HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/2003, C2 - RESCISSION OF COUNCIL'S APRIL 15 ACTION CONCERNING DRAFT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT AND PR councitmw
°vx°W cp-3-03
A] acEnaa Repout
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: RESCISSION OF COUNCIL'S APRIL 15 ACTION CONCERNING
DRAFT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT AND
PROPOSAL FOR A JOINT CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDATION
Rescind the City Council's action of April 15, 2003 authorizing staff to prepare a memorandum
to the Planning Commission regarding consideration of the draft Conservation and Open Space
Element; rescind the memorandum of April 16, 2003.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to schedule a joint City Council-Planning Commission meeting to discuss the status
of the draft Conservation and Open Space Element, including the Planning Commission
recommendation to seek task force assistance, and establish an agreed upon approach for
completing the task.
DISCUSSION
Brown Act Cure or Correction Demand
By letter dated May 13, 2003, Richard Schmidt demanded that staff cure or correct an alleged
violation of the Brown Act's agenda posting requirements. Mr. Schmidt's request stems from
the following facts. Under the communications item of its April 15, 2003 meeting, the Council
discussed the status of the Planning Commission's review of the draft Conservation and Open
Space Element. This particular subject matter was not listed on the agenda posted for the
meeting. The Council then directed staff to prepare a memorandum for the Mayor's signature
requesting the Planning Commission proceed with consideration of the Conservation and Open
Space Element (attached).
(It should be noted that the Council's perception at the April 15 meeting was that the Council
was simply reinforcing a formal position already taken (that work previously directed by Council
should proceed). However, in February 2003 the Planning Commission adopted a motion to
recommend that a task force be formed to assist with the update. The Council was not aware of
this Planning Commission recommendation when the Council discussed the Conservation and
Open Space Element on April 15.)
� - 1
Council Agenda Report—Rescission of Council's April Wh Action
Concerning Draft Conservation and Open Space Element and Proposal
for Joint City Council-Planning Commission Meeting
Page 2
To avoid potential problems in the future, it may be helpful to be reminded of some "Brown Act
basics". The Brown Act provides that at least 72 hours before a regular meeting of a legislative
body, an agenda must be posted that contains a brief general description of each item of business
to be transacted or discussed. Government Code section 54954.2(a). No action or discussion
shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a
legislative body or its staff may... on their own may ask a question for clarification, make a brief
announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a
legislative body, or the body itself, ...may provide a reference to staff or other resources for
factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning
any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.
Government Code section 54954.2(a).
Applying the law to the Council's discussion of the Conservation and Open Space Element, it is
clear the matter was not on the posted agenda for the April 15 meeting and the City Council's
action does not appear to fall within the exceptions to the agenda posting requirements. For
these reasons, correction of the Council's earlier action is in order. Furthermore, such action is
warranted in light of the fact that the Planning Commission's recommendation was "on the
table,"but not communicated to the Council.
Joint City Council-Planning Commission Meeting
Given the persistent controversy that has surrounded the creation of a consolidated and updated
Conservation and Open Space Element over the last several months, the CAO recommends that
Council hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to fully air the issues, and to
establish a clear and agreed upon approach for completing the task. The Planning Commission
suggestion to create a committee to assist with the update can also be considered during this
meeting. In the absence of such discussion and clarification, constructive progress on this
Council goal is unlikely. Given budget and other work priorities (for Council and staff), a
limited number of meetings this summer, and the number of people to be scheduled, staff
recommends that the joint meeting be targeted for September 2003.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not hold a joint City Council-Planning Commission Meeting, and instead schedule for
immediate Council consideration the recommendation to form a task force, and then direct staff
and the Planning Commission accordingly. In the CAO's opinion, given all the questions and
concerns that have arisen regarding the draft Conservation and Open Space Element, a thorough
discussion — and clear follow-up direction — is needed before any constructive progress can be
made on this Council goal. A joint Council-Planning Commission meeting would seem to be the
best way of facilitating such a complete review and discussion.
c9L _a
Council Agenda Report—Rescission of Council's April 15'h Action
Concerning Draft Conservation and Open Space Element and Proposal
for Joint City Council-Planning Commission Meeting
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Mr. Schmidt's May 13, 2003 letter
2. Memo to the Planning Commission
C�- 3
^� Attachment 1
May 13, 2002 RECEIVED
Re: Brown Act Cure or Correction Demand Letter MAY 14 2003
The City Council SLO CITY CLERIC
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members:
I am writing about the Council's direction to the Planning Commission regarding the.Conservation
Element update at the April 15 Council meeting.
This direction to the commission came in the course of an 18-minute non-agendized discussion under
"Communications"at the end o!the meeting.
Many citizens have been concerned by the course and content of the Conservation Element update.They
have been expressing their concerns to staff and others for more than a year.As a result, it is well known
that the Conservation Element update has become an issue of public concern and controversy.
After being shut out of the process of shaping the draft element,concerned citizens made their case to
the Planning Commission on Feb..26, 2003.
In response,the commission,by a 5-2 vote, expressed support for citizen concerns about the staff-
produced draft element, and postponed further consideration of the element"to a date uncertain"pending
establishment of a citizen task force to help develop a new draft.
Those in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting plainly heard the commission's motion to
include establishment of a citizen task force. To date, however,there are no minutes of the meeting. (Nor
is there a task force.) Staff has been asked, and is unable to produce, a written copy of the commission's
motion separate from the minutes.The meeting's tape recording, however,confirms the commission's
action.
The Council's April 15 directive to the commission,made no mention of a task force.The Council told the
commission to get moving with consideration of the element.
If the Council directed the commission to proceed without a task force,the Council's action was a
violation of the Brown Act,for the discussion resulting in the action was not agendized and the public had
no way to know it was to occur, and therefore no way to participate in Council discussion of an issue of
public concern. (I learned of your discussion only because a friend saw it on TV, and called it to my
attention long after your meeting,whereupon I watched a meeting tape.)
This correspondence is a demand letter to cure or correct this violation of the Brown Act's agenda
requirements within 30 days. (California Code Section 54954.2 and other related sections commonly
called"the Brown Act"contain requirements relating to agenda notifications to the public.;
If,on the other hand,the Council was was not told by staff of the commission motion for task force,one
must ask:What is the status of the Planning Commission motion?Why has its request for a task force not
been pursued?Why has the council never agend zed it for discussion if Council action is indeed required
to authorize implementation of the Planning Commission's motion?
Whatever the intent,the effect of the Council direction to the commission is Gear.An 18-minute non-
agendized discussion on a rhatter of public concern and controversy,the outcome of which directs the
Planning Commission to do something contrary to its own motion, abridges the underlying premise of the
as-4
Attachment 1
• F
Brown Act's agenda requirements—to fully inform the public about what the Council will be considering
and thus encourage public participation in making public policy decisions.
Citizens would have offered testimony at your April 15 meeting had this item been properly noticed and
agendized. Citizens remain anxious to play a meaningful and constructive role in developing this revised
element.
I respectfully request the Council proceed,within the 30 day window permitted following receipt of a
Brown Act correction demand letter,to properly agendize discussion of a Conservation Element Citizen
Task Force so public concerns may be heard. This will cure any Brown Act violation and give the public
and Council the opportunity to deal with an extremely important set of issues in a timely manner.
I would remind you that a task force is an appropriate continuation of historical tradition for precisely the,
element at issue, especially since the field of conservation has advanced so much technically during the
past 30 years.A brief historical review:
•The Energy Element,due for deletion in the present draft,was developed by a citizen committee.
•The Open Space Element,due for virtual deletion,was likewise developed by a citizen committee.
• Environmental policies of the Land Use Element,due for deletion or dilution in the current draft,
were created by the Environmental Quality Task Force. (A major rewrite of the LUE was never an
advertised part of the Conservation Element update--which is a significant procedural issue in itself.)
•Other portions of the LUE were shaped by the Economic Stabilization Task Force.
Given this history, it is appropriate—as the Planning Commission has requested—that constituencies
with expertise and interest whose past work is proposed for revision or elimination, as well as others
eager to contribute,be given a voice through a task force to shape the document at its formative stage.
The Planning Commission asked for citizen and technical input into a draft element from a task force, and
the Council would be wise to grant their request.
Sincerely,
Z
Richard Schmidt
112 Broad St.
San Luis Obispo
805.544.4247
Ch 's
Attachment 2
m E m o P.a n b u m
tYh'
April 16, 2003
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave Romero, Mayor
SUBJECT: Conservation and Open Space Element
I am writing this memorandum on behalf of the City Council, which discussed the status of the
Conservation and Open Space Element during the Communications portion of our April 15'h
meeting.
To summarize, it is our understanding that the Planning Commission has had some difficulty
beginning the process of updating our conservation and open space related general plan policies.
We understand that this process has been complicated by the goal of bringing together policies
from several different elements into a new "consolidated" Conservation and Open Space
Element. The legislative draft presented to the Commission is large, with numerous proposed
language changes. We can understand if the Commission feels that the task is daunting.
However, an updated and consolidated element has been a Council goal for some time, and it is
something that should be done — especially since the current conservation element is 30 years
old. Thus, we remain interested in completing this goal. However, we are sensitive to the
difficulty of the task and the importance of being careful with any language changes. Therefore,
we suggest a more deliberate chapter-by-chapter review, spread out over many meetings. This
will allow for progress toward our goal while still allowing for a thorough review at a pace that is
comfortable for the Commission. The Commission should not feel driven by an aggressive
deadline, nor should the Housing Element be slowed by the work.
Whatever pace is chosen, however, the element should not be "shelved" or referred to Council
without Planning Commission review. It remains an important task.
Cc: City Council
CAO
Assistant CAO
CDD Director
Deputy CDD Director Draze
Natural Resources Manager
GACouncil Support&Corresp\City Council\Cmespondence\Romero\Memo\PC Conservation ElementDOC y�
JUN-01-2003 19:44 Je- . 8055412239 P.02/03
ERRECEIVED
Jame 2, 2003 ? 200 iDear Mayor Romero and Cary Couua� Y CLERK
RE: Brawn Act Violation and the Conservadea Element Update Process
I think that everyone would agree that the City's 1973 Conservation Element is
sadly out of date, and needs to be updated.
This creates a wonderM opportunity for the community to review the
technoloeml.and policy changes of the past thirty yems.and formulate policies which
could place this City at the hmfi coot of sustainability. The community now has the
chance to develop f wwar&Ainkinsconswmation-polxcaies which will allow us to meet the
resource needs of the present,without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet tick mm uceds. .the residents_of this Cly nut nnly.care.deeply about conservation,
but also act on that concern, as demonstrated during the drought and energy crisis.
Unforum etebA.the update pros has beeafatally flawed from the outset and
continues to be bogged down in confusion, complete with a Brown Act violation. I am
glad that the new City Attouaaey'.s anaWs.agneed.with my own an this issue.
Staff made a 8mdamental mistake at the outset ofthe update process when it
dwidedto not simply .update.tha.Cansetvatinl>_Element,but rather to awake drastic
changes in the Land Use, Open Space and Housing Element as well. These changes, as
proposed, would mtly water.dovm.tho Guy's, present environmental protection
policies. Staff obviously bit off more than it could"chew:"
Staff made a secand5tndamemtabmistake Aen itpmceeded on this task without
following the usual process of first convening a tasldorce of qualified,unformed and
interested chime wo review thatec meaLdatk.research the most exceilent conservation
policies,analyze the present elements and propose a draft to the Planning Commisdm
Instead, staff simply adised4head andwrotathe proposed new element to reflect staff
values,not those ofthe community. Members ofthe environmental community lobbied
strongly for staff to convene a_taskftce.to formulate the draft before it went to the
Planning Commission. But, instead sta$held a"dog and pony show"study session on
the already wadWn dnafL It was nota public hearing YAere concetned citizens could have
bad meaningfid kgmt. This discouraged interested patties from attending.
Sint days after thud won$shop,the-proposed craft element came to the
Phmuin$Commission A legislative draft had been reluctantly created months emliar, at
my iusistence andwh strong.supportf omthe.C:iW&F.nviminmeo al Task Force former
members. Although the legislative draft is Sawed because the proposed new language is
not iaxtaposed to the old language,.thalegislati ve draft.at least enables the public and its
Planning Commissioners to identify staffproposed changes to the adopted Land Use,
Open Space,.Housi n&Conservation.and.En CaOservation Elements—
JUN-01-2003 1944 Ja- 8055412239 P.03/03
J
Coafiinon resulted when staff did not mform the Planning Commission that a
legislative draft even.existed It was only when a member of the public mentioned the
legislative draft during his testimony,that it came to light. Why would staff want the
Plm nim&Commission to consider a proposed new element and amend adopted elements
without knowing exactly what language would be lost m the process? When the
Planning Commission voted 5-2.torecommend a.Consehrvataion Element Update
Taskforce, staff simply neglected to commuumicate that fad to Council,resulting is even
more confllsion and..the blatant violation.o£the BromaActwhkh must now be cured
To clarify and simplify this process, I propose the foIlowing"Roadmap"to
updating the Conservation Element:
1. Council should table the proposed draft Conservation and Open Space
Eleanent All adapted elements except the Consea WM and Energy Conservation
Elements should remain unchanged-
2.
nchanged2. Coumcilshould_gmd the.Planning Commission'arequest to recruit qualified
vohmteers to serve on the Conservation Element Update TaA force. That tasi form
should consida-the.present C.onseavation-IIemeat and EneW Conservation Element,
consolidate and update them in light of the latest technological developments;and
discoveries..This could be iniliated.irtthe very.near fimme aid,completed in under a year.
Perhaps Council member Ewan,give en lois expertise imi matters solar,would be willing to
serveon-such a_task6om. The tar&D=e'.s:proposeal_d=1 should them go to the Planning
Commission for public hearing,then on to the City Council.
3. ABecthe updated Conservation Element is approved, other elements of the
General Plan could be reviewed for poten dal mconmstencies and amendments should be
proposed-by.staff andbe heard at.plublk h mings..This.is*"omit in process when any
consolidation with the Open Space Element(or other elements) should be considered,
but definit*not before an_updated.Conservation Element is adopted
Whether or not Council wishes to hold a joint meeting with the Planning
Conwdr-adan Ihope.all concernemvill.consider my.proposal to simplify, clarify and
daylight the process. Thank you.
n Yours,
,a COUNCIL 'CDD DIR
rCAO FIN DIR JgnHoweIlMar>i
.�rACAO r, FIRE CHIEF
IP-ATTORNEY PW DIR 265 Albert Drive
CLERK/ORIG k POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo CA 93405
DEPT HEADS �?REC DIR
�k UTIL DIR
p HR DIR RED FILE
MEgrING AGENDA
DAM.?* ITEM #.( ,�.
TOTAL P.03
Jun 03 03 04: 29p Cr- ' a Saunders BP'N 541 68.18 p. 1
J
RECEIVED
JUN 0 3 2003
SLO CITY CLERK
June 2, 2003
The San Luis Obispo City Council
City Hall, San Luis Obispo
Subject: Ame.3, 2003 Council Meeting RED FILE
Conservation Element Update MEETING AGENDA
DA ITEM #=
Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members,
The adopted LUE.and Open Space Elements were built on years ofwork by Council
appointed Task Forces, and then many, many hours of well attended,multiple public
hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council
I believe that the current"staff re-write"of the Land Use and Open Space Elements
was never clearly advertised as such, deletes or significantly revises important
environmental protections adopted by the community, and is a great error.
I strongly support the Planning Commission's recommendation for a Conservation
Element Task Force, and the"roadmap"proposed by former Council Member Jan Marx
to fix a process which is clearly broken and lacks support from the Planning Commission,
the environmental community, and the public.
cerely,
L
nyi 1 r�ri Carla Saunders
_�-ZCOUN- CIL '^ ,1CDD DIR
ICAO L?FIN DIR
/LaACAO F2-FIRE CHIEF
Z ATTORNEY Z PW DIR
ETCLERK/ORIG POIUCE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS 9RECDIR
e�n -Q IL DIR
Jun 03 03 12: 36p SL,--- Board of Supervisors 8,n61781 1350 p- 2
l t
REOEIVED
JUN 0 3 20011
I: 1
BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SLO CITY CLERK
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, Room 370 •SAN LUIS OBISI'0, CALF' MA 93408-2040 • 805.7815450
?�tCOUNCIL CDD DIR SUPERVISOR PEG PINARD
f CAO ;?-FIN DIR DISTRICT THREE
O-ACAO !—yFIRE CHIEF
2-ATTORNEY 2-PW DIR
June 2, 2003 LER HEAD Z ROPLICE CHF
C DIR
Z UTIL DIR
I _HR DIR
City of San Luis Obispo RED FILE
Attention City Council Members MEETING AGENDA
990 Palm Street DATE ITEM #
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Council Members,
As a former Mayor and Council member who worked to make the last General Plan update one
that involved the public in the most comprehensive manner, it is very disappointing to see the
current process for the Conservation Element update.
There are several issues that concern me:
1. Why was the public shut out of helping to shape the draft? This is not the way we've done
things in the past. When we last updated our Land Use Element,we began with public
workshops held in several neighborhoods throughout the city. The Land Use Element was also
shaped by the contributions of two citizen task forces.
In contrast, the current Conservation Element draft was created entircly by staff, who rejected
citizen input when it was offered. This is not the way good policies have been formulated in San
Luis Obispo. We are a city that respects the public's right to be involved in shaping our plans,
and believe our plans are the better for that involvement.
2. What is happening to the policies being omitted from the current plan? Staff says nothing's
being lost,but that simply doesn't make sense. The question is `what' is being omitted and
.why,?
3. Why are crucial land use policies in the Land Use Element being eliminated from the General
Plan? I am unaware that the city has ever said it is doing a major revision to its LUE, and yet that
is precisely what is happening as part of the Conservation Element update. For instance:
Jun 03 03 12: 36p SL' .Hoard of Supervisors 8rtz%-,, 781 1350 p. 3
Page 2 of 2
** LUE 6.0.1 establishes the city's policy to protect its natural resources and systems by
giving their planning a priority"co-equal"with other community needs. This is a very strong
land use policy which the Council adopted in 1994 at the recommendation of the Environmental
Quality Task Force. The current draft deletes it entirely. Why'? We may never know since the
deletion took place out of public oversight and isn't highlighted as a deletion in the legislative
report.
** LUE 1.8.1 makes it city policy to protect prime agricultural land within the urban reserve
and city limits. This is another important provision the community added in 1994. The new draft
eliminates the city's preserving ag land in the city and urban reserve, and says the city will only
protect such land outside of the urban reserve. How? What jurisdiction does the city have over
land outside the urban reserve?
** LUE 1.10 protects our air quality by saying if mitigations and other actions to control
pollution are ineffective, the city will amend the LUE to reduce development capacity in order to
reign in air pollution growth. This is a very important land use policy. It is eliminated in the
current draft_. Why?
These are but a few of the LUE deletions or changes that are of great importance to the citizens
of San Luis Obispo. These are major changes in city policy, yet they do not have their origin in
any clear mandate from the public. Furthermore, members of the public are generally unaware
that a major LUE revision is taking place as a result of revising the Conservation.Element.
I urge the Council to leave the LUE alone at this time. The LUE should only undergo a major
revision of when it is clearly announced to everyone such an update is in progress, and also when
the entire element is being revised, not simply selected parts of it.
Sincerely,
(?
PEG ARD
Supervisor, District Three
i
® VIRONMENr ® FRECEIVED
RED FILE �� 100'
MEETING AGENDA LERK
DATE ITEM #� d _
EpUBLIC
EPI-Center.1013 Monterey Street,Suite 207 San Luis Obispo.CA 93901
Phone-.805-781-9932 • Fax:805-781-9384
Dave Romero, Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 June 3, 2003
Subject: RESCISSION OF COUNCIL'S APRI1–I5-ACTION CONCERNING DRAFT
CONSERVATION AND OPEN\SPACE ELEM ENT,AND PROPOSAL FOR A
JOINT CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COABIISSIONXEETING:/Item C2.
Mayor Romero and Honorable Council, _
On Tuesday June.`3, 2003 your Council;N01 con'sider,2`staffrecorriatendation regarding
the Draft Conservation and_Open Space Element— i `
1. -The City Attomey;requests that-you rescind`previous Council action and:the:resulting
memorandum of April 16,2003.-
� . . \�
2\T6e�City CAO requests that your Council direct'staffto schedule a joint meeting with
the Planning Commission to-further"consider the Draft Conservation and'Open Space '
_.-
Element of the City'-s-General Plan.
Environment in the Public Interest--(EPI) is a 501(c)(3)corporation organized for th�
purpose of ensuring that the public-has-a-voice with-Governmenfofficials charged with
responsibilities for land use planning-and_env_ironmental protection. The primary mission of EPI
is to advocate the-public s,interest in preserving habitat and biodiversity to California. EPI and
its supporters are-furtfi&interested in improving quality of life through land use planning and
environmental awareness-on-the California-Central Coast. As such,we are concerned that the
current Conservation element i esi is out of date and is-inadequate to protect the unique
biologic and geologic resources under the authority of City's jurisdiction.
EPI urges adoption of Staff recommendation. 44a& CB4 MITIad
riZ COUNCT, 2'CDD DIR
Respectfully submitted, CA0 FIN DIR
AFIRE CHIEF
.P1"ATToTTORNEY DPW DIR
Gordon R. Henle Executive irector/Senior Ecologist ,0 DEPT HORIG P'RECPOLDI OHF
Y� ❑ DEPT
2'REC DIR
Paa2 1 0� 1 � 2'UTILDIR
�' 2 HR DIR
Lee Price-Meeting Date: June 3, 2003, P C2 __gam
JUN 0 2 2003
From: "Cydney Holcomb" <cholcomb@charter.net> SLO CITY CLERK
To: "Ken Schwartz" <kschwartz@slocity.org>, "John Ewan" <jewan@sloci .org>, ns Ine
Mulholland" <cmulholland@slocity.org>, "Allen Settle" <asettle@slocity.org>, "Dave Romero"
<dromero @slocity.org>
Date: 6/2/03 2:37PM
Subject: Meeting Date: June 3, 2003, Item: C2
C2. RESCISSION OF COUNCIL'S APRIL 15 ACTION CONCERNING DRAFT CONSERVATION AND
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT AND PROPOSAL FOR A JOINT CITY COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING.
Dear Mayor Romero and Members of the City Council,
RQN is very concerned with the process and manner in which this matter has been handled. What began
as an update of the Conservation Element became a staff re-write of the Conservation Element, a
consolidation with the Open Space Element, and changes involving the both the Energy Element and the
Land Use Element.
Without reiterating the chain of events that have transpired to date, it is our opinion that the essence of the
problem stems from the lack of"early" public involvement From the outset it has appeared that there has
been some unexplained urgency to get this update completed as quickly as possible. We understand the
need for expediency, however, public participation is essential for good governance and should not be
sacrificed in order to save time. The elements making up the General Plan reflect the desires and wishes
of the community and changes should be made with community input and participation throughout the
entire process. When the public has been shut out of the early stages of the process they can only be
reactive later on.
The Planning Commission realized there was a problem and suggested forming a citizen Task Force. We
concur with their opinion. In addition, a more sensible approach to updating the Conservation Element
must be undertaken. We were overwhelmed in our attempt to review and cross-reference all of the
material involved. And, we were shocked by the extensive changes made to the Land Use Element. This
clearly goes far beyond "updating"the Conservation Element,which we understand was the original
charge.
Sincerely yours, -2T COUNCIL L CDD DIR
-OCAO- 2 FIN DIR
E2-ACAO Z FIRE CHIEF
RED FILE 20ATTORNEY f2 PW DIR
Cydney Holcomb M ING AGENDA 0 CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
❑ [)UT.HEADS 2REC DIR
DA 3 ITEM #�._ �' R'UTILDIR
Chairperson, RQN
,__ Ja'HR DIP,
Richard Schmidt 'Q 5444247 M06/2/3 010:30 AM D 1/4
i
RED FILE RECEIVED
RICHARD SCHMIDT - WTING AGENDA JUN 021 200r
DA 3 ITEM # Ca.
K
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405-M5) b44�4247—
e-ralpol+ cjb,, , n
leCOUNCIL T���CDD D I R
June 1, 2003 �cA0 L!FIN D I R
MACAO 2KFIRE CHIEF
$ATTORNEY ;;' w DIP
The City Council Item C-2, .lune 3 Agen CLERKIORIG Pr POLICE CHF
City of San LUIS Obispo ❑ DEPT HEADS P-REC DIR
�RIo°IR
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members: —
-�� H
Thank you for responding to my Brown Act "cure" letter by agendizing this item.
Since this is a "consent' item, I want to comment in brief via letter.
The question at this point is whereto go from here.
The only reason this episode has come to pass is that the Conservation Element update
process is seriously off track, yet the locomotive has nonetheless been throttled up to
full speed.
Trying to continue on this track will not produce a good Conservation Element, no
matter what our speed.
We need to step back, reassess, and then take a different track.
The opportunities that exist by doing the Conservation Element well are stunning. We
could have an element that is among the best in the state. We could have an element
what will place our community on the path to true balance between urb and nature, true
sustainability. What we need to do is find the track that will take us there, instead of to
the retrogressive watered-down policy dead end looming ahead on the current track.
There are so many opportunities to do something really wonderful. One example is in
the area of energy conservation. Our old Energy Element was a pioneering effort at the
time it was created (by a volunteer task force). Many of its provisions are still meaningful
and effective after 20+ years, but today we know a lot more about energy conservation
than we did back at the dawn of the "energy era." The existing element needs updating
and strengthening to make it responsive to issues of our time. Staff's approach was the
opposite -- to take the entire existing element, and water it down to several pages of
generalized pabulum with little meaning and even less potential to be effective. That
approach would put this city behind average in energy conservation. It represents a
retreat from the strong planning programs we've had for decades. Is that a message the
Schmidt; Item C-2, Page 1
Richard Schmidt 'C 5444247 W6/213 010:31 AM ❑2/4
Council wishes to send the world? We can do much better. Among our citizens are
people with the expertise to help create a cutting edge Energy Element well suited to
the early 21st Century. We have world-class energy expertise available for free: the
individuals who literally "wrote the book" on solar house design, the long-time energy
adviser to the Senate Science and Energy Subcommittee, leaders in the field of
architectural energy education, leaders in the field of "sustainable design," to mention
but a few. They are willing to help. Why close the door to this sort of citizen participation
in planning? We haven't before. Furthermore, the Energy Element was the creation of a
citizen task force; why should the formulation of it's revision be exclusively a staff
function with the door closed to citizen involvement?
The above example could be multiplied several-fold for the other components involved
in the current update. We have a wealth of citizen expertise and enthusiasm to keep
San Luis Obispo's conservation planning cutting edge. Why slam the door in its face, as
the current process has done?
I offer the following as an abbreviated roadmapget out of the current train derailment:
1. Honor the Planning Commission's motion to appoint a citizen task force to do the
formative stage update of whatever ends up being updated (see below for more detail).
2. Recognize that the city has bitten off more than it can chew, with the result that the
proposed product is a giant step backwards from our current planning. We should take
on this task in bite-sized portions that are chewable. (One look at the "legislative draft'
shows how indigestible this project has become. When a legislative draft cannot point
specifically to what language is being changed and how, that should be a red flag about
the spongy ground beneath the entire enterprise.)
3. Revisit the entire issue of "consolidation." Staff sold this idea to the Council originally
by referencing the state Office of Planning and Research guidelines. However, what
staff is doing is 180 degrees opposite from what those guidelines suggest. For example,
the guidelines say the purpose of consolidation is to get like policies grouped together in
one element to make it easier to find those policies. In other words, get all land use
policies into the Land Use Element. Staff instead has been pulling land use policies out
of the LUE, circulation policies out of the Circulation Element, housing policies out of
the Housing Element, and so on, and hiding them in the Conservation Element, where
nobody would expect to find them, thereby making it much more difficult to understand
land use, circulation and housing policies as a whole. This is the opposite of what the
OPR recommends, and needs to be halted.
4. Revisit the meaning of "consolidation." Consolidation commonly means taking items
from various places and regrouping them in one. That is not what staff has been doing.
Very little has been moved from one place to another. Rather, under the pretext of
"consolidation," staff has on its own ventured into a radical revision of the city's existing
Schmidt, Item C=2, Page 2
Richard Schmidt 4 544-4247 1&6/2/3 010:32 AM 63/4
General Plan. I could write a book on the policy changes that have taken place under
the pretext of "consolidation." The.Council needs to make clear that where
"consolidation" is to takeIp ace that means moving things, not radical policy revision.
5. Reduce the number of elements involved in the "consolidation." or eliminate
"consolidation" as a goal and simply update selected elements. For example, it seems
odd that Energy, which has to do with the built environment, gets lumped in with
Conservation, which has to do with the natural environment. Energy might have more
impact if it remains a freestanding element easily referenced by those who build and
plan for our built future. Likewise, natural resource planning might benefit from being
freestanding in Conservation rather than mixed up with all sorts of unrelated things
having to do with the built environment.
6. Leave the Land Use Element alone. This key element has taken its present form as a
result of years of community consensus building. This community involvement and
consensus should not be subverted under the guise of an ill-conceived "consolidation"
carried out by staff fiat.' When the entire LUE again comes up for revision, then it is
proper to consider the whole thing, but to do it piecemeal -- deleting popular policies
without popular mandate or even input -- is just plain wrong.
7. Consider undertaking the current updates one at a time rather than in "consolidated"
format. For example, a task force could address Energy. Another could address Natural
Resource Conservation. A third could assess the Open Space Element. This would
mean we'd approach the issue with expertise focused on the specific subject matter at
hand, rather than using a shotgun approach trying to cover more than can be focused
on. We've barely begun to assess the potential for making each one of these elements
something we can truly be proud of. One part of each update could be to assess the
widsom of continuing each element as a stand-alone, or of exploring ways to combine it
with one or more other elements. A "consolidation" that grew out of recognized.
commonalty among elements would have a stronger foundation than one based on
ideological fiat, as the present "consolidation" seems to be.
8. Recognize that to a great extent this "consolidation" is a make-work assignment for
staff. The Open Space Element, for example, is one of our newest elements, so one
can question why its revision should be given co-equal emphasis with that of the clearly
out-of-date 30-year-old Conservation Element. Staff's energy can be better expended
than on continuing an ill-conceived "consolidation" effort that has failed before it's even
' It is interesting that what's being deleted from the LUE.is the heart of the policy recommendations
from the Environmental Quality Task Force. Is this coincidence, or something else? Recall that earlier
staff removed f rom the Digest LUE all the introductory information inserted at the recommendation of the
EQTF (the innocuous"votes of the people"section included). There is a clear record of on-going staff
resentment towards the EQTF and its work which dates back to the night the Council created the EQTF
and then-Assistant CAO Ken Hampian told the Council he refused to be staff to the group. One has to
wonder as to motivation for deleting these important policies--for they have been deleted, not
"consolidated"-- from the General Plan.
Schmidt, Item C-2, Page 3
Richard Schmidt (r_ 'W 544-4247 016/213 010:33 AM D4/4
i
completed. Refocusing onoptimizing existing elements seems to be a self-evidently
betterrp iortiy than continuing to focus on an ill-conceived "consolidation."
So I ask, in short, that asap rt of your review of the task force matteroy u completely
reconceptualize what is going on. Sometimes the quickest route to the finish line is
realizing that we're on the wrong track, going back to the station, and finding the correct
train.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
P.S. Now that it is recognized staff was remiss in misinforming the Council about the
gist of the Planning Commission action, it would be nice to have recognition that the role
of the environmental community has been similarly misrepresented by the same parties.
We are not, as has been alleged, a small group of obstructionists who seek to block
progress. For the record, when several of us first caught wind more than a year ago
(April 2002) that staff was changing crucial parts of the LUE as an unadvertised part of
this update, we arranged a meeting with staff at which we expressed our concerns,
suggested alternatives, and requested meaningful public participation in formulating the
draft element. These were not extreme or unreasonable requests -- and it is also
noteworthy that WE sought the meeting. ALL our requests for an open process were
rejected out of hand. In fact, rather than deal with legitimate problems, staff decided
instead to create an "education strategy" (those words appear in memos between the
CDD and CAO offices) to sell their version of things to the public. The "public meeting"
last November was the centerpiece of this "education strategy." At the time it was held,
the draft was entirely complete and already in the hands of the Planning Commission
(whose first hearing was just six days later). So, this was not a meeting for "public input"
into the draft, it was the official rollout of the "new model." Much has been made of the
fact that no environmentalists attended that totally unattended meeting, but the invite list
included many others who also didn't attend (including the entire planning commission
and city council). Since the meeting was basicallya commercial, one can analogize that
the entire community hit the mute button. It seems unkind and uncalled for (and highly
political as well) that this is being used by staff to focus council recrimination against the
public, when in fact a more reasoned interpretation might be that the collective mute-
buttoning of staff's commercial (then claiming the public thus lost its opportunity to
"participate") is just one more example of what's wrong at the very core of the current
update process.
Schmidt, Item C-2, Page 4