Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-1992 Minutes - Workshop 2 - Open Space Advisory CommitteeFINAL MINUTES OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 8 PUBLIC WORKSHOP WORKSHOP II March 9, 1992 (Monday) City/County Library (995 Palm) The workshop was called to order at 7:10 pm. This entire meeting was taped. For more information regarding agenda items please review the meeting tapes. Sign -in sheets from this meeting recorded the persons.attending.beyond the OSEAC members indicated below. Persons Facilitating the Meeting: Pete Dangermond (Dangermond and Associates) and Jan Di Leo (City of SLO, Long Range Planner) Committee Members Present: Stephen Barasch Dave Chipping David Garth Gil Hoffman John King Dana Lilley _ Tom Martin Jim McGregor David Periera Paul Ready Carla Sanders Bruce Seivertson Eva Vigil Dodie Williams Richard Zweifel Committee Members Absent: Dave Smith R. Don Warden Prior to starting with the regular agenda Di Leo noted the following: (1) that Clay Singer, Mark Hall -Patton, and Mike Wulkan could not attend, (2) that minutes from the February 22, 1992 meeting would be approved at the March 28th meeting, and (3) that Dennis Shallenberger's name had been misspelled in the agenda, as well as Mark Hall-Patton's name. Di Leo then introduced Pete Dangermond. Since there were persons attending this workshop that had not attended the previous workshop Dangermond had members of the audience introduce themselves. I. Comments From Previous Meeting Dangermond facilitated this item. He briefly discussed the State's definition of open space and the categories enumerated in this definition. Final Minutes -- Workshop II March 9, 1992 II. Discuss Maps From February 22, 1992 Meeting Dangermond facilitated this item. All persons that had completed their maps were asked to explain their open space designations. OSEAC members explaining their maps included: Dodie Williams, Gil Hoffman, David Chipping, John King, David Periera, Bruce Seivertson, and Stephen Barasch. Comments from the public and members of the committee were taken. Some persons stated that no preservation of open space was necessary, that existing open space was sufficient. Others noted that agriculture should not be regulated, that regulation would cause the demise of agriculture. It was noted that agriculture is not only crops and grazing, but also feed lots, hog farms, and other such activities that people may not appreciate next door. Others noted that the intent of designating agriculture as open space is to protect agriculture, to guarantee that it can exist as a future land use. III. Panel Discussion Harold Miossi spoke on agriculture, how it has changed in the :San Luis Obispo (SLO) area, and how it can be protected. Tom Rice talked about soils and hazards in the SLO area. He noted that the soils in the SLO area were special in their ability to support agricultural production throughout the whole year. Polly Cooper discussed concepts of urban edge. She outlined benefits associated with having a well defined city versus problems associated with urban.sprawl. Dennis Shallenberger talked about hazards in the SLO area. He noted that there are very few constraints in the SLO Planning Area (in terms of hazards) if money is not an object. He stated that. hazards were not a constraint considering that basically anything could be engineered. Alice Loh discussed scenic resource evaluation. She provided examples of how scenic resources were evaluated along Highway 1. Dirk Walters talked about plant communities within the SLO Planning Area. He discussed the plant listings provided by the Federal Government, the State of California, and the California.Native Plant Society. He noted important plants in the SLO area. Aryan Roest discussed important animals in the SLO Planning - 2 - Final Minutes -- Workshop II March 9, 1992 Area. He noted that there the SLO area; however, that variety of animals (turtles E are no endangered vertebrate in local creeks support a surprising etc.). Comments were taken from the panel, the public, and committee members. It was noted by Shallenberger that development adjacent to creeks may be problematic in certain cases due to old fill deposits (from previous development). In such cases a development setback from creek bank is wise. The creek setback can serve as a flood control mechanism as well as a transportation route. The group also discussed the feasibility and impacts associated with a trail on the South Street Hills. Hillside development was then discussed. Persons noted that the current trend is to build 5,000 to 7,000 square foot houses that are quite obtrusive. Lilley noted that the County does regulate hillside/ridgeline development. It was noted that further discussion should occur regarding wetlands and fire hazard. IV. Definition of Open Space V. Gil Hoffman explained the Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Commission's definition of open space. LeeAnn Hagmier, Joe Kourakis, and Dodie Williams (members of the original subcommittee) were also available for comments or clarifications. Various questions regarding thedefinition were discussed. It was asked whether golf courses were included in the definition as open space. It was also asked whether existing development would be subject to an open space designation. Hoffman explained that, according to the definition, golf courses were considered complementary to open space; however, not within the framework of the Open Space Element. Such uses were to be considered under the Park and Recreation Element. Hoffman also noted that open space, under the definition, could include a creek located in someone's backyard; however, it would not include developed areas in existing neighborhoods. Status Report: County Land Use Element and County Agriculture and open Space Element Due to the lateness of the hour and the was not available to discuss the County Space Element, this item was continued VI. Public Comment - 3 - fact that Mike Wulkan Agriculture and Open to a future meeting. Final Minutes -- Workshop II March 9, 1992 Public comment was taken throughout the meeting, thus a special time for comment was not necessary. VII. Next Meetings A. Tour Sites or Slides As a result of some consensus from the committee, it was decided that a tour would occur after the March 28th workshop. Sites would be determined as part of the March 28th workshop. B. Reschedule April 11 Meeting The majority of persons in attendance voiced support to maintain the April workshop on April 11th. C. Other Future Agenda Items Di Leo noted that if persons were interested in having something on the agenda she should be notified. The meeting was then adjourned. The time was roughly 10:20'pm= minutes.cs - 4 -