Loading...
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.