HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/2003, A7-1 - y
Planning Commission MinutL L_ } Attachment 7
November 20, 2003
Page 1 - - - - - -
2. Citywide. GPA and ER 149-98; Consideration of recommending a new
"Conservation & Open Space Element" of the City's General Plan, to update and
consolidate policies dealing with conservation of natural and cultural resources,
including those now located in the Conservation Element, the Energy Conservation
Element, the Open Space Element, the Land Use Element, and other elements; and
environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Glen Matteson)
Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze explained the Commission will
be looking at a revision to several elements of the General Plan. He gave a brief history
of the General Plan and noted the reason for consolidating the elements is to improve
consistency and reduce redundancies in the General Plan.
Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report recommending that the City
Council approve a negative declaration of environmental impact, adopt the proposed
element, and amend other elements for internal consistency and policy consolidation.
He commented on the Open Space and Conservation Elements. He presented a map
of proposed open space areas and explained where they would be located.
Commr. Cooper asked if there is a billboard amortization program.
Mr. Matteson replied that all signs are subject to amortization under the City Sign
Regulations, though some billboards are protected by lease agreements and Federal
law.
Commr. Cooper commented on the reference made to subdivision layout and that lots
should be oriented within 30 degrees south. He questioned why this is included in the
General Plan when it is never enforced.
Mr. Matteson explained subdivision layout is considered in the review of subdivisions,
and many subdivisions that have been proposed outside of the major expansion areas
have been in or adjacent to existing neighborhoods where the exception provisions
apply.
Commr. Cooper commented that areas for public access to open space should be
properly signed and felt there is confusion as to where pedestrians should walk.
Commr. Caruso suggested this document return to staff with some direction and
recommendations. He noted two things that could be done to preserve open space and
natural resources: 1) buy the land, and 2) allow enough density infill to take
development pressure off lands that are identified as open space. He recommended
looking at the other goals and polices to see where it is appropriate to add
encouragements for housing types, which would result in conservation of open space.
He suggested restricting development that is not infill development.
Chairwoman Loh commented on policy CH (l.l) that relates to the Historical and
Architectural Resources and suggested the Cultural Heritage programs be expanded.
Planning Commission Minute Attachment 7
November 20, 2003
Page 2 — — --
Outline proposal. She felt they should be more proactive about the issues of bad water,
air quality, and growth.
Chairwoman Loh asked if the Conservation and Open Space Element package is a
supplement to the existing elements or a replacement of them.
Planner Matteson replied it replaces (and combines) the existing Conservation Element
and Open Space Element, along with several sections of other elements.
Commr. Cooper felt the requirement for computer-simulated view analysis should be a
separate and specific item instead of a sub-set under environmental and architectural
review.
Commr. Christianson asked if the Commission would be involving other elements if they
begin dealing with some of the broader issues.
Planner Matteson replied that going through the element and putting in general
statements about encouraging high or higher density residential infill development
would not accomplish anything, but suggested focusing on the upcoming amendment of
the Housing Element. He also noted there would be interpretations and decisions made
as to whether the goals were met or how to best implement the goal in any given
situation.
Chairwoman Loh suggested that instead of it being open for interpretation, specific
guidelines should address areas of concern.
Deputy Director Draze responded that goals are important, and by definition are more
general than the specific programs or policies that follow them. He noted room for
interpretation is needed at the goals level.
Community Development Director John Mandeville commented this goal is worded such
that it allows them to continue to make use of existing city programs.
Chairwoman Loh felt the objectives are missing on how to achieve this goal.
Director Mandeville noted this is the purpose for the policies and the programs that
follow. He suggested that if this is confusing, the direction they should give staff is to
come back and show how this is implemented in the other programs. However, the
General Plan is set up to have other policies and programs that implement the more
generally stated goal.
Planner Matteson noted the Council adopted the Architectural Guidelines revision,
which is more specific about designing buildings that would fit the historic fabric of an
area.
Iq r1
Planning Commission Minut, Attachment 7
November 20, 2003 _
Page 3
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, commented about a terrible flood that
happened in 1970, which flooded the downtown, and felt that another 100-year flood
might come again.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION-COMMENTS:
Commr. Christianson commented about speck language that she would like to see on
page 15, - Water Use Program Outline.. and suggested language that specifically
discusses that the City have some type of standards for water-conserving landscaping
and that there would be ongoing education to the public and business community about
water conservation. Page 23, policy M-1.1, needs specific language so that when there
is a choice of materials, the least amount of harmful materials be used: and policy CH
1.1 section E.protecting the historical character of the neighborhoods.
Commr. Cooper commented on some revisions to policy OS 4.1 (Public Access) to
insert "properly signed" and "with interpreted information" and page 28 (Views) to move
"computer simulated viewshed analysis" so it stands alone as a separate lettered item.
There was discussion on whether Commissioner Christianson's comments should be a
motion.
Commr. Caruso felt that it is right and proper to have polices in the Conservation and
Open Space Element that encourages infill and higher.density housing for the purposes
of conserving open space, and stated that other elements of the General Plan should
not stymie the search for affordable housing in this town.
Commr.. Caruso moved that changes be made on page 5 policy OS 1.1 or possibly
adding 1.2 to encourage adding high-density infill housing in order protect open space
and to conserve open space resources, and suggested staff provide exact language on
how to provide it on the outline format; page 15 add (d) under Water Use, that.small lots
be encouraged with common open space because less water is utilized than single
family detached homes; page 17 (f) that instead of a.de facto moratorium .if they get to
that threshold the City should be allowing only infill housing that does not lead to long
car trips,. and that. can_lead to the use of.fixed route mass transit, and page 19 (City
Form) should be expanded; and page 28 under (Views) to discourage the type of
sprawling development that would.lead to houses.climbing the hillsides; (Public Access)
add signage and interpretive information. Seconded by Commr. Osborne.
Commr. Cooper requested an amendment to the motion that Commissioner
Christianson's comments be added to the motion.
The motion maker and seconder concurred with the amendment.
P���3
Planning Commission MinuL . Attachment 7
November 20, 2003
Page 4
Chairwoman Loh requested an amendment to the motion to add the historical and
architectural resources to make sure it is related to the guidelines and polices for the
new development in historically designated districts.
The motion maker and second concurred with the amendment.
AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Osborne, Christianson, Aiken, Cooper, and Loh
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Boswell
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 6-0.
Deputy Director Draze asked the Commission if they wanted staff to come back with the
changes that were made, and noted this was not stated in the motion.
Chairwoman Loh replied yes.
Deputy Director Draze asked for a clarification from City Attorney Gil Trujillo.
City Attorney Trujillo asked if the Commission would like comments to come back or be
forwarded to the City Council with their comments.
Commr. Caruso moved that the draft language come back to the Planning Commission
for review and approval and recommendation to the City Council. Seconded by Commr.
Cooper.
AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Cooper, Aiken, Osborne, and Loh
NOES: Commr. Christianson
ABSENT: Commr. Boswell
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 5-1.
Planning Commission Minuie� Attachment 7
December 18, 2002
Page 2
2. Citywide. GPA and ER 149-98; Consideration of recommending a new
"Conservation & Open Space Element" of the City's General Plan, to update and
consolidate policies dealing with conservation of natural and cultural resources,
including those now located in the Conservation Element; the Energy Conservation
Element, the Open Space Element, the Land.Use Element, and other elements; and
environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report recommending that the City
Council approve the negative declaration of environmental impact, adopt the proposed
element with the changes and additions to the previously distributed draft, and amend
other elements for internal consistency and policy consolidation as shown in the
legislative draft.
Commr. Osborne asked when the existing Conservation Element was adopted.
Planner Matteson replied it was adopted in 1973.
City Attorney Gil Trujillo read a letter that was presented and noted many of the issues
that were raised had no specific legal concerns; there were a number of policy issues
that were mentioned, but nothing that was illegal or wrong with the process.
Commr. Osborne noted his preference is to allow full citizen input and suggested
continuing this item for another six weeks.
Commr. Christianson commented that she was aware that a number of elements were
going to be changed and that all the previous meetings were posted prior to this one.
She felt that one person's public comment should not derail this process.
Chairwoman Loh concurred with Commissioner Christianson's comments.
Commr. Aiken concurred that the Commission should move on with this process.
Commr. Caruso stated he would like staff to provide a copy of the Legislative Draft to
the Commission. He felt that if someone submits an 11-page letter to the Commission
the day of the meeting, that citizen is looking to give some input.
Commr. Christianson noted she is on this Planning Commission as a citizen also, and
does not like the idea of having to revisit issues and make decisions over and over
because one person presents information to the Commission and suggests they take it
as public comment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, stated she was unaware of any elements
changing that involve open space. She said she thought once property was designated
as open space, it was safe. She felt the Commission should respond to the letter and
Itr)
Planning Commission Minuw.. Attachment T
December 18, 2002
Page 3
suggested this meeting be held again so people have time to learn about the elements
that are being changed.
Community Development Director John Mandeville reiterated there is no land use
changes proposed as a part of this item.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Osborne commented that staff has communicated everything, including a
process where a town meeting was held and it was noticed in the usual manner. He
suggested a continuance of six weeks.
Commr. Osborne moved that this item be continued for six weeks. Seconded by
Commr. Caruso.
Chairwoman Loh noted this element is 30-years old asked if Commr. Osborne was
suggesting this is the time to rewrite the whole document or if this is the process they
should carry on with.
Commr. Osborne responded that the fact that the element is 30-years old should not
cause a rush or urgency in taking action at this meeting, and felt that waiting another
two months is reasonable.
Commr. Boswell commented that there is a substantial change being made to the
Conservation Element and even though there were town hall meetings, such a critical
piece of City policy should have been reviewed through something more proactive with
regard to citizen participation. He felt the new element is not a very progressive
Conservation Element and noted there are many "shoulds" rather than "shalls" and
there are entire issues that have not been adequately addressed in the Element. He
supports continuing this item.
Commr. Caruso requested the motion be amended to ensure a legislative draft be
supplied to the Commission of all the changes to the other elements of the General Plan
and that it be provided in hard copy.
Commr. Osborne felt it should be up to the individual Commissioners to decide if they
want the paper form or not and staff should honor that request.
Deputy Director Michael Draze noted if any of the Commissioners would like a hard
copy, staff would see to it that they received a copy, but he felt this is not appropriate as
a part of the motion.
Chairwoman Loh noted that tonight they are concentrating on this proposed
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. She suggested the
Planning Commission Minuit.: - Attachment 7
December 18, 2002
Page 4
Commission out their hearts into the text that is presently here and noted they could
make comments on it.
Commr. Aiken expressed encouragement to the rest of the Commission to vote in favor
of this proposal and not continue this item. He felt staff has done a good job of
responding to the questions and comments.
AYES: Commr. Osborne, Caruso, and Boswell.
NOES: Commrs. Aiken, Christianson, and Chairwoman Loh.
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion is a 3-3 tie.
City Attorney Trujillo noted a tie vote results in no action until such time that a majority
could be obtained.
Commr. Aiken reminded the Commission that this is not the last body to review the
elements, and noted it would be going onto City Council to review it; the comments
made tonight would be conveyed to the City Council.
Commr. Aiken moved recommendation that the City Council approve the negative
declaration of environmental impact, adopt the proposed element with the changes and
additions to the previously distributed draft as detailed below, and amend other
elements for internal consistency and policy consolidation as shown in the legislative
draft. Seconded by Commr. Christianson.
Commr. Boswell felt they sold themselves short in attempting to achieve some
progressive environmental action in this community. He offered some examples and
noted one overall problem is the tone of the language such as using too many "shoulds"
and the word "encourage°. He noted in the Water Quality section that very little is said
about non-point source water pollution within the community, and nothing is being said
about the wetlands in the policies and programs outlines. He felt the Energy Element's
language is too soft. He felt that if the City Council is going to accept this or consider it
as an interim document until they could have a more aggressive stance in preparing a
Conservation Element that includes something more proactive than town hall meetings,
such as a task force.
Commr. Christianson asked for a clarification on whether the Commission was referring
to the original draft that was seen a couple of months ago or the revisions that were
prepared by staff that were seen in the latest report.
Chairwoman Loh questioned what the difference is between the Legislative Draft and
the final draft.
Long Range Planner Draze explained that a Legislative Draft is a technique used to
show every word that is changed.
a
Planning Commission Minult,.' _ Attachment 7
December 18, 2002
Page 5
There was much discussion on the matter of not having enough information on the
legislative draft.
City Attorney Trujillo explained there is no legal prohibition for taking action because the
legislative draft was not read.
Commr. Boswell apologized for not reading the legislative draft and noted that four other
Commissioners had not read it. He noted a mistake was made and suggested they
table this for enough time to allow all of them to read it and then come back and make a
decision they are comfortable making.
Director Mandeville expressed his regret that this kind of situation has occurred and
noted in the past a number of Commissioners were concerned about the use of paper
and recycling, which is why they have followed this kind of (electronic) format. He
mentioned that the material is available on the City's Website.
AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Christianson, and Loh
NOES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, and Osborne
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper
ABSTAIN: None
The vote was a 3-3 tie.
City Attorney Trujillo explained there is no action taken on a 3-3 tie, so if the
Commission feels that future deliberations would be futile it would be appropriate to
move onto the next item, or they could give direction to staff individually.
Chairwoman Loh suggested that each Commissioner give their individual direction to
staff.
Community Director Mandeville interjected that if the Commissioner's intent is that
changes are made based on Commission discussion, then individual comments are not
needed, but they do want a consensus on direction from the Commission for changes to
the document.
Commr. Aiken asked if this item is being continued because of default.
Community Director Mandeville replied that it would take a four-vote majority for the
Commission to move it on tonight, and suggested the action be that the Commission
directs staff to continue it to a date uncertain.
Commr. Boswell asked what officially happens when there is no action taken.
City Attorney Trujillo explained that the General Amendment code provides that an
action requires a super majority, which is four affirmative votes; one option is for the
Commission to give individual comments and forward it on to the City Council. The
Planning Commission Minute ( Attachment 7
December 18,2002
Page 6
other option with no action taken would be that it would be placed on the next available
agenda where a full majority of the Planning Commission is available.
Director Mandeville explained that consensus is needed if the Commission wants the
document changed.
Commr. Boswell commented that the language is too soft in the element on a number of
cases. He noted on Policy (A) 1.2 Air & Health Standards, which states that air quality
should meet State and Federal standards, and felt this should not even be an option,
therefore a policy is not needed. He noted that there should be more "shalls" in place
of "should". He felt much more could be said about wetlands and how they view that
policy, and discuss mitigations that show up in wetland permits and how they feel about
different types of mitigation measures. He noted the federal requirements for the
mitigations are very soft and suggested the General Plan give some policy guidance on
what kinds of things they would like to see out of an MPDES Program.
Deputy Director Draze interjected that they were very cognizant of the problem with the
"should" and "shalls", and explained that Planner Matteson tried to incorporate that
concept into the element. He explained they couldn't use a "shall" on something the
City has no control over.
City Attorney Trujillo explained the controlling provision in the Municipal Code provides
that when neither of the majority of the Commission recommends approval or denial,
then the Planning Commission may transmit the amendment to the Council with a report
explaining the situation and stating the recommendations of the individual
Commissioners.
Director Mandeville interjected the earliest date to get back to the Planning Commission
would be the 26th of February if they wanted to bring this back for discussion.
Chairwoman Loh expressed appreciation for the explanation on the "should" and "shall"
issue. She stated she would not suggest small lot dwellings and would rather see
different forms, like higher density. She commented on public access that referred to
development of agricultural land that would only be developed if the owner agrees and
since they already know this, questioned why that phrase needs to be included.
Planner Matteson replied that that language is not changing from their original
recommendation and it is an attempt to state what the City's current policy is.
Director Mandeville explained that it was important to the property owners that the City
had a policy statement that they would not encourage or allow public access easements
in the areas where the property owners objected.
Commr. Christianson reiterated how important it is to spell out what the legalities are on
open space creek areas.
Planning Commission Mirit,m.,
Attachment 7
December 18, 2002
Page 7
Chairwoman Loh expressed her support for the additions on the recommended changes
on items 4 & 5. She requested an explanation on the recommended change to number
8.
Planner Matteson reiterated the natural and agricultural landscapes that the City has not
designated for urban use shall be maintained in the patterns that exist presently.
Director Mandeville noted that the Land Use Map designates half of the Dalidio property
for urban use.
Chairwoman Loh commented on item 10 (e) and asked if they could remove the phrase
"generally done by having". She also requested proportional spacing be used.
Planner Matteson explained the spacing refers to what has been pointed out as the
characteristic of San Luis Obispo's old town.
There were no other comments made from the Commission.
Commr. Christianson moved this item be continued to February 26th, 2003. Seconded
by Chairwoman Loh.
The motion carried 5-1.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
January 8, 2003: Motel Inn use permit; (10902) 6-unit condominium Tract.
January 22, 2003: 4-Unit Condominium; Costco; Orcutt Area Specific Plan Scoping;
General Plan Amendment for Orcutt and Broad.
February 12, 2003: Rezoning to allow neighborhood/commercial; Bowden Ranch Map;
Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance; 8-lot commercial condominium and change of uses
on the Master List.
February 26, 2003: Conservation Open Space Element.
Chairwoman Loh suggested the Commissioners keep their plans on the Motel Inn
project.
Commr. Caruso asked if the Costco hearing is for a use permit or EIR review.
Director Mandeville replied that it is a hearing during the comment period of the EIR.
Pfr) rIV
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 7
February 26, 2003
Page 4
2. Citywide. GPA and ER 149-98: Request to update and combine the Conservation
Element and the Open Space Element, and environmental review; City of San Luis
Obispo, applicant. (Mike Draze)
Mike Draze, Deputy Community Development Director explained that the City Council
approved a work program for the updating of the Conservation Element and combining
of several elements in 1998. The Planning Commission held hearings on November 20
and December 18, 2002, and those hearings were continued to this meeting.
Mr. Draze noted that number of letters have been distributed to the Commission, and
issues and allegations noted in those letters have been addressed in the staff report,
primarily access to the legislative draft of the document. He clarified that the document
has been on the City's website for many months, and is available for purchase on CD
format or paper copy, and a loan copy is available at the Community Development
counter. He noted there was a concern with staff's inability to communicate with the
public on this document, however, Mr. Draze reinforced that there was an "open house"
Town Hall meeting on this document, and each person or organization that had
expressed an interest in the effort was invited. No one attended. He clarified that the
letters that have been received on these issues were from groups or individuals who
had specifically been invited to the Town Hall meeting.
It was staff's opinion that single documents are a benefit to the extent that you can
reduce the amount of verbiage one must go through to find policies, programs and
goals, which is an advantage to all concerned. He felt there is a philosophical
difference of whether or not it is better to have multiple documents with policies stated
multiple times. Staff's position is that it need only be stated once, provided the
document is not too long, and the policy is well documented.
Mr. Draze compared this approach to the General Plan Digest where all policies,
programs and goals and all elements are in this document. It is most widely used
document by staff, the Planning Commission, City Council, and the general public
because you can find information much easier. The complete elements contain
background information that is not necessary for making decisions. He clarified that
having fewer elements is not "hiding" information, but making it more exposed for public
review. It was the opinion of staff that if the various letter writers' goals are to protect
the environment and to improve public access to the information, the proposed
consolidated elements achieve that goal.
It was noted that the Office of Planning and Research supports consolidation of
elements for all communities. Mr. Draze presented a copy of the original notice that
clearly described the project, as follows: ". . . it is the aim to consolidate all policies
dealing with the conservation natural resources including those located in the Open
Space, Energy Conservation Element, Land Use Element, and other elements." He
reiterated that it was common knowledge that staff's intent was to consolidate policies
into common documents. He further noted the ECOSLO newsletter reiterated the City's
consolidation intentions, which he displayed on the overhead.
Planning Commission Minutes \
February 26, 2003 Attachment 7
Page 5
Commr. Cooper felt the Council Resolution should have been part of the staff report, to
clearly state the City's intention and the Council's direction.
Commr. Caruso noted he found at least two dozen places in the legislative draft where
he would like to see the original policies stay in place because they are more specific..
He felt that often times, the Commission is told they cannot take an action because the
policies in place are not adequate to support that type of decision, and the reason for
this is because they are too vague, too general, or not on point. He felt that with these
changes, the City is heading in that direction.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wildling Lane, felt the City is overdoing open space.
Jan Howell-Marx, 265 Albert Drive, supported Commr. Caruso's comments, and felt it is
the Planning Commission's responsibility to review each and every policy being
proposed for elimination and weigh and balance what it is being replaced with. She felt
the proposed element is vague and needs to be more specific, and gave some
examples. She suggested no changes in the Land Use, Housing, and Energy
Conservation Elements.
Commr. Cooper was disturbed that citizens want to discard the work done thus far and
start over. He said he would only be sympathetic to that view if it were clear that staff
had not followed Council's direction.
Michael Sullivan, SLO, felt there are fundamental differences between some of the letter
writers and planning staff, the main difference being that citizens want to make sure that
the City follows CEQA laws. He felt this is a case where the City does not want to do
so. He did not feel this is just a reorganization of 'information, and that there are
omissions or significant weakening of policies. Some examples of these major policy
shifts are California native plants no longer protected, protection of creeks and wetlands
no longer mandatory but discretionary, and prime agriculture soil no longer protected.
He asked that the Commission deny this proposal and deny the negative declaration
since there will be significant impacts. He referred to Richard Schmidt's 9-page letter
dated December 17, 2002 and concurred with its content.
Richard Schmidt, San Luis Obispo, supported Commr. Caruso's preliminary proposal to
go back to basics if there are no other solutions. He felt there is a weakening of
policies, particularly in the Land Use Element. He restated his position, noting it is also
the position of the Environmental Quality Task Force. If the full package is submitted for
a yes or no vote, they urge the Commission to vote no. He outlined another proposal,
which was to agree to leave the Land Use Element alone and concentrate on critiquing
the Conservation Element itself. He said he was not surprised that the environmental
community did not attend the Town Hall meeting since it was not to provide public input,
but rather to explain the element to the public, and most of them already knew what was
in the element.
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 7
February 26, 2003
Page 6
Mr. Schmidt further noted that it was his understanding that environmental programs
and policies in the LUE would be cross-referenced in the new element. He later found
out they were proposed for removal, and met with staff to discuss this. He did not feel
he was heard. He noted the State Office of Planning and Research Guidelines indicate
that like things should be together, so Mr. Schmidt felt all Land Use policies should be in
the Land Use Element.
Mr. Schmidt was asked if this were just a re-write of an old Open Space and
Conservation Element and included some consolidation, would he and the Commission
be here at this meeting.
Mr. Schmidt replied absolutely not.
Jody Bennett, San Luis Obispo, said she was not aware that there were policy changes
being made to the Land Use Element. She echoed the sentiments of Commr. Caruso
and Ms. Howell-Marx, and opposed anything that lessens environmental policies. She
felt consolidation means putting things together, making things simpler, and eliminating
redundancies. She did not feel this was the case.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Cooper asked staff if the Council Resolution discussed earlier in the meeting
had been located.
Deputy Director Draze responded that he did not find the resolution, but located the
Significant Operating Program Change (SOPC) where the budget is approved for any
program in the City. The request summary indicates that this is a consolidation - an
update of the elements with the adopted Open Space Element creating one resource
element and thus reducing redundancy among elements. In August 1998, a staff report
went to the City Council regarding consultant services to assist with this consolidation,
and it again mentions integrating contents of the Open Space Element, Energy
Element, and Conservation Element. Deputy Director Draze further explained that staff
felt that those policies and programs in the Land Use Element that were proposed to be
moved to the new element were, in fact, Conservation and Open Space-type programs
and policies.
Commr. Osborne questioned the change in the language where all verbs are removed,
which he felt is a change from "shall" and "should".
Deputy Director Draze referred to Page 5 of the hearing draft document (not the
legislative draft), and clarified the language was in reference to a goal, which is specific
and does not require a verb. A goal is used to get to the Policies and Programs, and
that is where the "shalls" and "shoulds" are located.
Commr. Boswell moved to continue this item to a date uncertain Seconded by Commr.
Caruso for discussion. Commr. Boswell noted he will be offering some amendments
but wanted to make some comments.
f
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 7
February 26, 2003
Page 7
Commr. Boswell indicated his dissatisfaction with the effort on this element and did not
believe it reflects appropriate citizen involvement, and it does not reflect a step forward
in a conservation of open space and natural resources in the community. He stated his
three reasons for this: 1) This is a substantial revision rather than simply an update and
a consolidation, and whenever elements of the General Plan are substantially revised,
the City should include a proactive and workshop-style public participation. 2) A
substantial revision, such as the Conservation and Open Space Element, should
include new information regarding the state of the environment in a current regulatory
context at the local, State, and Federal level, which were not provided. He was
concerned that the environment in SLO has changed since these elements were
written, and the energy situation for the State of California and the world has
substantially changed. Without understanding how it has changed makes it impossible
to write a good Energy Element. 3) The new language is dependent on reference to
outside regulatory agencies as being the appropriate way to conserve resources in the
community, and he felt this is problematic; the City needs to set the policy that it is
interested in, provided it does not legally conflict with State or Federal standards. 3)
The General Plan should be a visionary document that includes specific goals, policies
and programs and guides the implementation, not reacts to it. He felt that too much
detail has been lost, and applying the document to decisions to be made by the
Commission would make it extremely difficult to interpret.
Commr. Boswell offered an amendment to the motion: That it should.be directed back
to staff with a certain amount of direction, one of which is to try to pet together some
type of Ad Hoc committee of interested persons who can be more responsible for
putting this document together so it is not coming from staff but rather a document that
has the imprimatur of members of the community who are interested in the subjects.
Once authorship is perceived, authorship leaves the staff level and goes to the public,
which is a more well-accepted document in general. He also added that the
Commission agrees in theory, or at least in concept, with the consolidation effort of
General_Plan_policies, but without even a perceived weakening in any of the policy
protections that now exist. The seconder accepted the motion.
Gil Trujillo, Interim City Attorney, noted for the Commission's information, that
establishment of Ad Hoc committees is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Council,
so an appropriate action would be to recommend that the City Council establish an Ad
Hoc Committee.
Chairperson Loh asked if this is the intention of the motion maker to amend the motion.
Commr. Boswell responded yes.
Commr. Cooper suggested incorporating into the motion that some of the suggestions
from the meeting of December 18. 2002 be incorporated into revisions.
Commr. Boswell accepted the amendment.
Commr. Osborne would like to see the goals retained in the General Plan, even if they
have been expressed in ordinances. He felt general policies need to remain. ar) 4
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 7
February 26, 2003
Page 8
Commr. Christianson supported this motion, noting she does not feel this is a
weakening of the General Plan. She expressed confusion as to why the Land Use
Element keeps being separated from the other elements by the public, since they are all
part of the General Plan. The entire General Plan needs to be taken under advisement
for any changes, not just small sections of it. She noted the document desperately
needs consolidation and revision of some sort — it is very long, redundant, and
confusing. She supports the update as presented at this meeting, but felt the right
public support 'is lacking for this change, and something this important needs much
broader consensus as to what is proper policy and close to a unanimous Planning
Commission vote.
Chairwoman Loh did not support the motion, expressing that it would be a waste of time
to set up another Ad Hoc committee. She felt staff did an excellent job of consolidating
the information.
Commr. Aiken did not support the motion, although he was largely in agreement with
Commr. Christianson. He felt disheartened that the Commission has been inundated_
with letters over the last two days, often times duplicates of letters already received.
Deputy Director Draze clarified that this item will probably not return to the Commission
this calendar year. If something of the magnitude discussed is in order, it will require
funding and staffing which is not currently available. Even if there was no task force-
type thing (we don't know yet because the Council will make that determination), it will
not be able to be worked on for many months. He felt staff would go to the Council for
their direction on what to do about this project, and bring up the Commissions
recommendations and the possibilities of using another task force for this project, and
then budget as appropriate. Given current staffing, this would probably not be until
2004.
Chairwoman Loh noted the Council had directed staff a year ago to consolidate the
elements. She felt they needed to be improved, not discarded.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Osborne, Cooper, and Christianson
NOES: Commrs. Aiken and Loh
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
3. Watershe - GPA 10-03: Study Session: Natural Resources and
Land Conservancy of a unty presentation on the.City's Greenbelt,
to adjust the boundary to the natura b�wndary; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (Neil Havlik and Mike Draze)
The Planning Commission continued this item to a date uncertain due to i with
the projection equipment.
fto - ��