The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-17-2012 Agn C Pinard B1EETING AGENDA ATE /i7'1TEI!#.8/_ From :pinardmat@aol .com [mailto :pinardmat@aol .com l Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9 :57 A M To :Marx, Jan ; Ashbaugh, John ;acarter@slorcitv .orq ;Carpenter, Dan ; Smith, Kathy ; Lichtig, Katie Cc:macsar99@yahoo .com ;susan@mrcoward .com ;cheryl@cherylburcheri .com ;pamdunlap@charter. net; cdgeorgi@hotmail .com ;bertkyzer@gmail .com ;gorenielsen@gmail .com ;andreaweinstein@charter .net; ianeslo@kcbx .net;aardenbuff45@aol .com,;stepdancer58@aol .com ;rmcdonald@newtimesslo .com ; mfountain@newtimesslo .com ;jtrompeter@ksby .com ;davecongalton@clearchannel .com ; sierraclub8@gmail .co m Subject :Land Use Element and Circulation Element Update Proces s Re : Land Use Element and Circulation Element update Process : Mayor and City Council Members , As a Council Member who attended every meeting of the last LUE Update and then, as Mayor , who led the conclusion of the process, I have the following comments on staffs proposal for th e LUE/CE update process . There are three issues I would like to address : 1)Resident's Firs t It's the residents of this city - the ones who chose to live here, who protect the city's natura l beauty and who insure its livability . They are the ones who elect you and who bear the brunt o f the taxes to pay for decisions you make . But, staff refers to a proposed general plan committee of stakeholders "...without giving preferential treatment to any one stakeholder group ." What?Residents of this city are no t merely another stakeholder group and yet that is what staff is calling us . The process they hav e proposed relegates residents to virtual insignificance . How is this following Council's directio n that the LUE process be primarily resident and neighborhood based?! 2)Slowing down the process . What slows things down, and what drives up costs, is when the city doesn't start primarily wit h residents and neighborhoods and then has issues blow-up at the end of the process . As the process now stands the city will have one committee, an Economic Developmen t Committee which "will inform the update to the LUE and Circulation Elements". "It i s anticipated that the policies and strategies identified in the Economic Development Strategi c Plan will be an important reference as the LUE/CE update moves forward ." The economic development interests on the proposed general plan committee can also outvot e representatives of city residents and neighborhoods,or representatives of environmenta l protection . How will this play out? For example, on the issue of infill and growth management, the city say s that the Chamber of Commerce's 'Our Vision For SLO Economic Future' "will provide a foundation for the city's strategy ." Yet that calls for the elimination of "artificial residentia l growth control policies" and repeatedly promotes infill and "diversity in size, type of housin g production, and density with smaller lot sizes in all parts of the city ." There has been no cal l from residents to eliminate the city's long standing growth management . There has also been no call from the city's established neighborhood associations to have the city infill or increase th e density further in their neighborhoods . Interestingly, it was the "artificial growth control policy" of 1% that was specifically cited as a main reason that our city was designated as the "Happiest City in the U .S ." In 1994, something similar occurred when the council finally came to grips with the imbalanc e being presented by the Economic Task Force - again, another 'blow up' at the council level . I t was then the Environmental Quality Task Force was created . The EQTF was created about 6 months prior to the completion of the LUE document -so it didn't hold up anything!Their very valuable input and balance was incorporated into the document and actually allowed the proces s to be quickly completed . Another solution to a very controversial issue in the 1994 LUE update was when possibl e changes to zoning and to neighborhood "densities" were being proposed . We held meetings a t neighborhood schools and churches in order to be sure that residents knew what was bein g proposed and to make discussion with their neighbors easily available . We didn't just us e words . We had staff draw-up/sketch what different densities looked like and superimposed the m on city lots . This made the reality of what was being discussed very real to residents . Neighborhoods came to consensus about what they wanted and those consensuses were incorporated into the LUE document for final review . Again, it allowed for a more speed y resolution based on resident input . A significant change I made as Mayor, which allowed the process to move forward, was to hol d our LUE meetings in a more logical and predictable order . We did pages 1-25, or, say, Chapter 1 on one night . The other chapters were divided up according to what were logical 'breaks' an d assigned sequential hearing dates . That way everyone knew what was going to be discussed an d when . 3)Grant Fundin g Staffs comment that : "The currently proposed update is grant-funded" is a huge red flag to m e and to anyone else who is familiar with grant funding . Besides a time-line, what specific provisions will be guiding this update? Usually grants are given because the city agrees to a certain list of priorities that the "granting" agency is trying to push . I understand that the agency giving the grant describes, in one sentence, the purpose of the grant ... "A targeted update to th e Land Use and Circulation Elements to the General Plan is intended to promote infil l development ..." "Infill" is repeated constantly throughout the grant application . Consistency with SLOCOG's "Regional Community 2050 Comprehensive Planning Effort" ha s been referred to in staffs documents . Staff pointed out the problem with this in a 2007 Cit y Council staff report, after a presentation on the 2050 Regional Vision Plan, "grant funding may be influenced in the future by a city's compliance with the Community Regional 2050 Regiona l Plan . There may be differences between local plans and the regional plans which may creat e problems as grant funding becomes dependent on conformity with the regional plan ..." "Because participants in the 2050 planning process are being asked to look beyond the borders o f their own communities, suggestions for how the city of how the City of San Luis Obispo shoul d grow will come from people who do not live in this city . This input may differ from the visio n expressed by city residents in the adopted city General Plan ." It is very unlikely that in a primarily resident and neighborhood update process city resident s would voluntarily give up their local control" to residents of other cities and governmen t agencies who will not have to live with the impacts nor pay the costs .This obviously does not comply with council direction that the LUE/CE update process be primarily resident an d neighborhood based . This city has a firm, long-held policy for local control especially on issues affecting ou r community's growth . The state has tried to impose outrageous "housing quotas" on us a numbe r of times - totally disregarding the costs, resources and issues such as traffic and air quality . We pointed out to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (and SLOCOG , its administrator) the horrific costs that would have to be paid for by current city residents . W e said that these costs were unreal ....to which the state agency replied, and I quote,"The State o f California is not reality based ." Sincerely , Peg Pinar d Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obisp o Former Supervisor, County of San Luis Obispo hard copy: email : o COUNCIL o CDD D1R o CITY MGR o FIT DIR o ASST CM 0 FIRE CHIE F o ATTORNEY o PW DI R o CLERK/ORIO 0 POLICE CHIE F o PIB o PARKS & REC DIR o TRIBUNE o UTIL DIR o NEW TIMES o HR DI R o SW CITY NEWS a COUNCI L a CITY MGR D CLERK