Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-1992 Minutes - Workshop 3 - Open Space Advisory Committee• FINAL MINUTES OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING & PUBLIC WORKSHOP WORKSHOP III March 28, 1992 (Saturday) City/County Library (995 Palm) The workshop was called to order at 9:15 am. 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). I. II. Committee Members Present: Gil Hoffman John King Dana Lilley Tom Martin Jim McGregor David Periera `` Carla Sanders Bruce Seivertson R. Don Warden Richard Zweifel Committee Members Absent: Changes to the Agenda & Public Comments Stephen Barasch Dave Chipping David Garth Dave Smith Paul Ready Eva Vigil Dodie Williams Di Leo noted that the only change to the agenda was under item III. She noted that the Open Space Element Advisory Committee (OSEAC) directive would be explained after a brief description of where the OSEAC had been and where it was going. Adoption of February 22 and March 9th Minutes It was moved and seconded that the minutes of February 22 and March 9th be approved. Carla Sanders requested that clarification be provided regarding Tom Rice's presentation, that he spoke about hazards (not only soils). Dave Periera noted that a clarification should be provided that Shallenberger noted that there were no constraints in the Planning Area in terms of hazards. It was agreed that these changes would be reflected in the Final March 9th minutes. 1 Final Minutes - Workshop III March 28, 1992 With indicated changes, the minutes were approved unanimously by the OSEAC. III. Summary of February 22 and March 9th Workshops Pete Dangermond explained the intent behind the first two workshops was to provide the OSEAC with the tools to make decisions. The next workshops would focus on the OSEAC identifying issues, goals, and open space sites, and reviewing the Open Space Element Workbook. Di Leo explained the OSEAC's directive is to provide input to her. As staff she would attempt to incorporate the Committee's comments into the Draft Element. In any case, OSEAC comments would be forwarded to the Park and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. IV. Status Report _ Dana Lilley provided a status report for the County's San Luis Obispo Area Land Use Element Update. He explained current land use designations within the San Luis Obispo Planning Area and proposed designations. He noted that few land use designation changes were contemplated by the County. He also pinpointed current development projects proposed outside the City's Urban Reserve Line. At this time a public draft of the update is not available, but may be available in May or June, 1992. Bryce Tingle, provided a status report for the County's Agriculture & Open Space Element Update. He noted that a great deal of time had been spent on this document (almost six years). One of the first endeavors was to differentiate between agriculture and open space. Within the Element, sensitive resources would be protected through overlay districts. Overlay districts would be used to such sensitive resources as blue line creeks. He noted that the administrative draft document was being reviewed by the Agricultural Liaison Committee. Their comments are due April 15th. It is expected that a public draft of the document will be available in late May or June, 1992. Questions and comments were taken from the OSEAC and members of the public. A ten minute break was taken. Final Minutes - Workshop III March 28, 1992 V. Implementation Mechanisms Bill Anderson (from Economics Research Associates) and Tom Johnsen (from Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates) presented information regarding financing open space. Bill Anderson presented information regarding typical methods that could be used to finance open space. He gave a brief presentation on the following methods: regulatory (zoning, etc.), development dependent (impact fees, etc.), general public financing (benefit assessments, etc.), use base financing (concessions, etc.), and other methods (e.g., grants, donations, etc.). In addition, he discussed levels of benefits, perception of benefits, and land values in the SLO area. Tom Johnsen presented more specific information regarding general obligation bonds, certificates of participation, assessment districts, mello-roos districts, and some other similar methods. ._.Questions and comments were taken from the OSEAC and members -'of the public. A ten minute break was taken. VI. Open Space Element Advisory Committee Discussion Pete Dangermond requested that members of the Committee do this section of the agenda at home. That Committee members prepare a list of issues that need to be. resolved (for example, should golf courses be considered open space), review and make comments regarding the open space definition provided. by the Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Commission, provide a list of potential open space. sites, and identify other information that might be needed by the OSEAC. Members of the OSEAC discussed other information that would be relevant. It was suggested that staff put together a packet of information for OSEAC members. This packet should include: (a) copies of the resource maps, (b) definitions, (c) County Elements (when they are available), (d) an outline of the information presented by Bill Anderson and Tom Johnsen, (e) notes or an outline of the information presented by County, (f) a table of content for the City Open Space Element Update, (g) the State definition of open space, and (h) the Planning Commission and Park and Recreation definition of open space. Di Leo indicated she would provide this information - 3 - Final Minutes - Workshop III March 28, 1992 as soon as possible. OSEAC members discussed making motions on items. Carla Sanders noted that voting results might be deceiving. That individual OSEAC votes did not necessarily represent equal community numbers. Instead, the OSEAC should attempt to achieve consensus. Others noted that motions were necessary to reflect the committee's actions and concerns. This issue was not resolved. The intent of the Committee was discussed in terms of the responsibility of each member. Di Leo noted it had been hoped that each Committee member would go back to their constituency and provide information as well as bring back issues from that group or organization. VII. Next Agendas It was noted that if the Committee was not progressing as planned, an additional workshop would be added to compensate for time lost. It was also noted that a site visit had been planned for this workshop; however, since sites had not been identified by the OSEAC yet, the --site visit would be postponed to the April 11th meeting. Assuming the OSEAC had sites they wished to visit, the site visits would be after the regular agenda. The meeting was then adjourned. minutes.os The time was roughly 1:30 pm. - 4 -