adamant about how their neighborhood swere defined . He suggested that these boundaries are used as a tool for the City t otarget certain neighborhoods
B1-53
Draft Planning Commission Minute s
March 13, 201 3
Page 3
Area discussion :
Kim Murry, presented the map of the larger areas defined by the TF-LUCE (Task Forc e
for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update .
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were no comments made from the publi c
COMMISSION COMMENTS :
Commrs . Multari and Draze voiced concerns about trf p being in the general pla n
versus being used for City purposes such as proJect 'cation . Ms . Murry commente d~that she doesn't envision this being in the gene r
On motion by Commr .Multari,d byCoar .Stevenson, to approve an d
recommend to Council theneigliforho,oundar esand areas that have bee n
presented .
AYES :C o
DrazeNOES:Non e
RECUS E
ABS E
The m
Vision Sta t
Kim Murry prese"'it he Vis Statement recommended by the TF-LUCE be submitte d
with very little cha n
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were no comments made from the publi c
COMMISSION COMMENTS :
Commr . Stevenson indicated the Vision statement should be less specific.
Commr . Singewald commented that the statement should be a proactive statement o n
how the city wants to look in the future .
Commr . Stevenson commented that it could e ncluded in t pendix .
Commr . Larson agreed that the map shoul d
Commr . Fowler is in support of the neighborhofardeas that haven outlined .
B1-54
Draft Planning Commission Minute s
March 13, 201 3
Page 4
•Commr. Larson pointed out that this Vision Statement is already in the general plan . H estated that it would serve the city to simplify .
Commr. Fowler commented the statement is too long, outdated, and redundant .
Vice-Chair Meyer commented that rewriting the Vision Statement would be a hug eundertaking.
Chairperson Draze is in support as presented .
Kim Murry •.fig- an overview of the Guiding Principles statement developed by th econsultant team -nd explained how the Task Force recommended use of the existin ggoal statements inthe current general Plan . The purpose of the guidance is to ensur ethe consultant team is developing alternatives for consideration that meet th ecommunity's objectives.
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
Steve Del Martini, San Luis Obispo, questioned, based on the Guiding Principle spresented, how do you develop more neighborhood parks in an existing neighborhood ?
•There were no further comments made from the publi c
Commr. Multari indicated for the position of movin gstatement as it sets with the consideration tha tstatement be considered at a later date .
Vice-Chair Meyer commented if a sub-comm ewould be interested in seeing a new Visio n
Commrs . Stevenson and Singewald s ucurrent statement .
On motion by Commr . Multari, seconded by CI ;acceptance of the Vision Statement as,,it is preadditional wording be drafted at a later date%
AYES :Comma r Multari nge v
NOES :Commr.:Fowler`_
RECUSED :None <~e
ABSENT :None _
and he accepts the visio nnal wording to the visio n
rson Draze, to recommend th ed with the consideration tha t
•
B1-55
Draft Planning Commission Minute s
March 13, 201 3
Page 5
COMMISSION COMMENTS :
Commr . Multari stated the Guiding Principles should not appear in the general plan bu t
are useful as a way to screen and consider alternatives . He also expressed concer n
that the City needs to maintain the ability to modify or add and delete goals over th e
course of the update process .
Chair Dram indicated that the City will see change occur over the years and tha t
change can be positive . He echoed Commr . Multari's comments regarding retaining th e
ability to edit goals through the process .
There were no further comments made from the Commission .
On motion by Commr . Multari, seconded by Comm Stevenson, to endorse the Tas k
Force recommendation to use the existinq land useand >circulation element goals a s
Guiding Principles and forward this recommendation to the Ctt Council .
AYES :Commrs . Fowler, Larson, Multan, Singewald, Stevenson, Meyer, an d
Draze
NOES :Non e
RECUSED :Non e
ABSENT :Non e
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote .
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION;
3 .Staff
ADJOURMEA :The meetir*was aurned at 7 :48 p .m .
Respectfully subMftted by ,
Dawn Rudde r
Recording Secretary
B1-56
•
•
•
Dave Juhnke
Carla Saunders Dea itlee"
an d
•Legen d
LUCE Appointees
ma Da
Tank Fa r
LUCE Appointees 500 Ft Buffer
ATTACHMENT 10
January 2012 Direction Status of 2012 Directio n
It should be called the Land Use and Circulatio n
Elements (LUCE) Task Force . (Using a different titl e
is confusing).
It was named a task force .
Completed .
The Task Force should consist of residents of th e
City of San Luis Obispo in all categories . If a give n
stakeholder group does not have any city resident s
willing to serve, then it can just submit comments
and testify .
Task Force was selected b y
Council through an ope n
application process available t o
any resident in the City .
Completed .
Members should also be volunteers, not pai d
advocates . Selection should reflect geographica l
distribution of residents, living throughout the city .
Task Force selection by Counci l
reflected geographic distributio n
and all are volunteers, not pai d
advocates .
Completed .
All residents should receive information about how t o
participate at the very beginning of the process ,
possibly as a hand out in the utility bills .
Survey mailed to every addres s
in city completed last spring a t
beginning of process provide d
information regarding how t o
participate and remain informed .
This message has bee n
reinforced with every method o f
outreach : stories in the Tribune ,
TV and radio spots, PSAs a t
movie theaters ; Display ads i n
newspapers ; posters on buse s
and throughout the community ;
newsletters ; etc .
Completed and on-going .
Selection of members should not be delegated t o
organizations, but should be done by council .
Council should take open applications, like th e
advisory body applications, including resumes .
Council appointed Task Forc e
members .
Completed .
•
•
•
B1-5 8
•
•
•
2
January 2012 Direction Status of 2012 Direction
It should have equal representation from th e
environment, neighborhood and busines s
communities . It should be chaired by a Plannin g
Commissioner .
Council appointed Task Forc e
members .
Completed .
There is no reason to limit membership to 13 . Th e
City Manager's Economic Sustainability group ha d
nearly 30 people on it and worked well . Other citie s
have varying numbers of participants .
Council appointed 17 Tas k
Force members . Two have
since resigned .
Completed .
In any category, overlapping experience--such as i n
land use and planning, the law, advisory groups ,
local history, real estate, social services, education ,
the economy , technology, natural resources ,
conservation, healthy communities, agricultur e
,transportation, recreation, the arts or non-profi t
organizations and other relevant expertise—should b e
considered a "plus" in selection of members . It is not
needed to have a person representing Cal Poly (a
state agency), or any other state agency on the Tas k
Force, but a resident who works at a state agenc y
could have special insight which could be useful .
Task Force members selecte d
by Council include residents wit h
affiliations that represent a broa d
range of interests :
environmental, land us e
planning, business, socia l
services, health, and histori c
preservation to name a few .
Completed .
Subcommittees of like expertise could caucus and d o
outreach at their discretion, and then presen t
comments to whole task force .
Full Task Force did no t
participate in traveling ope n
houses in the neighborhoods o r
at the workshop held at Ca l
Poly . Task Force members wh o
did participate reported out to ful l
TF-LUCE .As Task Force get s
into consideration of propose d
alternatives and draft polic y
statements, there may be a
desire to form sub-committees .
Staff will support the Task Forc e
in whatever approach the TF -
LUCE determines is appropriate .
On-going .
The task force should proceed by vote (recorded) no t
by forced consensus, with minority reports possible ,
if need be . Conflicting points of view from variou s
interest groups need to be surfaced, not buried, s o
that Council has comprehensive information before i t
when making the final decisions .
Task Force chair is bein g
encouraged to solicit input o f
those who have not participated
in any discussion . Vote will be
recorded and reported .
On-going .
3
January 2012 Direction Status of 2012 Directio n
This is a focused update . We do not need to fix wha t
is not broken . The update needs to address actua l
problems . Many of the factors making our city th e
happiest in North America are incorporated in ou r
present LUE . It serves our city well by protecting ou r
quality of life and fiscal sustainability .
Scope of work approved b y
Council in grant application an d
subsequent RFP and consultan t
contract define items to b e
included in update . Scop e
indicates that vision for SLO i s
still strong . Legislative changes
and resident input is shapin g
what is being considered i n
update process .
Completed .
The process should begin with workshops in th e
neighborhoods, occurring during the same time tha t
the new questionnaire is in the hands of residents . I t
should be in writing and should be based on th e
1988 questionnaire, with additional update d
questions if need be . Workshops and questionnaire s
input should take place before the LUCE Taskforce i s
formed or meets .
TF-LUCE was formed and met
prior to survey being complete d
and prior to first workshop . Thi s
deviated from Council directio n
as it seemed important to hav e
Task Force participation as par t
of workshops and also for Tas k
Force members to hear fro m
other residents durin g
`workshops and open houses .
Survey was based on 198 8
questionnaire and distributed a t
beginning of process . Ope n
houses were held at six differen t
locations throughout city an d
input was characterized i n
accordance of where
participant's residence wa s
located .
Survey completed . Task Force
formed . Outreach ongoing .
Council members should read the elements and giv e
input to staff regarding what does and does not nee d
changing . Staff should identify what language i t
thinks needs to be updated, with documentation o f
said need .
Council will review elements an d
make determinations based o n
resident input an d
recommendations of TF-LUCE ,
Planning Commission and othe r
advisory bodies . Staff wil l
provide documentation t o
support why changes are bein g
recommended .
Ongoing .
•
•
•
B1-6 0
•
•
4
January 2012 Direction Status=of2012 Direction
Review of the Elements should be recognizabl y
based on the present document, keeping the sam e
numbering whenever possible . It should proceed i n
an orderly, section by section, line by line, basis, s o
that everyone is given adequate notice of exactl y
what language will be considered and when .
Everyone needs to know at every stage exactly wha t
language is being proposed for deletion (strike out),
or addition (underlined), and by whom .
Legislative draft will be provide d
whenever changes are bein g
proposed . Documentation o f
changes proposed by Tas k
Force and those provided by
Planning Commission will b e
brought forward for Counci l
review and determination .
Ongoing .
Once the decisions about any proposed languag e
changes in a given section are made by Council ,
there should be no going back and reconsiderin g
said changes .
Staff will advise Task Force ,
Planning Commission and othe r
advisory bodies when Counci l
determinations have been made .
Ongoing .
Definitions of terms should be consistent with th e
present LUCE and any proposed changes should b e
treated as any other proposed language changes i n
public hearings .
Legislative draft will be provide d
whenever changes are bein g
proposed . Documentation o f
changes proposed by Tas k
Force and those provided by
Planning Commission will b e
brought forward for Counci l
review and determination .
Ongoing . The proposal is to u s
existing definitions to update the
LUCE .
•
5
August 2008 Direction Status of 2008 Directio n
There is agreement among Council Members an d
staff : the process should be heavily resident an d
neighborhood based - but yet still allow for som e
appropriate representation of important sectors of th e
community by persons who might not live within th e
City limits (e .g . representatives of nonprofits, th e
medical community, regional interests, etc).
Current Council reinforced tha t
the LUCE update should b e
resident-focused . Input to th e
update process and throug h
outreach events has bee n
characterized by participan t
status (i .e . resident vs . non -
resident) to the extent possible .
Ongoing .
Staff will be sensitive to the cost concern and wil l
look at options for phasing and alternative fundin g
methods . However, general plan updates ar e
ultimately expensive and Council will need to weig h
the priority of an LUE update within context of al l
other possible priorities competing for resources a s
part of 2009-11 Financial Plan
Grant received and Genera l
Funds assigned to complete th e
scope of work .
Complete .
If the update is established as a Major City Goal b y
Council in January 2009, staff will look at ways t o
accelerate some of the steps that were targeted i n
the draft plan to start in May 2009 .
Some work was done ahead o f
grant funded- update . Examples
include circulation model updat e
as part of Hwy 1 Majo r
Investment Study an d
Neighborhood identificatio n
project initiated in 2011 .
Complete .
Staff should use legislative drafts as a tool to make i t
clear to citizens what is being changed whe n
amending plans, and staff will do so to the maximu m
extent feasible and practical during the update .
Legislative draft will be provide d
whenever changes ar e
proposed . Ongoing .
The proposed sequence of steps outlined in the pla n
seems agreeable, with the understanding that th e
staff will review the draft to potentially make it cleare r
that the process - and each major step - will start wit h
community involvement .
Steps outlined in 2008 were
used as basis for gran t
application and program scop e
of work . Scope of wor k
describes proposed communit y
involvement efforts . On-going .
The Parks and Recreation Element shall not be tie d
to the LUE update and instead will proceed on it s
own track.
Parks and Recreation Element i s
not included in LUCE update .
Complete .
•
•
•
B1-6 2
•
•
6
August 2008 Direction Status Of 2008 Directio n
The survey used in 1988 should be used as a poin t
of departure in developing a new survey, but w e
should also be open to new and more relevan t
questions and methodologies for assuring a
representative, scientific sampling of communit y
sentiment and vision .
1988 survey was used as basi s
for 2012 survey . Council opte d
for a survey to be distributed to
all addresses versus th e
scientific sampling proposed b y
the consultant team .
Complete.
•
Page intentionally left e
blank .
•
RECEIVE D
MAR 2 9 201 3
SLO CITY CLER K
IWO ac En O a
coRResponOenc e
March 29, 201 3
TO :
City Council
FROM :
Katie Lichtig, City Manage r
Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r
Prepared by : Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning fin wtitt
SUBJECT : Land Use and Circulation Elements Update — Revised Attachment #8
Mayor and Council Members :
The March 13, 2013 Planning Commission draft minutes (Attachment 8) attached to you r
Council Agenda report did not reflect the correct action taken by the Planning Commission . The
Commission reviewed and approved the attached minutes at their meeting on March 27, 2013 .
The underlined portions of the minutes reflect the corrected and adopted minutes . Please replace
Attachment #8 with the attached minutes .
T:\Council Agenda Reports\ 2013\2013-04-02\LUCE Neighborhood Mapping (Johnson-Murry)WgendaCorrespondence .doc x
•
COUNCIL MEETING :'ZI)3
ITEM NO .:t3 l
•
•
•
SAN LUIS OBISP O
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S
March 13, 201 3
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC E
ROLL CALL : Commissioners John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, Airli n
Singewald, Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chairperson Eric Meyer, an d
Chairperson Michael Draz e
Absent :Non e
Staff :Deputy Community Development Director Kim Murry, Assistant Cit y
Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Dawn Rudde r
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA :
The agenda was accepted as presented .
MINUTES :
Minutes of February 27, 2013, were approved as amended .
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS :
There were no comments made from the public .
PUBLIC HEARINGS :
1 .City-Wide .GPI 12-13 : 2013 Annual Report on General Plan progra m
implementation ; City of San Luis Obispo — Community Development Dept .,
applicant .(Continued to March 27, 2013, Planning Commission meeting)
(James David)
Kim Murry, Deputy Community Development Director, recommended this item b e
continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on March 27, 2013 . Information to
be included was not ready in time to meet the print deadline for the Commission .
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were no comments made from the public .
COMMISSION COMMENTS :
There were no comments made from the Commission .
On motion by Commr . Larson, seconded by Commr . Singewald, to continue this item t o
March 27, 2013 .
AYES :Commrs . Fowler, Larson, Multari, Singewald, Stevenson, Meyer, and
•
•
•
Draze
NOES :Non e
RECUSED :Non e
ABSENT :Non e
The motion passed on a 7 :0 vote .
2 .City-Wide .GPI 15-12 : Land Use & Circulation Elements Update : Status update an d
discussion of neighborhood boundaries, vision statement, and guiding principles ;
City of San Luis Obispo — Community Development Dept ., applicant .(Continued
from February 27, 2013, Planning Commission meeting)(Kim Murry)
Kim Murry, Deputy Community Development Director, presented the staff report ,
recommending the Planning Commission review the Task Force recommendations an d
provide a Commission recommendation to Council regarding neighborhood boundarie s
and areas, Vision Statement and principles to guide development of alternatives for th e
Land Use and Circulation Elements update . She suggested a separate motion for eac h
section .
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were no comments made from the public .
COMMISSION COMMENTS :
Neighborhood discussion :
Commr . Singewald is supportive of defining larger neighborhoods .
Commr . Stevenson agreed with Commr . Singewald, subscribed to the idea of large r
areas . He also supported notification to larger areas .
Commr . Larson questioned where it will lead . Ms . Murry indicated that effort to defin e
neighborhoods responded to a current General Plan policy and program . The concep t
of grouping the neighborhoods was to provide a larger framework in which to organiz e
them .
Commr . Multari is uncomfortable with the boundaries presented . He would propos e
neighborhoods be self-defining and the City should provide support .
Commr. Fowler is impressed with the effort and outcome and is in favor of th e
boundaries as is .
Vice-Chair Meyer stated that the people were adamant about how their neighborhood s
were defined . He suggested that these boundaries may be used as a tool for the City t o
notice certain neighborhoods but that City departments should be free to draw whateve r
boundaries they deem appropriate for their respective needs .
Area discussion :
Kim Murry, presented the map of the larger areas defined by the TF-LUCE (Task Forc e
for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update .
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were no comments made from the publi c
COMMISSION COMMENTS :
Commrs . Multari and Draze voiced concerns about the map being in the general pla nversus being used for City purposes such as project notification . Ms . Murry commente dthat the maps were not proposed to be included in the general plan itself .
Commr . Stevenson commented that it could be included in the appendix.
Commr . Larson agreed that the map should not be in the general plan .
Commr . Fowler is in support of the neighborhoods and areas that have been outlined .
The Commissioners acknowledged the amount of input and work the community an dTask Force had put into the effort to define the neighborhoods and expressed a desir e
to see the boundaries shown as fluid lines that would have the flexibility to change ove r
time based on resident sentiments .
On motion by Commr . Multari, seconded by Commr . Stevenson, to support directio nregarding neighborhoods as follows :
In San Luis Obispo, neighborhoods are organic . Their sizes and shapes vary with th enature of issues and with the perspective of the person considering his or he rneighborhood.Neighborhood boundaries are affected by one's perceptions of howplaces are linked along psychological, social and physical dimensions .
Neighborhoods, therefore, should be self-defining, fluid and changeable over time .The roles of the city with regard to neighborhoods should be :
1)To provide support to local groups of residents who wish to organize for civi cand social purposes ; an d2)To work toward those features of good neighborhoods that were expresse dby residents in almost all areas of the city, namely :a.Pride of ownership and property maintenanc eb.Complete network of pedestrian connection s
c.Sense of safet yd.Low crime rate se.Safe streets for various modes of circulatio n
f.Strong neighborly relation s
•AYES :Commrs . Fowler, Larson, Multari, Singewald, Stevenson, Meyer, an d
DrazeNOES:Non e
•
•
•
RECUSED : NoneABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7 :0 vote .
Vision Statement :
Kim Murry presented the Vision Statement recommended by the TF-LUCE be submitte d
with very little change .
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
There were no comments made from the publi c
COMMISSION COMMENTS :
Commr . Stevenson indicated the Vision statement should be less specific .
Commr . Singewald commented that the statement should be a proactive statement o n
how the city wants to look in the future .
Commr . Larson pointed out that this Vision Statement is already in the general plan . H e
stated that it would serve the city to simplify .
Commr . Fowler commented the statement is too long, outdated, and redundant .
Vice-Chair Meyer expressed concern that changes should be considered very carefull y
due to the extent of prior input and evident resonance with the community .
Chairperson Draze is in support as presented .
Commr . Multari indicated for the position of moving forward he would support the visio n
statement as written with the consideration that edits to the vision statement could b e
considered at a later date .
Commrs . Stevenson and Singewald support the motion to move forward with th e
current statement .
On motion by Commr . Multari, seconded by Chairperson Draze, to recommend th e
acceptance of the Vision Statement as it is presented with the consideration tha t
changes could be considered at a later date .
AYES :Commrs . Larson, Multari, Singewald, Stevenson, Meyer, and Draz e
NOES :Commr . Fowle r
RECUSED :Non e
ABSENT :Non e
The motion passed on a 6 :1 vote .
Guiding Principles :
•
Kim Murry gave an overview of the Guiding Principles statement developed by th e
consultant team and explained how the Task Force recommended use of the existin g
goal statements in the current General Plan . The purpose of the guidance is to ensur e
the consultant team is developing alternatives for consideration that meet th e
community's objectives .
PUBLIC COMMENTS :
Steve Del Martini, San Luis Obispo, questioned, based on the Guiding Principle s
presented, how do you develop more neighborhood parks in an existing neighborhood ?
There were no further comments made from the publi c
COMMISSION COMMENTS :
Commr . Multari stated the Guiding Principles should not appear in the general plan bu t
are useful as a way to screen and consider alternatives . He also expressed concer n
that the City needs to maintain the ability to modify or add and delete goals over th e
course of the update process .
Chair Draze indicated that the City will see change occur over the years and tha t
change can be positive . He echoed Commr . Multari's comments regarding retaining th e
ability to edit goals through the process .
There were no further comments made from the Commission .
On motion by Commr . Multari, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, to endorse the Tas k
Force recommendation to use the existing land use and circulation element goals a s
Guiding Principles and forward this recommendation to the City Council .
AYES :Commrs . Fowler, Larson, Multari, Singewald, Stevenson, Meyer, an d
Draz e
NOES :Non e
RECUSED :Non e
ABSENT :Non e
The motion passed on a 7 :0 vote .
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION :
3 .Staff
a .Kim Murry presented the agenda forecast .
•4 .Commission
ADJOURMENT : The meeting was adjourned at 7 :48 p .m .
•
Respectfully submitted by ,
Dawn Rudde r
Recording Secretar y
•
Goodwin, Heather
Grimes, Maev e
t:Tuesday, April 02, 2013 8 :03 A M
To :Goodwin, Heathe r
Subject:FW : Minority Report - Better Copy
Attachments:Minority Report Neighborhood Mapping 4-2-2013 .do c
Please distribute this document as part of Agenda Correspondence for LUCE Update .
Thank you .
maevs kenneay gnime s
City Cler k
city of san Luis OBIS O
990 Palm Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
phone : (805) 781-710 2
email,mgrimes@slocitv .org
From :Sandra Rowley fmailto :macsar99evahoo .com l
Sent :Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1 :20 A M
To :Ashbaugh, John ; Carpenter, Dan ; Marx, Jan ; Smith, Kathy
Grimes, Maeve
jest :Minority Report - Better Cop y
Microsoft Word's margins gremlin struck again . This is a more readable copy, at least it should be .
RECEIVE D
APR 0 2 201 3
E2 K
AGEND ACORRESPONDENC E
Date 41413Item#~I
•
•
•
•
NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY MAPPING, VISION STATEMENT AND GUIDING PRINCIPLE S
DIRECTION FOR THE LAND USE ELEMEN T
MINORITY REPOR T
Tuesday . April 2, 201 3
In accordance with paragraph A6 of Council direction adopted January 17, 2012, and paragraph 6 E
of the TF-LUCE Guidelines, undated, this minority report is submitted to clarify our minorit y
votes regarding 1) Defining Neighborhoods and 2) Grouping Neighborhoods into Areas .
Existing Land Use Element (LUE) Policies and Program s
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 designat e
neighborhoods. The City will work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans, to facilitat e
development of a sense of place within neighborhoods .
LUE policy 2 .1 .2: The City should encourage and support the formation and continuation o f
neighborhood planning groups, composed of neighborhood residents .
LUE program 2 .15, Neighborhood Wellness Action Plans, which implements the above policies, i s
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 an d
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 tha t
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 offocused development -
review, capital improvement, and code-enforcement efforts ;
D.Encourage the formation of voluntary (emphasis added) neighborhood groups, so resident s
can become involved early in the development review process ;
E.Involve residents early in reviewing proposed public and private projects that could hav e
neighborhood impacts, by notifying residents and property owners and holding meetings a t
convenient times and places within theneighborhoods (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 Area s
Neither current neighborhood associations nor homeowners' associations, like The Arbors, wer e
contacted to hold meetings so their ideas about these topics could be captured .
Defining Neighborhood s
Several neighborhoods within the City have defined themselves, established boundaries, and
formed into formal neighborhood associations (Attachment 1). However, there are large areas o f
the City where this has not occurred ; GIS staff, Community Development staff, consultants an d
Task Force members devoted significant time trying to discover residents' concepts of thei r
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 boundarie s
(page B1-3) and that the perception of what constitutes a neighborhood is highly subjective (pag e
B1-4).
A workshop and six two-hour open houses were held in an attempt to obtain face-to-face inpu t
from city residents ; however, attendance was low . Of the 100 individuals present at the worksho p
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 wh o
were present on February 20 th 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 o f
the person considering his or her neighborhood (page B1-5). Furthermore, they though t
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 fo r
the City to decide, even loosely, the sets of streets and boundaries that are to constitute individua l
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 b y
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 t o
do so .
We strongly support those neighborhoods that have chosen to self-identify. Additionally, we hav e
concluded that since defining neighborhood boundaries is so difficult to do accurately, it should b e
left undone until residents do it for themselves .
Determining Desirable Feature s
A pre-prepared, possibly standardized, list of features was provided by the consultant to attendee s
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 Lui s
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 allowe d
with space available to do so ; but, although these write-ins could be shared with others at the sam e
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 variatio n
of historic resources was added twelve times and some variation of noise/quiet was added te n
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 feature s
generated during Task Force meetings, with each of the top features being explored as it related t o
where Task Force members live . Consensus on the universality of these features was not reached .
•
•
Grouping Neighborhoods into Area s
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 o f
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 contex t
for resident input related to neighborhood needs ." Self-identified neighborhoods such as the Alta
Vista Neighborhood Association, Monterey Heights Neighborhood Association, Old Tow n
Neighborhood Association, San Luis Drive Neighborhood Association, Neighborhoods North o f
Foothill and Laguna Neighbors have historically self-identified around issues specific to thei r
particular neighborhood . We are concerned about "lumping" dissimilar neighborhoods togethe r
into a large area and then presuming they have a commonality of issues . We are also concerne d
that neighborhood needs specific to one neighborhood may be diminished within the context o f
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 encompasse s
Laguna Lake . Within that area is a formal neighborhood association, Laguna Neighbors, and fiv e
other identified neighborhoods . Laguna Neighbors and the area that is across Madonna fro m
them have more commonality of issues with the Alta Vista and Monterey Heights neighborhood s
and portions of the Highland Avenue neighborhood than they do with the other identifie d
neighborhoods in their area . Common problems include a high number of high-density renta l
houses, garage and other room conversions and late-night noise from partiers, with attendan t
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 Regarding Neighborhood s
We strongly support the Planning Commission's statement that a role of the City with regard t o
neighborhoods should be "to provide support to local groups of residents who wish to organiz e
for civic and social purposes" (Page B1-5).
However, we have concerns with the Planning Commission's statement that a role of the City wit h
regard to neighborhoods should be to "work toward those features of good neighborhoods tha t
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 a s
a resident/citizen responsibility, not a City responsibility ; code enforcement an d
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 rate s
e.Safe streets for various modes of circulatio n
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 o f
the questionnaire . Also, terms like "pride of ownership" and "strong neighborly relations" are s o
vague that they could result in activities by the City that are contrary to the needs and wishes o f
affected residents .
S
2.Connections between neighborhoods or subdivisions may facilitate walking, biking an d
neighborhood connectivity, but they can, also, facilitate the movement of strangers into an d
throughout neighborhoods and negatively affect feelings of safety and security . Not having suc h
connections may be the preference of a neighborhood .
3."Complete network of pedestrian connections" is, also, vague . It should not be interpreted t o
mean sidewalks must be present along all residential streets ; some long-established residentia l
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 i n
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 befor e
being adopted .
Vision Statemen t
We support this unanimous recommendation of both the Task Force and the Planning Commissio n
to use the existing Vision Statement within the Land Use Element, with the minor edits that wer e
made (Pages B1-6, B1-7).
Guiding Principle s
We strongly support the unanimous recommendation of both the Task Force and the Plannin g
Commission that the consultant team use the existing goals within the Land Use Element, rathe r
than the more abbreviated Guiding Principles suggested by the consultant team, in order t o
develop alternatives for consideration (Page B1-8).
Respectfully submitted ,
Sandra Rowley
Carla Saunders
Attachmen t
•
Neighborhood Associations in San Luis Obisp o
Group
Established
Boundarie s
•
•
Foothill north to city edg e
Santa Rosa east to city edg e
North boundary — Slack to Hathawa y
East boundary – Grand to Slac k
South boundary – Hwy 101 between Calif and Gran d
West boundary – California to Hathawa y
North boundary — Slack Street
East boundary — Loomis Stree t
South boundary — Hwy 101 west of Gran d
West boundary — Grand Avenu e
San Luis Drive
1987 (informal)
A loop that starts on San Luis Drive just past SLO H S
Neighborhood
1989 (formal)
grounds, goes around the housing and vacant lots t o
Association
Hwyl01, then makes a U-turn and goes along the cree k
back to the start poin t
Laguna Neighbors
2003
Boundaries : Oceanaire Drive from Madonna to LOV R
(w/bump-out to include Mariners Cove) and the interio r
of both of both Madonna Road and LOVR that
completes the loo p
Neighborhoods
200 1
North o f
Foothill (NNOF )
Alta Vista
1979-8 0
Neighborhoo d
Associatio n
(AVNA )
Monterey Heights
about 198 0
Neighborhoo d
Associatio n
Old Town
Neighborhood
Associatio n
(OTNA )
Residents fo r
Quality
Neighborhoods
(RQN)
1978 (informal)
Boundaries are Pismo (beginning at Johnson) to Carmel ,
1981 (formal)
Carmel to High, High to Church, Church to Osos the n
Leff, Leff to Johnson, and Johnson back to Pism o
1989 (informal)
Boundaries are the city limit s
1990 (formal)
Goodwin, Heather
RECEIVE D
APR 0 1 201 3
L SLO CITY CLER K
AGEND A
CORRESPONDENC E
Date 41-4i3 Item#/
Codron, Michae l
Monday, April 01, 2013 3 :12 P M
Goodwin, Heather ; Grimes, Maev e
Fwd : LUCE update item for April 2 meetin g
Original Message
Subject : LUCE update item for April 2 meetin g
From : Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club <sierraclub8@gmail .com>
To : Council_ALL <Council ALL ra,slocitv .org >
CC
SIERR A
CLUB
Santa Lucia Chapte r
P .O . Box 1575 5
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 6
(805) 543-871 7
www .santalucia.sierraclub .org
FOUNDED 189 2
•
April 1, 201 3
Re :
I . Unanimous Planning Commission and LUCE Task Force recommendations for the consultant to use the existing LU E
goals to develop and assess "alternatives "
2 . Meaningful Community inpu t
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 LU E
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 tha n
25,000 City households and city business owners . This provides assurance to both residents and business owners that they are centra l
to planning the City's future .
For these reasons,werespectfullyrequest that the City Council Give direction to the consultant team that they be specific whe n
referring to "community input" supporting a recommendation or proposal .
The issue is one of appropriate weighting . The responses of more than 2,100 city resident households and business owners to th e
City's LUCE Survey, for example, should be weighted more heavily than the input from some of the approximately 50 residents wh o
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 positio n
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 base d
"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 tha t
ences to community input supporting a recommendation or position be more specific . This should be a requ irement going
forward .
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
1
ew Christi e
Ater Director
•
•
2
icrosoft Word,-SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials .pdf http ://www .slo2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05 materials.pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e
0 Quality of Life
How would you rate the overall Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo? Approximately 81% of respondents rated the quality o f
life as "high" with less than 2% rating it as "low". That's a higher number than the 1988 survey, which had 76% o f
respondents choosing "high" and less than 1% choosing "low".
How would you rate the overall quality of life in San this Obispo ?
Figure 1 .Quality of Life, San Luis Obispo 201 2
When asked to identify San Luis Obispo's greatest problem, respondent's top choices were the homeless (19%), traffi c
(10%), lack of jobs (9%), and affordable housing (9%). Downtown parking and congestion was cited by 8%. Man y
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 th e
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 201 2
23 of 52 3/31/2013 5 :23 PM
icrosoft Word ; SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials .pdf
hap ://www.slo2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05_materials .pdf
2012 Community Surve y
Table 1 .Greatest Problems Identified, San Luis Obispo 201 2
Category Percentage Wrier d Respondents
Homeless 19%347
Jobs 9%166..,Housing irit:E....re ..9%166..........„.„...„.. „....„
Downtown 8%144
Business 3%70
Streets 3%67...,........
Development :Re ....!...:::...:He „„........:
Neighborhoods 2%40
He .:wee *.:,...:-H ./:.e..
39
2%38
1%3 3
Governmen t
Water
Polic e
City Counci l
Big BoxStares ..
Plannin g
Shoppin g
Regulation
1%
1%
( 1%1 9
..,19
1 81%
When asked about the City's greatest strength, the natural setting took most at the top spots as it had in the 1988 survey .
Table 2.Greatest Strengths Identified, San Luis Obispo 2012
Ftmeiilage Number of Respza :lents
Weather 12%22 1...-„/.::12%22 0;...:....
Location 8%14 7
Community _.-..
Open Space 7%133
Climate 6%106
Quality of Life 3%61
Culture 1%3 1
Low .Crime
.....
i,‘!:...e ....'::.
Citizen s
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 http ://www .slo2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05 materials .pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e
Listed below are several aspects of "quality of life° in San Luis Obispo . On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being LEAST importan t
and 5 being MOST important, respondents rated natural environment and crime as having the highest impact on qualit y
of life – echoing the sentiments expressed by 1988 respondents .
Table 3 .Quality of We Aspects Identified, San Luis Obispo 201 2
Natural environment (air quality ,
Pace of life
•Opportunities to participate i n
government decision s
TrafticSafety andCOngestio n
Management (locat travel and
pal king )
Transportation chokes – bus service ,
bicycle and pedestrian facilitie s
Housing opportunities (cost an d
choice of types)
Cultural diversity (people wit h
different backgrounds and interests )
Downtown` character and activtti
Property maintenance (upkeep ,
junk/litter control )
Access to healthyfoods -fresh '
pmduceiandsitipeftleetkitstit ,
Next, respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with the current conditions of each area with 5 bein g
MOST satisfied . Overall satisfaction was high but respondents indicated concern with job opportunities, housing, an d
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 201 2
•
open space )
Job opportunitt e
Crime levels
Recreation opportunitie s
Educational opportunities
3.5 %
670)
(92y'(2so)'(c {60
2 .7%4 .1%18 .0%33 .2 %
(53)(82)(360)(664)
3.1%
(62 )
8 .0%
(160)
200%40.6 %
(402)(815 )
0%
(d3)(18].):...(673)(7731
2 .7%5 .8%16 .6%32 .1%
(54)(116)(334)(646)eye ::i iee -
2 .4%8.9%22 .1%
(49)(178)(443)
7.9%2412%
31 .3 %
(628 )
19A%'
390).f674)(741)
20 .0%34 .8%36.4%
2)(698)(731 )
29,5%
4 .6 %
(93)
5 .5%19 .9 %
(110)(401 )
19:4%et __
2,01 1
27 .7%
(554)
35 .3 %
(707)
,(316)
42 .0%
(840 )
62 .9 %
'(1 .2651
25 .8 %
(517 )
(76
32 .9 %
(660 )
16.9 %
340).:
42.8%
(860):et
1,999
2,003
2,006
2,010
2,008
25 of 52 3/31/2013 5 :23 PM
Microsoft Word - SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials .pdf http ://www.s1o2035 .com/knages/meetings/tf/tf 05_materials .pdf
2012 Community Surve y
Table 4,Current Conditions Satisfaction, San this Obispo 2012
1 2 5 ieSIX1W
Coin
Natural environment (air quality,1 .8% (35)2 .8% (56)6 .8%(136)38.4% (764)50.2%1,99 1
open space)(1,000)
tub 9pportumPes,.9.0%(178)`:213%'(421)'''4 3a9k(995)e7 1:44k,M
Recreation opportunities 1.4% (27)3 .7% (74)225%(447)43.9% (873)28.5% (566)1,987
Entettamment-opponunitie 4-6:%(30).
62,6(124)79 .7*(572) '43.1%(859)29.54f.(499)1,993
Educational opportunities 1 .4% (27)4 .9% (97)20 .1%(399)42.2% (840)31 .5%(627)1,990
Shopping oppottunitie.5 I:.4 .796193)11 .5%(249)a 231w(536)38.5%;(765)-,.18.396 364),LIMPace of life 1 .8% (36)3 .4% (68)15 .8% (313)39 .4% (783)39.6% (786)1,98 6
Crimelevels,2 .2*(43)9 .1%4180)2311%(459);42.2%(838)23 .4%(464)1,984
Opportunities to participate in 3 .1% (61)8 .2% (161)37 .0% (729)36.2% (713)15 .5% (305)1 .96 9
government decision s
TraffmSdety and Congestion ?0%(140)212%424)28.2%(561)34.8%s71'93%(192)1988
Management (locattraye an
d parking)..
Transportation eh lokes - bus service,2 .9%(58)12 .4% (246)31 .2% (620)37 .1% (737)16 .3% (324)1,98 5
bicycle and pedestrian facilitie s
Housing opportunities (cost and 9.796(171):73-79i .(460)49:Ow (79g)20.596,407)''1,981 .:
Cultural diversity (people with 5 .5% (109)13 .2%(261)41 .5% (824)25 .8% (511)14 .1% (279)1,984
different backgrounds and interests )
Zowretiewel charecte"I rand activities (50)117,49k(146)20 :81%43'.1961852)1
Property maintenance (upkeep,3 .3%
(66)9-g%(196 )
(411)
27 .4%('44)
44 .5%
(882 )
262%4518)
14 .9%(295)
1,977
1,984
junk/litter control )
Access to healthy foods =fresh 1 .7%(34).4-1%ffi°'lame643631 4°A%1798..35.7496 (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 S.
Downtown
Particular Place of Enjoyment, San Luis Obispo 2012
Number of Respomierts
584
Category Percentage
37 %
Park X11%"-_179 .
Mission 7%12 2
:T :..:.:Laguna Lake :.:,:...H .456 '69 .
Open Space 4%6 8
3%4 8
Walking
Hiking Trails 2%3 3
.33 1
Irish Hill s
Madonna 1%
2 7
26
`
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 5
26 of 52 3/31/2013 5 :23 P M
icrosoft Word ; SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials .pdf http ://www.s1o2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05 materials .pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e
•
They were less enthusiastic about Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), which topped the list of "least" liked places . This questio n
yielded different responses from the 1988 survey as LOVR had not been expanded at that time . Both surveys identifie d
areas associated with traffic and higher ratios of rental housing .
Table 6 .Least Liked Places of Enjoyment,San Luis Obispo 201 2
•
•
Page 6 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 201 2
LOVR
Downtow n
Madonna Roa d
Parking
Homeless
Foothill Botilevard'L 1 :
Streets (in general )
Broad Street
South Higuera Street 4 6
27 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 Surve y
City Growth and Relationship to the Regio n
When asked which of the following approaches to determining allowable growth in the City they supported, respondent s
continued, but to a lesser degree, to support preservation of the natural environment . Sixty-six percent want to kee p
growth in existing areas and 60% support avoiding harm to the natural environment . That's a change from the 198 8
survey where over 85% of respondents sought to keep growth in existing areas and 79% supported avoiding hard to th e
natural environment.
C
•
•
Figure 2 .Approaches to Allowable Growth, San Luis Obispo 201 2
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 7
28 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
San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e
IfUfeCf'lywasb Front ret of 1%, which one oft*
•
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 bu t
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 uniqu e
character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities and a vibrant economy . People were asked if the City ha s
not enough,enough, or too much of the various types of development . Respondents indicated the City has "enough"o f
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%),tou /visitor servin g
activities (53%),shopping (58%), and cultural activities (70%).
•
Page 8 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 201 2
29 of 52 3/31/2013 5 :23 PM
icrosoft Word SLOGPUTLLUCE 05 Memo - tf 05materials .pdf http ://www.slo2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05_materials .pdf •
2012 Community Survey
Table 7.Types of Development, San Luis Obispo 201 2
Not enoeql Email;Toe null Response
Count
Housing 33 .0% (637)58 .9% (1,135)8 .1% (156)1,928
.......W fi H .-Het.,"H ..!...!..;:...).1.4515t$84)'''''.
Manufacturing 43 .9% (827)51 .3%(967)4 .8% (91)1,885
e.e l".......,Business Park",".H..H
H....
,.„.23.5%443),
...,.H .
,1,889
Shopping/stores
€lilturaWerltertalaMeR .HHe...:.:.....Medical, legal, financial
21 .3%(412 )
H .
H ..e .....
59.5%(1,151)19 .1%(370)1,93 3
services
Govern ,tions
14.7% (284)77 .0% (1,484 )
li et 89)4951i 'Mit.f .'':"I'
8 .3% (159)1,92 7
J..„,..
1.929 H ”,....
What influences Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo? According the respondents, air quality, traffic, aircraft noise, and th e
preservation of farmland were cited as the factors that MOST influence quality of life in San Luis Obispo, mirroring th e
1988 survey results .
Table 8 .Quality of Life influences,San Luis Obispo 201 2
1 2 3 4
Air pollution 15 .3% (301)14 .4%(283)19 .0%(373)16 .6%(325)34 .7%(680)1,962
ji.C.ai/trbektrafbebbi.SeHl .e e .:.t..6.2%51122y '..1,961
Aircraft noise 16 .9% (331)22 .4% (439)29 .5%(580)17 .1%(336)14 .1%(277)1,963
.),....,..„:.(..lQ))...,508)3„946 ..,
Crowing/delay at parking 9 .1%(175)17 .6% (340)33.6%(648)22 .9% (442)16 .8% (323)1,928facilities
At parks or recreation ."':.223%.$40)...:,)361%:(203) ) ti.Y15.8%:1304y12.355(230)facilities '12-3No(P35}
' Development on7,5%(142)11 .8%(222)26 .7% (504)20 .8% (393)33 .1%(624)1,885farmland, ranchlan d
e ...H
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)1,85 1development
Hi)Ovenalkpacia4life
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 9
30 of52 3/31/2013 5 :23 PM
icrosbft Word .- SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials .pdf http ://www.slo2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05 materiais .pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e
• San Luis Obispo and the surrounding area includes about 34% of the jobs in the county, and about 18% of the houses an d
apartments, which results in commuting . On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being no effort and 5 being high effort, respondent s
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)1,88 2
facilities to reduce
congestion .
Discourage commuting by 13 .5%(258)11(232)20 .5%(39
individual drivers an d
encourage use of busses,
van poolsr bicycles, an d
carpools.
Discourage additiona l
jobs in San Luis Obispo .
Encourage housin g
development in San this
Obispo.
Respondents indicated they would like the City to focus the most effort in discouraging commuting and the least effort i n
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 201 2
Response
can2435
496(657)1:90 7
413% (775)15 .7% (294)23 .8% (447)9 .3% (174)9 .9% (186)1,87 6
?:72%(523)
31 of 52 3/31/2013 5 :23 PM
icrosoft Word _ SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials .pdf http ://www.slo2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05_materials .pdf
2012 Community Survey
Form of Developmen t
To accommodate new growth in the City, 71% of respondents supported using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods fo r
buildings like those that have been built in the neighborhood with over 63% supporting redeveloping underdevelope d
sites with buildings compatible with the neighborhood . A little more than half supported mixed-use infill development i n
existing buildings . This was slightly less than responses in 1988 when 81% supported using vacant lots in existin g
neighborhoods .
To accomnodate new housMg M city, l suppoft (Check all that apply .)
E.
Figure 4.New Growth, San this Obispo 201 2
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 1 1
32 of 52 3/31/2013 5 :23 PM
Microsoft Word - SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials .pdf http ://www.slo2035 .comlimages/meetings/tf/tf 05 materials .pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e
•To accommodate new businesses, banks, and office buildings, the dear preference with 80% of respondents choosing i t
was development in existing commercial areas, using vacant lots for new buildings generally like ones that have been buil t
there. In 1988 65% of respondents supported that idea with 37% supporting replacing existing buildings with larger ones .
To accommodate new at o
•
figure 5.New Development Preferences, San Luis Obispo 201 2
When asked about what changes they would like to see in certain land uses, only two land uses resulted in substantia l
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 201 2
33 of52 3/31/2013 5 :23 PM
icrosoft Word - SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials .pdf http ://www.slo2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05_materials .pdf
2012 Community Surve y
•
Table 10 .land Use Changes, San Luis Obispo 201 2
Small second dwellings ("granny units") i n
areas that are mostly individual houses .
Specialty stores (ssuch as=books or clothing)
in small neighborhooc shopping centers .-
Offices (doctors, lawyers) in smal l
neighborhood shopping centers .
Nursing homes;churches,or schools in '
areas that are mostly, individual houses .
13 .5%
(256 )
75%
(-14'3}=(115 )
8.8%10 .4%
(166)(196 )
17 .6%
33 .2%24 .6%
(632)(468)1,90 1
Bars and nightclubs downtown.
Retail stores downtown
43 .3 %
(831)
11 .1 %
(214}.
7 .2 %
(139)
15 .8%31 .4%
(602)
4.3%5 .1 %
{98 )
87!._
15 7
15.3 %
(293)
1,91 7
1,91 8
in residential areas,home businesses with
no em iloyees other than ressidentsofth e
use or apartment that may include smail-
ale product assembly or customer visas .
Neighborhood markets or fresh produce
markets in residential areas .
Auto repair downtown or inshopping
•
Small city parks in residential areas .(57 )
• September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 1 3
(671 )
35 .2%29.3 %
(559)1,905
34 of 52 3/31/2013 5 :23 PM
icrosoft Word'- SLOGPUTLLUCE 05 Memo - tf_05_materials .pd f
San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e
Public Facilities and Service s
On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being less and 5 being more, just four areas were supported by the majority of respondent s
seeking additional facilities and services ; 50% would like more bicycle lanes, 58% support acquiring open space peaks an d
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 an dhillside preservation, 50% creeks and marshes, and 43% preservation of farm land .
Table 11 .Additional Facilities and Services, San this Obispo 201 2
Page 14 Qua! of Life and Future Development Survey September 201 2
parking )
Bus service—more
frequent servic e
Traffic congestion management
Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths and 10:8%
(200)(116 )
6 .3%30 .4%
(562 )
42 .0%
19 .8%
(366 )
20.2%
(371)
25 .2 %
(761)(457 )
1907%16 .8 %
(888)(306)
50 .4%21.0%
(920)(383)
34-2%
1.259)(157)
22 .8%18 .3%1,83 7
Nei g
Emergency services/disaster readines s
Flood pr e
Preserving historic building s
Housing fo
aw enforcement : Violence/theft s
enforcement Jr
Law enforcement : Nuisances/zonin g
Acq
Acquiring and maintaining open space for
farm, ranchland
Acquiring and maintaining -open space'fo r
rranlcc R mx .cb Ac ..
Acquiring and maintaining open space for
City greenbelt
Parking and access choices downtow n
Parks/playfields
(242 )
7,4%
.1137)...(
8 .9%9 .5 %
(161)(172 )
6 .9 %
(126)
87)
7 .2 %
(133)(182)
16 .9 .46 11 .3 %
(311)(208)
5 .3%5 .7%
(96)(103 )
7 .5%8 .59.6
(136):13 .4 %
6 .9%
(125 )
996 ,
6 >
6.2 %
(113 )
t .396 :
0 )
17 .0%13 .0%
(311)(239 )
13.2%46 .2%
(239)(835 )
Sal%29,59 6
.15'43):1427):
43 .2%18 .7 %
(785)(340 )
34.7%124 .3%.
163.
32 .7%
(596 )
43 :.9%
(767)(419)(336)
347%20.5%.,16 .6%
(633)
47.1%23 .7%18 .3 %
(856)(432)(332 )
46 .9 %
41 .8%
30.0%
(547)
14.9%
(361.){270)`
23.4%16.1 %
.(219 )
5 .7%11 .5%
(284)(207 )
8%
1,83 0
1,82 2
1,807
1,82 5
(8S9) (429) (295 )
10 .0%
(184).
46 .0%14.5%9.4%
(843)(266)(173)
1,83 2
http ://www.slo2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05 materials .pd f
35 of 52 3/31/2013 5 :23 PM
icrosoft Word SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo -tf 05_materials .pdf http ://www.s1o2035 .com/images/meetings/ffftf 05_materials .pdf
2012 Community Survey
2 3 4 5 ; Response
17 .4%8 .2%27 .3%23 .6%23 .5%
Coun t
1,84 4
(320)(151)(504)(436)(433 )
.7.1%7.5%'41 .8%24.0%19 6%1,828
3 .9%5 .7%46.2%25 .8%
,
18 .3%1,832
(72)(105)(847)(473)(335 )
6:7%7.6%44 .0%24 .2%1 .6% ,1 ,82
13 .9%13 .4%44.6%17 .2%10 .9%1,81 1
(252)(243)(807)(312)(197 )
- 9.7%I0.2%4610%.19 .2%.14.9%1;789
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 201 2
Yes Response Count
Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, paths and parking)48.7% (853)51 .3% (900)1,75 3
Bus service-routes and more frequent service'ii :38.6%16491'.:
Traffic congestion management 37.6% (631)62 .4%(1,049)1,680
Neighborhood traffic management i i ...-28,096f4551 ,72.0%(1„1 71),626
Emergency services/disaster readiness 41.7%(689)58.3% (965)1,654
:Flood PFC'ventlon/aliTtrol 25.7%(4l8)'743*(1,210).-16678-Preserving historic buildings 35 .6% (605)64 .4%(1,094)1,699
Housing for lowenoameifamilies 35.99616181 .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%i(1,180)1,659
Law enforcement : Nuisances/zoning 24.1% (402)75 .9%(1,268)1,670
:Acquiring and maintaining open spaceiforipeaks &hill des i 6 i .843%ii(944 ii.i .64513%(801).1,744Acquiringandmaintaining open space for farm,ranchland 30.4%(508)69 .6%(1,163)1,67 1
Aoqinurrg and rpaintaipingopen space for creeks A marshes 49.3%'07)50.7%.{871).:..1,71 8
Acquiring and maintaining open space for City greenbelt 51 .6%(891)48.4%(836)1,72 7
Parking and access thoicesidowntown 24.7%(41i .(417)...Parks/playfields 38.8% (655)61 .2% (1,033)1,68 8
Public art 20.6% (345)79 .4%(1,329)1,674
ikPiqYi;0iAPO .E EShelterforhomeless46.7% (820)53 .3% (935)1,75 5
Sidewalk improvements and pedestrian connections 42 .1%(709) ,',57.9%(97'0 '1,686'
Street maintenance 42 .4%(716)57 .6%(971)1,687
5080tftee5;4405capIngia :
Street widening/signals 24 .9%(411)75 .156 (1,237)1,648
Transit serweeissmutesandfrequepoyei e......:..ii :
.
.TT...
T .
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 1 5
Shelter for homeless
Sidewalk improvements ancl .pedestria n
Street maintenance
Street-trees,landscaping along:stre :
Street widening/signal s
3 ransit serviee-routesanii frequency-i i
Recreation-program s
36 of 52 3/31/2013 5 :23 P M
•
icrosoft Word - SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials .pdf http ://www.s1o2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05 materials .pdf
San Luis Obispo General Plan Update
The 1988 survey showed support for paying more for bicycle paths, bus services, law enforcement, and performing art s
(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 tax i
services .
Page 16 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey September 201 2
37 of 52 3/31/2013 5 :23 PM
icrosoft Word - SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials .pdf http ://www.slo2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05_materials .pdf
2012 Community Survey
Demographic Dat a
The vast majority of respondents indicated they live in the City of San Luis Obispo with a little less than half working o r
owning a business in the City . Seventy-three percent of respondents own their dwelling with 27% renting .
Please check all that apply .
•
Figure 6.Demographic Data, San Luis Obispo 201 2
•
September 2012 Quality of Life and Future Development Survey Page 1 7
38 of 52 3/31/2013 5 :23 PM
icrosoft Word'- SLOGPU_TF_LUCE 05 Memo - tf 05_materials .pdf
http ://www.s1o2035 .com/images/meetings/tf/tf 05 materials .pd f
San Luis Obispo General Plan Updat e
Which of the following best describes your status?
=,Student
Unemployed
OM Retired
IS Other
•Figure 7 .
Status, San Luis Obispo 201 2
•
Page 18
Quality of Life and Future Development Survey
September 201 2
39 of52
3/31/2013 5 :23 PM