Minutes 04/30/2010
Q
Horizon Study Oversight Committee
Meeting Minutes April 30, 2010
9:05 A.M. Meeting Called to order by Chairman McDaniel
9:07 Roll Call, Teaters, Watson, McDaniel present
9:12 Approval of Agenda
9:13 Approval of January 29,2010 Oversight Committee minutes
9:15 Chairman McDaniel stressed that comments contained in the 1-29-10 meeting minutes
concerning staff utilization of the CIGM was not a big deal and felt that the minutes portrayed
those comments as potentially too negative.
9: 18 Committee began review of the draft BCC PowerPoint presentation. Slide Four - suggested
to change the past tense references in the slide to present tense to emphasize the model and its
results are in a constant evolution. Slide Five -link the CIGM as a tool to evaluate GMP-
Amendments to the graphic. Slide Six - Change the picture from a traffic scene to a land use
plan and remove capitalization from the word Provides.
9:26 Committee decided to pause in the review of the PowerPoint and review response to David
Farmer's, member of the public, distributed memo with specific questions of the CIGM. The
Committee reviewed the three statements and six questions contained in Mr. Farmer's memo and
the response provided by Dr. Van Buskirk to those questions (Copy on file).
The responses to the questions satisfied the questions, which are on file the minutes will reflect
the side points and comments established during the discussion:
· Staff responsibility when reporting on the output of the CIGM that there are differences
within the sub-districts of the Future Land Use Element that have to be understood to
understand the comparisons arrived upon by the model
· The limitations of the CIGM need to be stated more articulately by staff when reporting
on CIGM analysis.
· Range of square footage concept related to size of commercial centers needs to be better
clarified to account for differences in per acre yields of various sub-districts.
· During GMP-amendments staff did not articulate the difference between office and retail
subsectors of commercial square footage and this lead to misleading conclusions. In the
future this has to be better accounted for by staff.
. Potential idea for next Oversight meeting was to focus discussion on Commercial Sub-
model of the CIGM and explore the details of the models output and analysis
· Question was raised whether the Committee should discuss the Wilson/Golden Gate
Blvd. GMP-amendment with the BCC and how the amendment was inconsistent with
GGAMP.
. Point raised that that was not the purview of the Committee and discussion of specific
amendments should be avoided.
. Suggested that staff should appoint a single point person or two point persons to utilize
the CIGM to ensure the proper use of the CIGM as an analytical tool.
. Suggested that the Committee dedicate one future meeting to a presentation from the
Development Community and how they interface with the CIGM.
10:24 The Committee concluded the discussion of the memo and resumed the review of the
PowerPoint presentation. Slide 10 through 20 recognized that the bar graphs were not effective
in portraying the information and the raised map was better, but decided to leave the bar graphs
in. The PowerPoint then transitioned to the Position Points and the ranking of the Position
Points. Staff directed to bring position point five in line with position point eight, which both
deal with the character of roads that will be developed in the Study area. On Position Point six
remove the fire hydrant from the slide. Position Point nine staff to change regional to County-
wide. Bring Position Point thirteen to Position Point 15, both deals with water availability.
10:49 Discussion on the PowerPoint concluded
10:50 The Committee then began discussion on the expansion of the model for the whole
County. There was a question if the Committee could do so because they were thought to be
relegated to only the Eastern portion of the County, but staff response was they are tied to the
CIGM, if the CIGM expands its area covered, then so would the Committee.
10:55 Discussion with Dr. Van Buskirk about comparing BEBR population projections to the
CIGM's and the dangers of straight line extrapolation, due to the significance of where a place is
in relationship to the economic cycle and how that influences the results.
11 :02 Discussion of the next meeting date late August/Early September.
11: 18 Watson - Motion to adjourn was passed unanimously.
,~
n Oversight Committee
JS{ Zf / u) .
Date