2012-01-12 CITY OF ENCINITAS
Environmental Commission Minutes
Meeting Date: Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Meeting called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Chair Joe Prola.
Present: Greg Barth, John Eldon, Brian Grover, Joe Prola, Carris Rhodes,
Harriet Seldin, Alice Jacobson
Absent: None
Also Present: Megan Maranda, Bryce Wilson — Public Works,
Mike Strong — Planning
Jacy Bolden - Contract Staff
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Joe led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS/PUBLIC COMMENT
Kathleen Lindeman brought up the Hymettus soils topic from the prior
evening's City Council meeting, noting there was discussion on lots 1-5
and 6-10 but no mention on 11-18. She asked if those lots are those not
being developed yet and if they still need to be inspected.
Donna Westbrook brought up item #7 (Hymettus soil issue) from the prior
evening's City Council meeting. She noted that there are other projects
discussed by the Planning Commission where approval is given to bury
the soil, commenting that soil should not be buried the way they did on
Hymettus. She asked that this item be put on a future agenda.
4. APPROVAL OF November 10, 2011 MEETING MINUTES
Alice moved approval of November minutes, John seconded. Motion
carried.
5. APPROVAL OF December 8, 2011 MEETING MINUTES
Harriet moved approval of December minutes, John seconded. Motion
carried.
6. NEW BUSINESS
A. General Plan Update Presentation and Discussion, Michael
Strong, Planning Dept
Alice noted she would like to make some comments before the
presentation. Having looked through the various drafts, she feels very
strongly about having a good briefing from staff and would like to have at
EC t,nutes 11102011 Pace 1 0`10 Pnnted on Recycled Paper.Naturally.
least one more meeting to really go through the elements from the
commissioner/advisory board's point of view. She further commented that
it may be rushing things to think the two most important elements in this
update can be done in one meeting. She noted that Council directed staff
to not rush this, and asked if this is this acceptable from Jacy, Mike, and
the rest of Commission. Mike noted that if the Commission wants to re-
engage on some of the deliberations on policy comments, they certainly
can do that. Alice clarified that she wants to hear Mike's presentation, the
the Commission ask questions and provide comments at the next
meeting.
Discussion took place with regard to moving the schedule back or the
need for a special meeting. Greg commented that it would be beneficial if
they could get minutes from other meetings. Mike noted that at this point
only Traffic Commission has had a meeting on these elements and will
share the Traffic Commission's minutes on this.
Discussion took place regarding the potential for a joint meeting of the
commissions, noting that nothing can be rushed. It was agreed that no
official comments would come from this meeting, rather only conversation
and clarification. Mike stated he will be doing a strikeout/underline to show
the comments being made by the Traffic Commission, noting that most of
the discussion was on land use changes. In terms of tabling or moving
comments to a later meeting, that is fine. He further noted there will also
be a series of open house meetings, key for people that want to learn
about the process, and City staff will be very detailed at these meetings.
The Commission is encouraged to attend these.
Alice inquired about Element Review Advisory Committee appointments.
Mike stated selection is on January 25 and expects work to begin in
February. Alice asked why staff decided to take Commission comments
before the ERAC met. Mike commented that it all was determined by the
Commission's meeting schedules (e.g., monthly), in addition to deadlines
required by the State.
Mike provided an overview of process. They are currently in the outreach
stage. All commissions are involved in the overall plan review. The ERAC
will meet every 2 weeks and then there will be a series of Open Houses.
Regarding the schedule, each commission has a feedback role and the
objective is to funnel this feedback to the Planning Commission, and
ultimately to City Council.
Mike provided an overview the 2012/2013 strategic plan timeline the
introduction of a new Public Health Element, new land use categories
(e.g., new Parks classification), element goals, tools to assist public
review, General Plan index (to locate policies easily), General Plan
EC_Minutes_11102011 Page 2 of 10 Printed on Recycled Paper,Naturally.
crosswalk (shows changes/relocations of policies), how to comment on
the draft plan, planned outreach event, online comment board or sending
comments in writing.
Harriet inquired further about housing. Mike provided information on how
housing requirements are calculated by the State.
Alice asked about the three main focus areas for housing and if an
economic vitality analysis has been done. Mike replied no report had been
done yet.
Greg commented about the sales tax generated from the ECR corridor,
noting that it seems like the housing density is all pushed into three areas
instead of spread evenly throughout community. Mike noted that
Leucadia and Old Encinitas already have areas that permit mixed use.
Alice commented about the development level impacting ECR intersection
to a failure level for traffic. John inquired about alternatives. Mike provided
a review of the community exercises conducted to identify areas where
growth might occur in the next 20 years. He noted that the November 19
meeting widdled down the areas, removed what was strongly opposed
and moved forward with those that received support (3 main areas).
Jacy asked Mike Strong to touch on the areas where we currently have
mixed use and provide examples of where mixed use has created some
economic vitality along the 101 corridor? Mike reviewed areas such as
Ecke Ranch, 2-3 projects on North Coast Hwy and 12 or so projects in
the Downtown Specific Plan area.
Greg asked how many of these types of projects might be coming on
under the new land use plan. Mike replies that it's up to the will of property
owner, they would make the decision.
Public Comments: Olivier Canler (6A) lives in New Encinitas and
expressed his concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed ECR plan.
Primary areas of concern are congestion, dust/air quality and the inequity
of all growth in one area.
Mike Andreen (6Ai), New Encinitas Network, expressed concerns about
how the Traffic Commission's input was paraphrased by staff. Further
concern was expressed that over 90% of the growth is targeted along
ECR while little representation came from New Encinitas on the GPAC.
Mr. Andreen presented comments/concerns about gridlock along ECR
and the negative impact it would have on the level of tax dollars generated
from the ECR corridor.
EC-Minutes-11102011 Page 3 of 10 Printed on Recycled Paper.Naturally.
Donna Westbrook (6Ai), New Encinitas, commented that this is not an
'update'. She asked for a redline/strikeout version of the current GP, and
feels that the Climate Action Plan should be part of the GP and subject to
the EIR.
Ginger Perkins (6Ai), Olivenhain, expressed concern over how the
zoning/planning has transpired over the years and impacted property
owners in Olivenhain. She would like to see granny flats, and further noted
that she would avoid shopping in mixed use/dense areas and would not
ride a bust to the beach
Julie Graboi (6Ai), Olivenhain, supports granny flats and is opposed to the
overall plan and the related traffic impacts on ECR which will affect
friends, businesses, parents taking children to school and work commutes
Mike clarifies that the housing element law does allow cities to count
granny flats based on performance. In terms of not allowing guesthouses,
he is not aware of elimination of those and will have to do some research.
He does know that accessory structures are allowed in Olivenhain up to
1000 sq. ft. Further question arose regarding the history of illegally
permitted/unpermitted structures. Mike noted he would research further.
Kathleen Lindemann (6Ai) can't visualize R30 and would like to know what
it looks like. She further noted she would like to see some sort of public
transportation like minibuses for the largest growing population (elderly
women).
Cards thanked the audience for their attendance and participation, and
shared her observations about how our community and county are car-
centric.
Jacy referenced time remaining prior to scheduled meeting end. The
Commission agreed to extend meeting end time to 8:00pm. Cards
suggests a roundtable discussion rather than timed comments, though not
all topics being discussed right now are environmental topics.
Olivier adds that he is a big fan of bicycling, yet lives block away from
ECR and when he goes to Vons he takes his car. Biking is fine but people
need to drive if they don't live very close. ECR is not safe for biking. The
only time people are going to start walking and biking more is when the
traffic is so bad that it's your only option. The traffic needs to be
addressed first. Cards thinks biking should be first resort. She attended a
seminar by Mia Berk who spoke on biking in Portland which was not a
cycling town before city hired her to redesign city. Kids bike in the rain
because it's accessible. Also references Santa Barbara's recent
EC_Minutes_11102011 Page 4 of 10 Printed on Recycled Paper,Naturally.
accolades for being the most bicycle friendly town in California. Encinitas
has all of that here and can be a bicycle friendly town.
Joe understands where everyone is coming from. Mike Andedeen asks if
the commission does not get a chance to scratch the portion of the land
use element that they disagree with, will the commission get another
chance to hand back comments at another meeting? Mike Strong
responds yes and please be prepared for next meeting.
Greg adds this is all environmental, yes. Regarding biking comments, do
we know the stat of people that do not work in Encinitas and commute to
work? Do we know the real stat of what creates the economic viability?
Mike Anderleen thinks it's 90%. Mike Strong responds with 10% of City's
residents work from home. That would mean that not every other person
that works would work outside the City. He says the average commute
time is 26 minutes so many people do commute. Greg suggests maybe
we need to focus on making new employment centers. Mike Strong
recommends at next meeting to look at economic development policies in
the plan and see if any need to be strengthened.
Joe understands that everyone is not for building beehives on Encinitas
Blvd. He realizes that we do have a finite number of people here and if we
add development it is going to add people and cars to the city. He is
personally against it but has heard what everyone has had to say and
understands where everyone is coming from. Harriet clarifies that the next
meeting will be a special meeting and give report to staff consensus on
this but he will not be reporting. Mike Strong confirms.
Mike Anderleen references Cards's comment in that it didn't matter where
in the city new growth was, but if most was built along 1 5 corridor wouldn't
that mean less cars driving? Cards replies that what she said was that
everyone is focused on a number and no matter where it's built, our city
will grow. On an environmental level, car trips are going to be the same
no matter where you build new developments it just might be more
congested if you build them in one place.
Joe concludes discussion on 6Ai.
Mike Anderleen (6Aii) says new draft GP is over 1000 pages and the
County's GP is 265 pages. What's in ours that isn't in theirs? They do not
have a public health element in their GP. He thinks this particular public
health element is a nanny state magna carta. It's intrusive, takes private
property away, has collective tool shop where you can rent a John Deer
from the city and go scrape your pad and grow your own food, and as
much as sustainability interests everyone, this particular public health
element seems to be full of ideas that come from urban decay in some
EC_Minutes_11102011 Page 5 of 10 Pnnted on Recyded Paper.Naturally.
Midwestern state. We live in an upscale city by the beach and all kinds of
things in this public health element that have nothing to do with this city.
Please look at it very closely.
Donna (6Aii) says please make a recommendation that the public health
element be removed. If you have to go back and clean it up it's not going
to be cleaned up. For example, policy 4.4 says to strive to reduce
conditions in overcrowding and we're going to put all of that overcrowding
in Encinitas and recognize that overcrowding increases stress levels on
health infrastructure. If you try to clean that up, it won't clean up with
mixed use. Edible spaces and edible landscaping — she can see medians
with edible landscaping and people crossing back and forth on ECR but
city will have to put signs up because it's watered with recycled water. Do
you really want to take this on and clean it up?
Julie Gruboy (6Aii) respects Cards's point of view; many in Encinitas are
interested in environment and respects the vision. Concerned about
implementation and how the different policies work with one another.
Found a press release from MIG consultants that wrote the first public
health element. From what she can tell, ours is very similar to what they
wrote. She is concerned about using survey research with invalid survey
sample and told consultant that her husband is experimental psychologist
and built the lab at UCSD. When you reach certain conclusions based on
30 survey responses in a city of 60,000 people, does that sound
reasonable? The whole thing should be thrown out on a research level.
It's very insulting. She also learned there was $60k grant split between
planning and schools. Her son went to school and was given the survey
and she was upset that parents had to sign and say kid is not going to
participate. The next year, her son was in a different classroom and said
he wasn't going to fill it out and teacher said he had to. Then you go to
ordinances of public health and you can ask these personal questions of
children if they volunteer. In this one case for public health, parents have
to sign out of it. This is concerning because any of us that have health
concerns, we have to be aware of children answering these surveys.
Harriet has question for Mike Strong on public health element and what
we are required to do. Is it voluntary? Mike Strong confirms yes. It is an
option if we as a community choose it to have this as a filed resource
report and have it become a legal document. Mike confirms yes it is
optional, the City can adopt it. No requirement that the City approve a
public health element.
Joe asks if we should discuss this public health element now or at the next
meeting? Carris says maybe this isn't the correct public health element
for this community. Everything we do affects our public health. Whatever
that is, the public health element is very important. To just talk about
EC_Minutes_11102011 Page 6 of 10 Printed on Recycled Paper,Naturally.
public health only as this one document is not fair to the rest of the
community or even to ourselves. To just discount a public health element
based on this element isn't fair to the community; it's important to share
what all the options are.
Alice sees statements of a "growing body of evidence" or "poor mental
health is associated with a number of factors". Are there surveys
supporting these statements? Mike Strong responds with 2 points. As
part of the grant that ultimately funded this project, the funding did allow
the City to create a series of white papers on topics. You will find a
research and analysis on mental health conditions in general. City did
administer a City-wide survey. It was administered at school sites. There
were close to 1000 participants there; close to 400 at City-wide survey.
The survey demonstrated mental health is an issue in the City; 20% had
some sort of depression in last 6 months. To say we are immune to
emotional distress or mental health is inaccurate. They were unscientific
but did reveal concern. Alice adds that she was included in survey. There
was a senior survey and junior survey. She took senior survey and read
results, It was interesting that there were 2 major issues in both results;
one was that people were not so concerned about there not being healthy
food available but more concerned about how to get to it and secondly, if
they had more time in their life they could do some of these things better.
Not opposed to an element that might address how we could improve
health issues and mental health issues. We may want to throw this
element out but wants to look at something else, maybe there are better
ways.
Joe asks if we want to decide not to give official comment on this or do
so? Harriet suggests it be a special meeting. She clarified that when she
brought up voluntary question, to have a document that is a binding
document or 25 years and can't be easily changed, maybe there is
another way, a white paper or resource, that can be used in other ways
but to have that consider as part of the GP that was not based on a
scientific survey, do we have to do this? One option is to not have this as
an element but to work on incorporating Encinitas being another health
leader without being stuck to this document. She suggests reserving
official comment for a special meeting. Joe confirms.
Jacy says when it comes time for a special meeting, it would be most
beneficial if everyone came with their own strikeout notes. What is the
most affective means? Mike Strong says it's good for everyone to know
what their comments are in advance. He will take comments as a
strikeout task and it will have to come from consensus. Individual
comments that are recorded as notes will have to be shared and
discussed by the rest of the commission. Jacy will let Mike know when
special meeting is scheduled. Joe asks if this could be done during the
EC_Minutes_11102011 Page 7 of 10 Printed on Recycled Paper.Naturally.
February meeting? Jacy will meet with Mike and then send out a Doodle
to the commission to schedule. Jacy has direct courtesy list that she
sends out information to. If you would like to be on that list give you're
your email address.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. Environmental Policy/Work Plan Ad Hoc Committee Reports
i. Environmental Events
1. Nothing to add.
ii. General Plan Update — John Eldon
1. Nothing to add.
iii. Environmental Action Plan (EAP) Update
1. Reports from subcommittees
a. Nothing to add.
iv. Single Use Bag Reduction Initiative Update
1. Jacy reports that over 20k bags were given away
throughout San Diego County at over 140 locations. The
new component this year was that 125 locations provided
incentives to shoppers to use reusable bags. She will
have more info from grocery stores.
v. Single Use Bag Reduction Initiative Update
1. Jacy reports she is still following communities that are
going forward with their ordinances (San Luis Obispo
going forward). She is working on setting up a meeting
internally to discuss moving forward.
B. Update by Staff on items of interest to EC/Prior Meeting Action
Items
i. Wastewater spill — Jacy reports that Harriet asked that we
forward out information about wastewater spill. This information
went out. No wastewater discharged into San Elijo lagoon; all of
that was contained in the ditch. Report given at City Council
meeting that said part of what helped that was the immediate
response from our staff and other wastewater districts.
ii. Toxic soil subject — Jacy reports there was a presentation at
City Council meeting in regards to Hymettus project. Jacy will
send out timestamp to commission. There was a request to
come back for a report with having County DEH be in
attendance and have presentation pulled together with regard to
bioremediation. City Council went forward with that.
EC_Minutes_11102011 Page 8 of 10 Printed on Recycled Paper,Naturally.
iii. SDG&E rates — Jacy reports City Council discussed SDG&E
rates and as it pertains to solar. City Council joined Solana
Beach, Lemon Grove and Chula Vista as well as many other
water districts and school districts in developing a resolution in
opposition to current SDG&E structure.
iv. Jacy reports Larry Watt resigned. He was appointed on OMWD
water board to a position made vacant by Councilman Muir. He
is temporarily Director of COE Public Works and Engineering.
There was a conflict with being SDWD General Manager.
Alice asks how to get to the topic reference index? Jacy replies with
www.encinitas2035.info. Navigate to Draft General Plan Elements -->
Draft General Plan Elements --> on right-hand side under "Linked Library
Folder". Harriet adds there is a separate thing called Crosswalk that
compares the old GP from the new GP. There was a whole plan we've
been living under and we don't know what is disappearing in the new GP.
John adds that Crosswalk is more useful than Redline.
Joe states items for the next meeting have already been discussed. Jacy
will send out date options. Harriet adds that there are some days where
the schedule won't work. She feels like if anyone can't make a different
time, then make it during the next regularly scheduled meeting. Jacy
responds that this will push back the timeline more. She will talk with Mike
Strong; thinks we will need to have an additional meeting. Keep in mind
there are other items to discuss like Encinitas Environment Day, for
example. Alice wants to clarify what Mike wants from the commission. If
she doesn't go through entire land use and strikeout and makes
comments, will they be on record and passed on? Jacy responds that
there are 2 ways comments can happen. Planning wants comments from
the commission. The item will come up for discussion and there will need
to be consensus (majority) on each item. Alternate comments can be
submitted as individual comments (citizen type comment). Additional
opportunities at the commission level to hear what the community says.
Alice asks do you think we'll have citizen comments again? How can we
control that? Jacy says it's good to create guidelines. Her understanding
is it's comment on the policy items, not the rest of the narrative that
precedes it. When she sends the package out to the public it has the
same wording as it does to the commission. She can put more
information on what goes out to the public stating that if there are items
the citizens have specific concerns about, follow these guidelines. Alice
says she has concern about the narrative, too much, a lot of buzzwords,
etc. Does Mike want to hear that or just strikeout comments? Jacy asks
Alice send Jacy an email as a reminder?
Greg says that some people were concerned about the public health
element but didn't go to any meetings. To develop that, he didn't feel that
EC—Minutes-71102011 Page 9 of 10 Printed on Recycled Paper.Naturally-
those meetings represented the community and those items went into
policy. If we took away employees, consultants and commission members,
how many people are really represented in that room? The survey portion
in the school would be valuable but he doesn't understand how that can
be put into policy. He doesn't know how to communicate that. He
suggests sub-committee to discuss policies written before and vote if it
represents community. Alice suggests sending comments to Jacy via
email so she can talk to Mike. Greg wants more conversation on that.
Jacy suggests a meeting with the planning department to discuss and
clarify issues. Greg and Harriet interested in being on sub-committee.
Jacy will speak with Patrick and Mike to see what times are available.
Harriet suggests seeing if Chair would want to appoint sub-committee to
be looking-at more details on just the public health element? Greg states
rather how they came up with their conclusions. Jacy responds that many
City employee representatives are also residents. Greg observes that the
City employees are paid, commissioners are not. Jacy suggests having
sub-committee meeting with Planning Director and Mike to provide more
information and more direction. Consider being open to the idea that
consultants may not have all the answers, they do go out to the state and
national level and gather what's being seen and said across the nation.
Some of that information may be relative. Greg's main point is that the
City Council needs to know who showed up to these meetings, how many
were there; needs to be non-emotional, qualified, and quantified.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS/STAFF
9. DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
10. ADJOURNMENT
Joe declared the meeting adjourned at 8:15pm.
EC_Minutes_11102011 Page 10 of 10 Printed on Recycled Paper,Naturally.