|
March 13, 2001 BOS
Meeting Chairman Smith presiding and all supervisors present. Special Districts Consent Calendar Items 1 through 5 and 8 Vote 5-0 Items 6 and 7 refer to the Sonoma Valley Sanitation District Vote: 2-0-1 [Mayor Brown absent] Board of Supervisors Consent Calendar 9 through 37: Vote:
5-0 Chair: We have a question about Item 15: Supervisor Reilly and I were talking this morning about how we can get Mr. Kieser to give us a presentation next week on the regular calendar. [Greg Carr of PRMD said it was certainly possible.] Chair: Item 15 will be held over until next week. This is something the public ought to hear: [15. 2001 Housing Element Update OFFICE OF COMMISSIONS - COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF
WOMEN REGULAR CALENDAR 42. Update of the Sonoma County General Plan Direct PRMD to begin an issue-focused update of the General Plan; hereafter referred to as GP 2020; and Review and approve the Draft Work Program; and Review and approve the revised Comprehensive Planning Work Plan to reflect the Work Program County Administrator recommends: For policy determination of the board Estimated cost is $400,000 for 2001. These are just words and phrases from Background Notes: *The recommended work program would be mainly focused on policy refinement rather than major reconsideration of primary goals and policies. * Public involvement would be multi-faceted with a formal committee and several ad hoc committees *The Update would be performed by a combination of County staff and consultants, take about 2.5 years to complete and cost about $775,000. *This update will be called GP 2020. *A 10-person citizen steering committee, two members from each supervisorial district that would meet in public on a regular basis to guide the Draft Plan. *Some projects have to wait until the 2000 Census data is available. *An Ad Hoc County Staff Working Group with reps from various departments. *An ad hoc working group of city representatives with a senior manager from each city who would meet with county staff to assure county/city coordination. Staff presentations to city councils will be offered at key points. *Periodic noticed board/commission workshops and meetings at critical junctures in the process to assure broad public involvement. *A GP 2020 web site providing current information. *Formal public hearings on the General Plan and the EIR. Staff Presentation: Mr. Parkinson said the Sonoma County General Plan enjoys broad community support, but it's time to update that plan for the next 15 years. We have a status report for you which evaluates the performance of the General Plan that goes through it element by element: changes that have happened, issues that have arisen over the last 12 years of implementation. It outlines issues that could be included in a focused update. We met with the Planning Agency in November and heard their input. We're recommending an issue focused update rather than a zero based general plan update. We also have a public participation process that is outlined there. We envision for this morning your considering the draft workplan as it is right now and go out and have a series of meetings out in the community and come back with a refinement of that plan with your board. So this morning we're asking you to review and approve the draft workplan that we've presented to you and also to review and approve the revisions necessary to the comprehensive planning work program in order to accommodate the general plan update. So I'd like to have Scott review the proposed general plan update and then Greg on the comprehensive planning issues. Scott Briggs: We'd like to get your input and hopefully approval on the proposed work program we've developed for the General Plan update which we refer to as GP 2020. The key elements of our draft work program will be reviewed. The analysis clearly focuses on census information, transportation circulation, housing, land use, and a look at all the elements as well. There are some tough issues to be dealt with: endangered species, conservation issues, groundwater, recent issues we've heard about. We don't propose to solve all these things through the general plan process. We would consider a policy review of all these issues and then come back to you with what we've received from the public. We don't expect to solve all these during the timeframe of this update. We expect the update to take 2 and 1/2 years, ending in July 2003. We recommend a mix of using staff and consultants, a selective use of key consultants: prepare the EIR for the general plan update, focus on some of the technical issues, transportation, noise, air quality. A public facilitator would be useful. And last but not least, a senior planner to help with policy development issues as we review the different elements of the general plan. Public participation is a very key part of the process. We want this to reflect the county as a whole and the public's buy in of the plan. We've identified several steps in this process subject to your approval: a formal steering committee which would be a point of contact for those working on the update. Perhaps have 2 representatives from your board and 2 from the planning agency. Additionally something on the order of a 10-person citizens advisory committee keeping it small enough to keep focused. That would be equal to at least 2 citizens from each district in the county. We would see that group as the frontline for the review of all the draft elements and programs and issues that we bring forward - first point of review. We would also like to have an ad hoc staff working group of representatives from the different county departments that we can meet with as needed as well as an ad hoc meeting group of senior city representatives. We've spent a lot of time talking to the cities. They clearly want to be a part of the process. Of course, there would be periodic noticed board and planning commission hearings and workshops as well as formal public hearings. And last, this is an opportunity to establish a web site on the General Plan update to facilitate public involvement of where we are in the project. Lastly regarding cost, our estimate after much research in the industry and among staff, we believe we're looking at $775,000 exclusive of inhouse PRMD staff time. Greg Carr will speak on the implications of this program on our staff commitments in the PRMD workplan. Greg Carr: It will have a major impact on the workplan for the next couple of years. Looking at the currently active programs that the department is working on in the workplan with the addition of the General Plan update, we're really occupying all the hours available for the next two years until June 2002. Basically without some change in the existing program and most of those are pretty much on line and in progress so I'm not sure there's much latitude there. We're able to accommodate the General Plan update with that new position. We're looking at a little more than one fulltime equivalent for the course of this update. We also looked at the inactive programs that have been on the list since 1989. We reduced that from 30 to 15 by evaluation or implementation. Another four are recommended for deletion. We're happy to answer any questions. The supervisors expressed the following concerns: Supervisor Kelley concurred with the success of the General Plan. He expressed concerns about properties located around cities' spheres of influence. The air transportation issue is under legal challenge. How will that affect the plan update? He is concerned by all the time absorbed by the update. He would like a financial analysis of the prospects for a Super Williamson Act. Nine counties have adopted it over the last 6 or 8 months. Supervisor Kerns asked about the inconsistencies between area plans and urban growth boundaries; for example, Penngrove and Rohnert Park. He felt public participation is important along with a regional perspective. Make sure to work with all the different cities. The advisory committee should not be unwieldy. Supervisor Reilly felt some key issues dropped out in the conclusion; for example, endangered species. He shares Supervisor Kelley's concerns that stopping some issues for 2 and 1/2 years is not a good idea. They're too important to wait that long. "As far as the Citizens Advisory Committee, I'd like to see us go to at least 3 each." He would like consideration of multi-family units in commercial areas, Super Williamson, and look at the possibility for including some kind of Mills Act evaluation for incorporation into the General Plan for historic preservation in Sonoma County. Supervisor Cale: The circulation and transit element may be the most important element in the General Plan update - particularly public transportation. Facilitate the movement of people. Dialog with Golden Gate Transit. Port Sonoma should be an integral part of North Bay transportation system. Water links the entire Bay Area. Let's get some language into the General Plan on that. I have no objection to a 15-member body. We all represent the cities. I'm not interested in city staff representation. Regarding the workplan - I won't rush to judgment. We have a priority list. Staff can alert us to state and/or federal requirements. I don't want a turnkey operation. I think staff is going to keep us on target. I totally approve of what they're doing. Chairman Smith agreed that the current General Plan is a good solid planning document. We have a 20-year perspective on what we could do better. Try to make some sense out of conflicts with city general plans. I think we're going to see LAFCO become a quasi-regional planning agency. Most frustrating for me is having different sets of rules and different sets of criteria for determining what's appropriate and what isn't. A 15-member body is ok with me. We have 10 general plans but we have areas that suffer from all kinds of congestion. Penngrove has become a receiver for traffic which comes from all over the county. The General Plan may be an opportunity to address that. We have 1500 miles of county roads that need attention. I'm not interested in people bringing in individual requests for amendments. There's going to be a need to come back to this board in open session periodically. Ideas are going to germinate and we're going to hear about it. Mr. Parkinson confirmed changes: 3 people from each supervisorial district? [Yes] People interested in serving on the Citizens' Advisory Committee should apply. Chair: I think that would be helpful. With that we can adopt these recommendations. Vote: 5-0 BW Note: I will send out Items 43, Ad Hoc Report on Prop 12 Park Bond Act and 48. Multi-Year Financial Projection FY 01-02
|