HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2012 Agn C Marx B1To :
San Luis Obispo City Counci l
From : Jan Marx, Mayo r
Re : Item B-1 (LUCE Update )
Date : January 17, 201 2
The following are my thoughts regarding the LUCE Task Force and process . Council ha s
repeatedly stated that the process is to be resident-centered . Making it so, startin g
tonight, will allow the LUCE Update to be truly owned and affirmed by residents . It also
will allow the process to proceed in an orderly, timely manner .
A . Land Use and Circulation Elements UpdateTask Force
1.
It should be called the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Task Force .
(Using a different title is confusing).
2.
The Task Force should consist of residents of the City of San Luis Obispo in al l
categories . If a given stakeholder group does not have any city residents willing to serve ,
then it can just submit comments and testify .
3.
Members should also be volunteers, not paid advocates . Selection should reflec t
geographical distribution of residents, living throughout the city .
4.
All residents should receive information about how to participate at the ver y
beginning of the process, possibly as a hand out in the utility bills .
5.
Selection of members should not be delegated to organizations, but should b e
done by council . Council should take open applications, like the advisory bod y
applications, including resumes .
6.
It should have equal representation from the environment, neighborhood an d
business communities . It should be chaired by a Planning Commissioner .
7.
There is no reason to limit membership to 13 . The City Manager's Economi c
Sustainability group had nearly 30 people on it and worked well . Other cities hav e
varying numbers of participants .
8.
In any category, overlapping experience--such as in land use and planning, th e
law, advisory groups, local history, real estate, social services, education, the economy ,
technology, natural resources, conservation, healthy communities, agriculture ,
transportation, recreation, the arts or non-profit organizations and other relevant
expertise—should be considered a "plus" in selection of members . It is not needed t o
have a person representing Cal Poly (a state agency), or any other state agency on th e
Task Force, but a resident who works at a state agency could have special insight whic h
could be useful .
9.
Subcommittees of like expertise could caucus and do outreach at their discretion ,
and then present comments to whole task force .
10.
The task force should proceed by vote (recorded) not by forced consensus, wit h
minority reports possible, if need be . Conflicting points of view from various interes t
groups need to be surfaced, not buried, so that Council has comprehensive informatio n
before it when making the final decisions .
B . Land Use and Circulation Elements UpdateProcess .
1.
This is a focused update . We do not need to fix what is not broken . The updat e
needs to address actual problems . Many of the factors making our city the happiest i n
North America are incorporated in our present LUE . It serves our city well by protectin g
our quality of life and fiscal sustainability .
2.
The process should begin with workshops in the neighborhoods, occurring durin g
the same time that the new questionnaire is in the hands of residents . It should be i n
writing and should be based on the 1988 questionnaire, with additional updated question s
if need be . Workshops and questionnaires input should take place before the LUC E
Taskforce is formed or meets .
3.
Council members should read the elements and give input to staff regarding wha t
does and does not need changing . Staff should identify what language it thinks needs t o
be updated, with documentation of said need .
4.
Review of the Elements should be recognizably based on the present document ,
keeping the same numbering whenever possible . It should proceed in an orderly, sectio n
by section, line by line, basis, so that everyone is given adequate notice of exactly wha t
language will be considered and when . Everyone needs to know at every stage exactl y
what language is being proposed for deletion (strike out), or addition (underlined), and b y
whom .
5.
Once the decisions about any proposed language changes in a given section ar e
made by Council, there should be no going back and reconsidering said changes .
6.
Definitions of terms should be consistent with the present LUCE and an y
proposed changes should be treated as any other proposed language changes in publi c
hearings .