Click this link to optimize Open City Hall for screen readers Skip to Content
Open City Hall
Peak Democracy

Subscribe to Registered Statements from Citizens

Info Hide

Get registered statements in your RSS reader or emailed to you as a daily digest.

A statement is registered if it is claimed, verified and civil:

  1. It is claimed if its author has claimed the statement by signing in before or shortly after submitting the statement.
  2. It is verified if it is claimed and its author has provided their street address in their registration and verified their email address by clicking the verification link emailed by Peak Democracy.
  3. It is civil if it is verified and it meets the guidelines for civility.

If any of these conditions are not met, then the statement is unregistered.

You can subscribe to unregistered statements here.

Statements are emailed at most once per day (in the morning).

Subscribe

Manage your subscription in your RSS feed reader

Check out some recent Registered Statements from citizens

Name not shown inside Neighborhood 6 February 6, 2018, 10:48 PM

This is a great idea, I feel unsafe with the existing bike infrastructure. This will reduce my trips via car and help promote more cycling in the City.

Name not shown outside Neighborhoods February 6, 2018, 5:27 PM

I live on the Foothill side of town, and I strongly support safe bike routes between Foothill and downtown, and would go even farther to say there is a great need to provide a safe bike route to San Luis Obispo High School from the Foothill area. This would offer an alternative to families with kids at SLOHS. Just go take a look at the traffic on San Luis Drive, California and Johnson in the mornings and afternoons from 3:10-3:45. If students had a safe bike route to SLOHS (and even including a direct bus in the scenario) this would also decrease a significant amount of congestion in that part of the city.

Name not shown outside Neighborhoods February 6, 2018, 5:09 PM

Do the proposed buffers of 200 feet from residential zones and 600 feet from schools provide sufficient opportunities and locations for cannabis business activities, while protecting public health, safety and welfare?
I'd like to see more distance. These product should not be marketed in downtown or areas where families and children frequent.


Should the City allow an additional storefront(s) for sale of medical cannabis products only?
Only medical


Should the City limit or manage the type or strength of products sold in retail stores, delivered, or manufactured in the City?
YES. On all accounts. Low strength products only. Products that are labeled with fun colors and graphics, making them look like candy or treats should not be allowed, EVER, ANYWHERE. Also, labeling that makes them look like normal food or beverages should not be sold. A giant cannabis leaf or warning on the label should be prominent. I'm very concerned about these products getting in the hands of children or youth who don't understand what the effects are.

Robin Schwartz inside Neighborhood 7 February 5, 2018, 3:22 PM

The time has come for the City of San Luis Obispo to be bold in moving forward toward a future not dominated by the personal automobile. The Preferred Alternative of the Anholm Bikeway (Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard) proposal makes that step by creating safer streets and balancing transportation needs of those who drive cars, ride bikes, and walk. In comparison, the Lincoln St. Alternative continues to make active transportation secondary to automobile traffic.

Bicyclists and pedestrians are moms and dads, schoolchildren, grandparents, coffee shop workers, business owners, and other hardworking citizens. We all deserve a safe route to our destination. Thank you for your help in making this possible.

Stephanie Teaford inside Neighborhood 7 February 2, 2018, 7:32 PM

Are the proposed Cannabis Activity Permit types and locations appropriate for the City of San Luis Obispo?
The City of San Luis Obispo appears to be taking a cautious approach to regulating cannabis and we, the Healthy Communities Work Group, applaud that action. The research on the health impacts of cannabis use is still in the new stages. There may be health impacts that no one has foreseen. We believe that 2 stores, with close monitoring by City staff, is the best approach until more is known.


Do the proposed buffers of 200 feet from residential zones and 600 feet from schools provide sufficient opportunities and locations for cannabis business activities, while protecting public health, safety and welfare?
We did some research on this issue. In 2016, Colorado updated their laws and made the residential buffer 1000 feet. They also have a 1000 feet buffer from schools – as does Oregon and Washington. Vancouver, Canada has a 300 feet buffer from schools too. We believe a 1000 feet buffer between residential areas and schools is the preferred approach. Particularly with schools, a 1000 feet buffer helps ensure that schoolchildren do not walk by cannabis businesses on their daily commute to school.


Should the City allow an additional storefront(s) for sale of medical cannabis products only?
Many jurisdictions allow for two types of stores – recreational and medical. If the City’s plan is to be cautious in approach, we recommend starting with one type of store and then consider others if the plan goes smoothly.


Should the City limit or manage the type or strength of products sold in retail stores, delivered, or manufactured in the City?
The State of California regulates cannabis potency and limits edibles to 100 mg. of THC per package, and 10 mg. of THC per dose. Both Colorado and Washington also have enacted similar laws (Oregon does not regulate potency). We believe the state laws are sufficient, but if the City wanted to include something in their regulations they could mirror the state laws.

Shannon Klisch inside Neighborhood 1 January 15, 2018, 9:49 PM

Which option do you support for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard? (select one)
Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes): I support protected/buffered bike lanes in place of on-street parking


Please provide comments to support your selection above.
Efficient, protected bikeways are needed in this community

Name not shown inside Neighborhood 10 January 15, 2018, 9:43 PM

Which option do you support for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard? (select one)
Lincoln Street Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss): I support the Lincoln Street route, with minimal parking loss and a bike route provided with markings, signage and minor traffic calming only.


Please provide comments to support your selection above.
The Lincoln street alternative is less disruptive to the established neighborhood while still benefiting the bicyclists that use that route through town. Although I would actually prefer no change, this is a reasonable compromise.

Emilie Foster inside Neighborhood 1 January 13, 2018, 6:45 PM

Which option do you support for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard? (select one)
Other (Please Provide Comments)


Please provide comments to support your selection above.
It works well as is, no sexy green bike lane needed. Both options create too many negative impacts to residents.

Jon Tarantino inside Neighborhood 1 January 13, 2018, 4:39 PM

Which option do you support for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard? (select one)
Lincoln Street Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss): I support the Lincoln Street route, with minimal parking loss and a bike route provided with markings, signage and minor traffic calming only.


Please provide comments to support your selection above.
I have several safety concerns, and some logistical, with the "preferred" alternative being proposed. At the Chorro/Lincoln intersection, bicyclists will be crossing against oncoming traffic to get to their protected lane, (as will also happen at Mission St.) - something which, being a non-standard traffic interchange, will inevitably be LESS safe than the current arrangement. Having the the two-way protected lane on Chorro will also result in more dangerous situations when residents are going in and out of their driveways, (which the removal of parking will make more frequent than it is currently). Drivers will now have to be careful, since cyclists might now be coming from the "wrong direction" down the path - I have in fact been hit by a cyclist while sitting STATIONARY in my car in a similar situation. Elderly residents are bound to have problems in this regard. This is going to make this section of the road less safe for everyone.

On the logistical side, numerous cyclists have indicated that they will take the most convenient path, regardless of signage or markings. I have observed this to be true, (and am guilty of it myself when cycling). What this means is that, in reality, cyclists - especially those continuing on Chorro to get to Poly - simply aren't going to use the protected lane on the wrong side of the street to give themselves an easier ride towards Foothill (and rather defeating the purpose of sacrificing all of that parking). On the Broad street end of this Rube Goldberg, lots of residential parking is being sacrificed to provide a protected lane IN ONLY ONE DIRECTION. So, by definition, it's either not safe or a useless imposition, (take your pick depending on your opinion on the project).

It seems like this proposal is going to spend a lot of money to simply replace one set of unsafe conditions with a new set of unsafe conditions, and aggravate most people in the neighborhood to boot. The quip that "a camel was a horse designed by a committee" leaps immediately to mind...

Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 January 13, 2018, 11:05 AM

I live in the Foothill Blvd area with my wife and two children. We are a bicycling family; my wife and I both bicycle commute to work, and our children love to ride their bikes. Although for the past 11 years we sometimes ride our bikes as a family to the downtown area, we are hesitant to do so, especially in recent years, due to the lack of a safe, protected bicycle lane. In recent years, the traffic on these streets has increased, as has the number of reckless and distracted drivers. Distracted driving and associate traffic injuries and fatalities is an increasing and documented problem in our country. If there were protected bike lines, we would make substantially more trips downtown via bicycle. Promoting bicycling with safe, protected bicycle lanes addresses many problems in our local community and the world: climate change, traffic congestion, downtown parking infrastructure, and the ever-increasing obesity epidemic.

I am surprised that neighbors would oppose protected bicycle lanes because such protected lanes would, hopefully, encourage more automobile drivers to use Santa Rosa Street instead of neighborhood streets. I would love to see more bicycle and pedestrians and less automobile drivers in my neighborhood.

Finally, I have seen many comments that oppose development of bicycling infrastructure because many cyclists do not obey traffic laws. Although this is likely true, the real problem here is that human beings, whether they are automobile drives or bicyclists, do a poor job of obeying traffic laws. For every bicyclist in SLO that regularly does not obey traffic laws, there are probably 10 to 100 automobile drivers who drive over posted speed limits, do not come to a complete stop at a stop sign, run red lights, and/or check their cell phones while driving. In order to improve safety, the correct solution is to increase fines for, and better enforce, traffic infractions while improving education. Opposing the development of safer bicycling and automobile routes acts counter to such efforts.