HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2012 Agn C Christie B1:TING AGEND A
E ///I/i'-ITEM #
Santa Lucia Chapte r
P .O . Box 1575 5
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 6
(805) 543-871 7
www.santalucia .sierraclub .or g
January 16, 201 2
San Luis Obispo City Counci l
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
RE : 1/17/12 meeting, Item #B-1 : General Plan Task Forc e
Dear Council Members ,
We have several observations and suggestions regarding the update of the Land Use an d
Circulation Element (LUCE), the formation of the task force recommended by staff to ensur e
stakeholder input, and staff's representation of these issues in its Council Memorandum dated
Jan . 12, 2012 .
First, we don't agree that because the proposed update "is grant-funded, limited in scope, and ha s
specific timetables for each phase and deliverable," it is somehow "less suited to the interactio n
of two or more task forces," the process that informed the update of the General Plan in 1994 .
We point out that there is nothing inherent in a grant-funded process or its scope or timetable s
that would preclude more than one entity simultaneously providing input on proposed policies .
It is true that the previous General Plan Update "took over seven years to complete and ha d
several task forces that participated in sequential order ." It is worth reviewing the actua l
chronology of events leading to the establishment of the Environmental Quality Task Forc e
during the previous update process . We note again that "sequential" can be replaced b y
"simultaneous ." The only reason the two task forces involved in the 1994 update did not wor k
simultaneously was because the Council established the Economic Strategy Task Force in Marc h
1993, and did not establish an Environmental Quality Task Force until December, after th e
Council finally came to agree that the development of the General Plan's Land Use Elemen t
should not be informed solely by an economic task force . The LUE was adopted circa June 1994 .
Obviously, the environmental task force played no role in extending the process over the five -
year period prior to the existence of the task force . The Environmental Quality Task Force cam e
into being, did its invaluable work, and disbanded over a span of six months . The inordinat e
length of the process was not a result of the establishment of multiple task forces (except for th e
complications and delays that did arise when staff formed its own additional task force, th e
Citizens Advisory Council), but were due to the failure to provide for balanced input at th e
outset .
SIERR A
CLU B
FOUNDED 1892
hard copy :email:
a COUNCIL a CDD DIR
a CITY MGR a FIT DIR
o ASST CM a FIRE CHIE F
a ATTORNEY a PW DIR
a CLERIUORIG o POLICE CHIE F
a PIB a PARKS & RFC DIR
a TRIBUNE a UTIL DIR
o NEW TIMES a HR DI R
a SID CITY NEWS a COUNCI L
a CITY MGR
a CLERK
To staff's concern that "competing or conflicting recommendations from two task forces woul d
be difficult to reconcile and could be divisive," we remind the Council of the previous outcom e
of that process : the Natural Resource Protection Chapter of the Land Use Element, the creatio n
of the office of Natural Resources Manager, and 2,000 acres of protected open space .
Nevertheless, it is certainly true that one task force is easier to manage than two . If you do
establish only one task force, it should represent only neighborhoods and environmental interest s
– or "people" and "planet," as staff defines the proposed composition of interests fo r
representation on a General Plan Task Force -- with either no representation or minorit y
representation from staffs proposed "prosperity" category, for the simple reason that economi c
interests already have considerable input into the process . The City's Economic Developmen t
web page states : "The Strategic Plan will inform the update of the land Use and Circulatio n
Element (LUCE). It is anticipated that the policies and strategies identified in the Economi c
Development Strategic Plan will be an important reference as the LUCE update moves forward ."
This foundational input represents the work of a steering committee including representatives o f
Coast National Bank, the Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Vitality Corporation, th e
Downtown Association, et al .
This is a greater level of influence than that implied by staff's characterization : "statements b y
City staff that the Economic Development Strategic Plan will inform the LUCE update hav e
been made merely in recognition of the chronology of the two projects ." Even taking at fac e
value the notion that the relationship of the Economic Development Strategic Plan process to th e
LUCE update is just a matter of chronology, it is simply a fact that there is no environmenta l
strategic plan also informing the LUCE update or otherwise serving as "an important reference "
prior to the establishment of a General Plan Task Force . The City already has a de fact o
economic task force for the LUCE, already providing input .
For this reason, a GPTF should consist only or primarily of representatives of environmental and
neighborhood interests . To create a GPTF that gives economic interests more than one or tw o
seats would be to over-weight the current influence of the Chamber of Commerce, Downtow n
Association etc ., tipping the scales beyond the weight they already bear on one side from th e
input of economic interests before the update process has begun .
Thank you for your attention to these concerns ,
Andrew Christi e
Chapter Director