Gaviota Coast Planning Advisory Committee

Transcription

1 APPROVED MINUTES MEETING No. 63 Wednesday, February 13,2013 Vista de Las Cruces School Auditorium The meeting recording may be accessed along with the materials for this meeting on the GavPAC web page using the following link: These minutes include time markers for key locations in the meeting recording where discussion of an item, public comments and GavPAC actions may be heard. Meeting Called to Order: By Chair Kim Kimbell at 6:01 p.m. 1. Roll Call GavPAC Members Present: Boise-Cossart, Kimbell, Lloyd, McKenna, McNabb, Tautrim, Feeney, and Van Leer. GavPAC Members Absent: Bowman and McGinnis County Staff Present: Dianne Black, Planning and Development Department, Assistant Director Jeff Hunt, Long Range Planning, Deputy Director David Lackie, Long Range Planning, Supervising Planner Brian Tetley, Long Range Planning, Senior Planner Heather Allen, Long Range Planning, Associate Planner 2. Public Comment for Items Not on the Agenda: Sydney Pappas voiced concern about last week's meeting running past 9:30; rushing the Gaviota Coast Plan (Plan) process; suggested tabling the process until adequate funding is available; noted that GavPAC recommendations were important to the Board of Supervisors (BOS); and a public trail across the train tracks is a bad idea. Bill Giorgi thanked the GavPAC for all their hard work; he voiced frustration with staff for ignoring GavPAC recommendations; limiting community comments; and using policies from other Community Plans and Counties. He advised the GavPAC to take their recommendations to the Board of Supervisors if staff does not change their position on the process. Rich Rozzelle, representing California State Parks, introduced Eric Hjelstrom. Eric is the newly appointed Santa Barbara Sector Superintendent for Gaviota, Refugio, and EI Capitan State beaches. Les Freeman agreed with Bill Giorgi's comments. Landon Stablefort thanked the GavP AC for their work on the Plan process. Raiza Giorgi thanked the GavPAC for their work on the Plan process. She noted that the staff recommendations do not represent the Gaviota community and the GavPAC should be the voice of the Community and take their recommendations to the BOS. 3. Administrative Briefings: (12:00) Staff recapped the meeting organization and procedures discussed at Meeting No. 62 and explained the Gaviota Coast Plan and EIR process. Staff noted that the GavPAC's recommendations will be passed along to the Planning Commission and there will be plenty of time for additional public 1

2 . comment and input throughout the Gaviota Plan process. The GavPAC expressed frustration with the meeting organization and procedures; staffs recommendations for the Gaviota Coast Plan; and lack of time to review meeting packets. The GavPAC stated that the Plan presented to the Planning Commission should be the GavPAC Recommended Draft Plan with staffs differences presented independently of the GavPAC Recommended Draft Plan. The GavPAC added that they wished staff had provided more guidance and policy direction during the previous GavPAC and subcommittee meetings. ACTION: McKenna moved that on GavPAC policy where staff has a contrary opinion that opinion should be stated separate and apart from the Gaviota Coast Plan and that the Plan presented to the Planning Commission be that document that has been approved solely by the GavPAC itself. Motion seconded by Feeney and approved unanimously. ACTION: Van Leer moved that staff recommendations and inserts from any other Counties not previously discussed have to be discussed and fully vetted prior to approving incorporating those recommendations into the Plan. Motion seconded by Boise-Cossart and approved unanimously. Staff and the GavPAC briefly discussed the project budget and timeline. 4. Meeting 59 and 60 Minutes and Approval (38:02) The GavPAC briefly reviewed the Meeting 59 & 60 Minutes. Boise-Cossart wou Id discu~s minor typos with staff. ACTION: Motion by Tautrim to approve Meeting Nos. 59 and 60 Minutes. Motion seconded by McNabb and approved unanimously. 5. GAVPAC Deliberations and recommendations: Draft Gaviota Coast Plan a) Land Use (39:16) The Land Use Chapter responds to planning issues regarding the relationship of future development to rural and agricultural land uses, land use and zoning designations, and other miscellaneous land use designation and overlay patterns within the Gaviota Coast. A number of policies and items for future action are proposed within the LU section and maps including: accepting the state Coastal Zone boundary; rezoning Ordinance 661 parcels,all federal lands to Mountainous zoning, Arroyo Hondo to Resources Management zoning, and State Parks lands to Recreation; removing the Mineral Resources overlay; removing the Existing Developed Rural Neighborhood (EDRN) designation in the Las Cruces area; and applying the Rural Neighborhood (RN) overlay to the Arroyo Quemada neighborhood. Staff is also proposing LUDC and Article II zoning ordinance amendments to Section Resource Protection Zones by adding a Mountainous Gaviota (MT GAV) zone. Staff recommends revising language in Policy LU-3 to state the policy only affects agricultural development; deleting Action LU-2 to conform with countywide practice of limiting commercial used to the urban areas of the unincorporated county; deleting Action LU-3 because it is counter-productive to eliminate the protections of the existing ARC overlay until a suitable replacement clustering ordinance is adopted; and deleting Action LU-7 since existing ordinance language is adequate. Staff is proposing to add Policy LU-7 to provide guidance for the reuse of the Gaviota Terminal property. Public Comments: Cindy Henning submitted a letter to the GavPAC and reiterated that her family's property with a portion zoned Highway Commercial (CH) is for sale; real estate agents have stated that the CH zoning is a unique feature and adds value. She added that the bulk of the property is a rocky, steep and oak studded slope that is not viable for farming. The property has easy access for motorists, could serve recreation users and commuters; and act as a community center and market to sell art and produce. 2

3 Russell McGlothlin, representing Braircliff Trust, stated that part of the Las Varas property is zoned with a land use overlay for public or private park or recreation but given the agricultural use of that property, it should have an agricultural zoning designation. Bill Giorgi, representing Nojoqui Falls Ranch, voiced concerned that staff is recommending removing the EDRN designation at Las Cruces and fighting clarifying language regarding non-conforming parcels. He also commented on Action LU-2; how rezoning affects landowner rights and impacts prescribed fire and chaparral management; and he recommended following Agriculture Element policies. Bill Giorgi also asked if staff will take the ordinance amendments to the Agricultural Advisory Commission and SBC Fish and Game Commission? Susan Petrovich stated that she formally protests the process and commented on Policy LU-3 because it needs to clearly state exemptions and Policy LU-7 because GavPAC has been respectful of private property rights. She opposes Policy LU-1 because the Coastal Zone is covered by unique policies applied to a unique area; Action LU-2.1.b misses the mark; Policy LU-4 excludes public trails from the requirement that they are compatible with agriculture; Action LU-3.1 is vague and ambiguous, and the Mountainous-Gaviota (MT-GAV) zone doesn't exempt agriculture. Les Freeman acknowledged the issues when applying for a loan or homeowners insu rance and selling a home that is legal but non-conforming. Lori Henning stated that she does not agree with staff's recommendation to replace the CH zoning on her family's property; this will leave the parcel valueless because you can't do agriculture on the property. She also disagrees with removing the EDRN designation from parcels in Hot Springs Canyon. Eva Turenchalk commented that Action 2.1 is subjective and onerous for someone starting out or restarting agriculture development; Policy LU-3 should be revised because the GavPAC wanted to have flexibility and provide incentives; Policy LU-4 because trails should be subject to the preserving agriculture standard; Policy LU-5 should be revised because it is limiting; and the MT-GAV zone is not clear that it only applies to public lands. Andy Mills, representing Hollister Ranch, commented that Action 2.1 is ill-advised because the agricultural community has only embraced a voluntary based incentive program but this policy could involve high cost and draconian measures as conditions of approval. Raiza Giorgi disagrees with staff's recommendation to remove the CH zoning from the Henning property because it could be something wonderful for the community if they decide to sell it or develop it. Mike Lunsford commented that the boundary of the Plan Area is supposed to be the Goleta Community Plan Boundary not the urban boundary. He recommended establishing protective policies that would endure and look forward. Deliberation: (1:15:25) The GavPAC voiced concerned about coastal policies being moved inland. Using the Land Use Policy Worksheet, the GavPAC recommended changes to policies, actions, and development standards included in the Land Use Chapter. ACTION: Motion by Lloyd to direct staff to reword Policy LU-1 in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet to clarify that only existing Coastal Land Use Plan policies are only applicable to the Coastal Zone and do not transcend to the Inland Area. Motion seconded by Feeney and approved unanimously. ACTION: Lloyd moved to delete Policy LU-2 and Action 2.1 in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by Van Leer and approved 6-2. ACTION: Motion by Tautrim to direct staff to reword Policy LU-2 and Action 2.1 to tie the spirit and purpose and intent of agricultural preservation in a workable performance standards base set of actions in a policy structure in the attached Land Use Policy 3

4 ACTION: Lloyd moved to adopt Policy LU-3 as revised in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by McNabb and approved unanimously. ACTION: Lloyd moved to amend Policy LU-3 to incorporate staff's recommended language in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by McNabb and approved unanimously. (1:46:15) After a break, the GavPAC continued to recommended changes to policies, actions, and development standards included in the Land Use Chapter using the Land Use Policy Worksheet. ACTION: Lloyd moved to adopt Action LU-3.1 as revised in the attached Land Use Policy ACTION: Lloyd moved to adopt Policy LU-4 as revised in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by Tautrim and approved unanimously. ACTION: Van Leer moved to adopt Policy LU-5 as proposed in the attached Land Use Policy ACTION: Boise-Cossart moved to adopt Policy LU-6 as revised in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by Tautrim and approved unanimously. ACTION: Boise-Cossart moved to adopt Action LU-1 as proposed in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by McNabb and approved unanimously. ACTION: Tautrim moved to reinstate Action LU-2 as revised in the attached Land Use Policy (2:12:10) The GavPAC discussed the Agriculture Residential Cluster (ARC) Overlay Zone and were concerned that staff recommended reinstating the ARC Overlay. The GavPAC commented that by deleting the ARC overlay they may be "lighting a fire" to get the County to work on developing a replacement Clustering and Transfer of Development Right Tool and that they do not see the ARC Overlay protecting the Cojo-Jalama Ranches; however; some GavPAC members agreed with staff's recommendation to reinstate the ARC Overlay until there is a replacement planning tool. The GavPAC decided to table Action LU-3. ACTION: McKenna moved to adopt Action LU-3 as approved by the GavPAC at Meeting No. 60 and deny staff's recommendation in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by Tautrim and failed 4-0 with four abstaining. ACTION: Lloyd moved to adopt Action LU-3 as proposed in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by McNabb and failed 3-0 with five abstaining. ACTION: Van Leer moved to adopt Action LU-4 as proposed in the attached Land Use Policy ACTION: Van Leer moved to adopt Action LU-5 as proposed in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by Tautrim and approved unanimously. The GavPAC recommended creating a working group to develop incentive priorities to help staff develop a policy framework. Staff will further discuss creating a working group or tabling the topic to one of the future Saturday meeting(s) with the Chair and Vice-Chair. ACTION: Van Leer moved to adopt Action LU-6 as proposed in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by Feeney and approved unanimously. ACTION: Lloyd moved to adopt Action LU-6.1 as revised in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by McNabb and approved unanimously. ACTION: Feeney moved to adopt Action LU-6.2 as revised in the attached Land 'Use Policy 4

5 ACTION: McNabb moved to adopt prior Action LU-7 (now Policy LU) as revised in the attached Land Use Policy Worksheet. Motion seconded by Feeney and approved unanimously. ACTION: Feeney moved to adopt Policy LU-7 as revised in the attached Land Use Policy (2:59:20) Next, the GavPAC discussed the staff proposed Land Use Ordinance Amendments. The GavPAC asked for clarification that the Mountainous Gaviota (MT-GAV) zone is only applied to federal lands. ACTION: Lloyd moved to adopt: 1) staffs proposed Land Use Ordinance Amendments for the new Mountainous Gaviota (MT-GAV) zone with text clarifying that the zone designation only applies to Public Lands: 2) GavPAC's recommendations for the proposed land use and zoning maps (Figures 2-1 through 2-6), and 3) that the proposed land use and zoning maps correctly reflect Arroyo Hondo's recommended new Resources Management designation. Motion seconded by Van Leer and approved unanimously. 6. Adjournment Meeting adjourned by Chair Kimbell at 9:23 p.m. Meeting notes prepared by Heather Allen. GavPAC Chair Kimbell G:IGROUPICOMPlPlanning AreaslGAVIOTA IGaviota Coast PlanlGavPACIGavPAC MeetingslMeeting No. 63IAgenda & MinuteslDraft Meeting No. 63 Minutes.docx 5