HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-2012 B1 StevensonGoodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: TF - LUCE at Coucil tonight
From: cstevenson @co.slo.ca.us [cstevenson @co.slo.ca.us]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:07 PM
To: Marx, Jan
Cc: Murry, Kim
Subject: TF - LUCE at Coucil tonight
Hi Jan,
I thought I'd pass along a few thoughts for your meeting tonight as you consider the composition of the Land Use
Element task force. Please feel free to pass these along as you see fit. In my work as Division Manager of Long Range
Planning for the County, I've had a lot of a experience working with (and without) task forces during general plan
element updates. Mostly these have been positive and they can play an important role in shaping the plan. However, I
have discovered pitfalls to avoid and with that in mind, I would offer a few things you may wish to consider at this stage
and as this process continues along.
I would first mention the point that in my experience this project has a relatively tight time frame with respect to
updating a general plan within the time available through the grant. The plan must be completed, now in less than 3
years according to the grant deadline. This may be sufficient time but it is tight. Complicating the schedule is in addition
to the LUE changes and the EIR, the scope of work includes updating other general plan elements as needed for
internal consistency, and consideration of some of the 2006 SO1 expansion areas. Coordinating this range of tasks and
keeping to a relatively tight time frame under the terms of the grant contract is daunting. It will take strong
management of the public input process that is envisioned by the consultant, meeting coordination with the task force,
and review of drafts by the task force. Based on these points, I would offer a few things to consider that may help
keep the process efficient and on schedule:
The task force size should be limited to 9 -13 as recommended by staff.
An uneven number is preferable. Larger groups take a lot more time to
for every aspect of the process (meeting dates, setup, materials,
discussion, consensus, review of drafts and logistics). Also, the more
members the higher likelihood that some will feel left out and begin not
coming to meetings.
Having a guidance document (a memo can suffice) that clearly describes
task force member's role and the City's expectations that is understood
and agreed to has been helpful. This should include items such as
meeting attendance, participation in discussions, timely review of
drafts, keeping on schedule, and cause for dismissal from the task
force.
Most key stakeholder sectors and age groups in the city are covered with
some representation on the task force
Avoid appointing individuals known to have particularly strong
personalities or points of view. These individuals can stifle
conversation and intimidates others.
Task force members should be available for more frequent meetings than
once a month especially during the formative stages of plan preparation.
Requests from task force members for exceptions to the time schedule
should not be approved unless amply justified. Often committees feel
they need or want more time to review drafts, meet with groups,
consultants, staff and others even though sufficient time was schedules
and allowed.
The task force should be disbanded when the Public Hearing Draft plan
and EIR is published. The reason is that from this point on the document
is in the hands of the PC and comments or requested changes should not
be sent back to the task force.
I hope this is helpful,
Best regards,
Chuck
Chuck Stevenson, AICP
Division Manager, Long Range Planning
San Luis Obispo County
Department of Planning & Building
805 - 781 -5197
http: / /www.sloplanning.org
http : / /www.facebook.com /SLOPlanning
http: / /twitter.com /SLOPlanning
[Scanned @co.slo.ca.us]