Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2012, SS2 proposed 2009-11 General PlanResidents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 January 16, 2012 Re: Item Bl, General Plan Task Force for Land Use and Circulation Elements Update Process Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) has been involved in this General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update process since it began in 2008. Subsequent to the presentation of the August 19, 2008, Study Session report (Attachment 1), testimony from RQN (Attachment 2), and the initial minutes of the session (Attachment 2a), the City Council gave clear direction to staff regarding the proposed plan to update these elements. That direction (Attachment 3) included the following: 1. The process should be primarily resident and neighborhood based but still allow for some appropriate representation of important sectors of the community by persons who might not live within the City limits (e.g., representatives of non -profits, the medical community, regional interests, etc.) [emphasis added]. 2. The proposed sequence of steps outlined in the [proposed Project] plan seems generally agreeable, with the understanding that the staff will review the draft to potentially make it clearer that the process, and each major step, will start with primarily resident involvement [emphasis added]. 3. Staff should use legislative drafts as a tool to make it clear to citizens what is being changed when amending plans. Staff will do so to the maximum extent feasible and practical during the update. 4. The survey used in 1988 should be used as a point of departure in developing a new survey, but staff should also be open to new and more relevant questions and methodologies for ensuring a representative, scientific sampling of community sentiment and vision. After reading the December 13, 2011, Council Memorandum, Major City Goal —Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update (Attachment 4), RQN members did further research and realized that, for the update process to clearly conform to the direction provided by the Council, changes were needed. Review of the January 17, 2012, staff report confirms that assessment: 1. Language in the most recent Staff Report, January 17, 2012, refers primarily to stakeholders, occasionally to citizen and stakeholder groups. The phrase "primarily resident and neighborhood based" is not included, nor is it stated that "each major step will start with primarily resident involvement." Council direction is misstated in the following attachments to this report: Attachment 1, Council Memorandum, Attachment 4, Draft Resolution, and Exhibit A, Attachment 4, GPTF Guidelines. I Page 2 2. Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, Council Memorandum, states on page 2 that "direction from Council ... confirms that City residents are critically important to the General Plan update process." The choice of the words "critically important" does not convey the same message as did Council's very clear direction. a. Per Council direction, the General Plan Task Force (GPTF) should be weighted toward residents and neighborhoods, with "some appropriate representation of important sectors of the community by persons who might not live within the City limits" [emphasis added]. As currently configured, the GPTF is weighted toward stakeholders. b. Staff's proposal to double -count an individual representing a stakeholder group as, also, a resident if said individual resides within the City discounts the fact that the prima ry purpose of that individual is to represent his/her stakeholder group. This is not the same as an individual whose primary purpose is to represent residents and neighborhoods. c. In addition to RQN, there are five residents' organizations of long standing in the City: Alta Vista Neighborhood Association, Laguna Neighbors, Neighborhoods North of Foothill, Old Town Neighborhood Association and San Luis Drive Association. It would seem proper to have each group designate a representative to serve on the GPTF. By adding these five representatives to the resident positions currently proposed, it would go a long way toward making the GPTF primarily resident and neighborhood based. The resulting size of the task force would still be smaller than the Financial Sustainability Task Force (almost 30) and the 1994 LUE Committee (38). d. Stakeholders should not and will not be left out of the process. Staff has enumerated many opportunities for stakeholder groups that are not on the GPTF to participate in the process: stakeholder interviews are planned, meetings will be open to the public with the opportunity to speak, and there is a public outreach component planned that will provide multiple opportunities and methods for input, to name a few (Attachment 6, page 13). 3. Attachment 4 of the Staff Report, Draft Resolution, misstates Council direction and does not provide for a task force that is primarily resident and neighborhood based. a. AS WRITTEN: WHEREAS, the public participation strategy calls for a General Plan Task Force (GPTF) to inform the update process at key milestones, provide feedback and recommendations and disseminate information to each respective stakeholder's related interest group; and SHOULD READ: WHEREAS, the public participation strategy calls for a General Plan Task Force (GPTF) to inform the update process at key milestones, provide feedback and recommendations and disseminate information to each respective resident's group or stakeholder's related interest group; and b. AS WRITTEN: WHEREAS, previous direction from the City Council and good planning principals confirm that city residents are critical to the General Plan update process; and Page 3 SHOULD READ: WHEREAS, the sequence of steps outlined in the plan seems generally agreeable, with the understanding that the staff will review the draft to potentially make it clearer that the process and each major step will start with primarily resident involvement and c. AS WRITTEN: WHEREAS, the composition of the General Plan Task Force should be representative of the community interests with a preference for participants who live in the city; and SHOULD READ: WHEREAS, the City Council has directed that the update process should be primarily resident and neighborhood based but still allow for some appropriate representation of important sectors of the community by persons who might not live within the City limits (e.g., representatives of non -profits, the medical community, regional interests etc.) and d. AS WRITTEN: WHEREAS, establishing GPTF Ground Rules and Terms of Engagement will provide a framework for collaborative communication among stakeholders and decision -makers; and SHOULD READ: WHEREAS, establishing GPTF Ground Rules and Terms of Engagement will provide a framework for collaborative communication among residents, stakeholders and decision -makers; and e. Page 2, Attachment 4 of the Staff Report (page 131-12) does not provide a task force composition that is primarily resident and neighborhood based. f. Item 3, Page 2, Attachment 4 of the Staff Report (page 81-12) appears to apply to business/development/non-profit stakeholders who are also city residents. RQN does not recommend that task force members be dual -hatted since that would not comply with stated Council direction and for the reasons stated in paragraph 2, above. 4. Exhibit A, Attachment 4 of the Staff Report, GPTF Guidelines. The document uses the word stakeholder(s) on pages B1-14 through e1-16; we ask this be modified to read resident(s) and stakeholder(s) wherever it occurs. RQN members reviewed the Planning Grant Request, the Request for Proposal (RFP) and some correspondence between the City and Cal Poly regarding student assistance in the update process. None of these documents indicated that the process should be primarily resident and neighborhood based or that each major step will start with primarily resident involvement. 1. Grant Approval. In light of Council direction, we were disheartened to see the purpose of the LUCE update shown by the source of the grant as, "The targeted update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan is intended to promote infill development to use existing infrastructure to maximize efficiency." (Attachment 5) The Planning Grant Request (Attachment 5a) uses this or similar language multiple times. Infili development may be appropriate for vacant land, land re -zoned from non-residential uses and annexations, but that is quite different from using the LUCE update process to "infill" the Page 4 city's established neighborhoods. Many of these neighborhoods are already densely populated and further increasing density would exacerbate the problems those neighborhoods already face. It is unlikely that residents of these neighborhoods would rate infill and densification as their top priorities for the LUCE update. 2. Request for Proposal (Attachment 6). The Introduction portion of the RFP (page 132-13) contains a Community Participation section where residents and community stakeholders are described as very informed and engaged. It states the City is seeking an innovative community participation process that is inclusive and validating for the participants, provides some examples and encourages the consultant to suggest additional outreach opportunities. It does not mention Council direction. How is the consultant to know that the update process should be primarily ' resident and neighborhood based and that each major step will start with primarily resident involvement? How will this lack of information affect the tools and procedures the consultant suggests or employs? Although stakeholder interviews are listed as an outreach tool that should be included, it is not clear if residents are to be included as stakeholders, and there is no reference to resident interviews or to meetings in the neighborhoods. 3. One or two Cal Poly City and Regional Planning Classes will, also, work on the LUCE update. Student work will include community outreach, alternative scenarios and proposals for new policies. The memoranda between Cal Poly and City staff that we have seen do not mention Council's direction. Staff has recommended various outreach tools in order to fully engage residents and stakeholders. Telephone surveys and an interactive website that allow residents to draw the boundaries of the area they consider to be their neighborhood and provide information regarding the needs, as they see them, of their neighborhood. 1. RQN strongly recommends that a telephone survey not be used. The objective of the survey, to obtain complete and useful resident input may be compromised by utilizing a telephone method. Past problems with con artists could make some residents leery of providing information over the telephone: individuals may respond differently or give partial answers, or they may decline to participate. With a written survey, especially if it is returned to the City, there is no question where it goes and what the information will be used for. Additionally, written surveys provide the possibility for thoughtful contemplation of the questions and the ability to return to a question to add or delete information. 2. Our concern about an Internet survey designed to obtain resident input about their neighborhood is two -fold. First, that individuals other than residents could participate and, thus, alter the results. Second, that there would be insufficient security to protect the data. Several staff reports and various documents refer to the Strategic Growth Council, the Regional Blueprint Community 2050, and a Sustainable Communities Strategy. RQN members are unfamiliar with these terms, their meaning and their potential effect on San Luis Obispo. If conformity with any of their policies becomes an issue, we would hope the Council would include consideration of a loss of local control as well as the financial costs of compliance and noncompliance before making a decision. Page 5 In summary, RQN respectfully requests that you direct staff to change or amend, as appropriate, the following documents in order to properly state Council direction as shown both on page 1, above, and in Attachment 3 of this letter before you approve the resolution: 1. The Staff Report 2. The Council Memorandum 3. The Draft Resolution 4. The GPTF Guidelines 5. The RFP 6. Any memoranda with Cal Poly that supports this project 7. All other LUCE update process documents It is clear to us that the proposed GPTF is not primarily resident and neighborhood based. We, therefore, also, respectfully request that additional residents, preferably recommended by each of the city's existing residential organizations, be added to the GPTF and that no task force member be dual -hatted. We further request that you encourage an early written, not telephone, survey of residents. The process determines the outcome. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Rowley Chair, RQN Attachment 1- August 19, 2008 Study Session - Proposed 2009-2011 General Plan Update Process Attachment 2 - August 18, 2008 Letter from RQN Attachment 2a - August 19, 2008 Original Minutes of August 19, 2008 Study Session Attachment 3 - August 19, 2008 Corrected Minutes of August 19, 2008 Study Session Attachment 4 - December 9, 2011 RED File, Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update Attachment 5 - December 3, 2010 SGC Sustainable Communities Planning Grants Attachment 5a - Planning Grant Application Attachment 6 - September 20, 2011 RFP for Consultant Assistance for LUCE Update Process Attachment 7 - August 6, 1992 Tribune Opinion Editorial A 1 1 AcIAM EDIT I nacenaa wpoat "m" SS Z CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning SUBJECT: 'STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED 2009.11 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS CAO RECOMMENDATION Receive a proposed project plan for the future update to the General Plan Land Use, Circulation and Parks and Recreation Elements and provide direction to staff as appropriate. REPORT -IN -BRIEF During goal setting, for the 2007-09 Financial Plan, the Council, discussed whether or not to proceed with comprehensive updates of the land Use and Circulation Elements within the next two years. Ultimately, the Council decided to focus more on Measure Y priorities in terms of funding, but to take other important preliminary steps during the next two years so that the City could be "poised" to tackle a comprehensive update in 2009-11. The Council approved a work program that identified the preparation of a "project plan" as the first major step in preparing for a future update process. The Council also funded an update of the City's traffic model as a prerequisite the future update of the Circulation Element. Community Development Department staff has been working to develop a project plan for the proposed update of the Circulation and Land Use Elements with input from other departments and other jurisdictions. Staff consulted with municipal consultants, the state, county, and other cities in California to understand timing and cost impacts associated with the proposed general plan updates. The attached project description and timeline (the Project Plan) reflect this input and evaluation (including adding the Parks and Recreation Element to the plan). Key questions that should be answered after a review and discussion of the proposed plan include: 1. Do the proposed steps seem to follow an appropriate sequence? 2. • Is the update comprehensive enough, or should it include added issues or elements? 3. Is the proposed community involvement process sufficient? 4. Does the schedule seem reasonable? Background and Getting Started "on the Right Foot" Updates of the Land Use and Circulation Elements were identified as an "other Council objective" in the 2007-09 Financial Plan, with direction to develop a project plan describing the funding and administrative steps necessary to complete the process. The Council authorized General Plan Update Process Page 2 $200,000 in funding in the 2007-09 Financial Plan to initiate development of a "base year" traffic model in preparation for the General Plan update process. The Council also indicated that the update should include an evaluation of economic development policies and programs. This is reflected in the proposed project plan as an integral part of the Land Use Element update. Assuring that the Council and staff are "in alignment" regarding the proposed scope and process for updating major aspects of the City's .General Plan is essential in order to achieve a positive and timely outcome. Differences about the process, for example, surfaced late in the update of the Conservation and Open Space Element and resolving those differences delayed the process by over one year and caused a substantial amount of confusion and contention. Therefore, corning to agreement on fundamentals of "the plan" at the very beginning is essential and is the foremost purpose of this report. The Project Plan for the General Plan Update Over the last several years, City staff has used a standard format to prepare internal plans to implement major projects and complex undertakings. This format is often called a "project plan." Project plans are helpful as .an organizational tool and for providing a common understanding about a forthcoming process, in terms of opportunities, constraints, expected results and other key factors. Staff has drafted a project plan for the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements for review by the Council (see Attachment 1). Key components of the plan include a description of each phase in the update, the order in which they occur, and a list of tasks associated with each phase. Some of the phases overlap and some must run sequentially. The .graphic later in this. report summarizes the key components of the process, including: community participation, environmental .review, and the expected products from each phase. "General Plan 101" Overview California state law requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan "for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning" (Government Code Section 65300). A city's general plan identifies the community goals that relate to land use, circulation, environment, infrastructure, recreation, safety, economic and social issues. The plan, through each element, provides a basis for local decision -making and involves the community in the process of identifying goals and policies to define how the community should respond to needs for physical development over time. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research publishes "General Plan Guidelines," which state that the general plan is a tool for planning over a specific time horizon. The planning period associated with this time horizon .may vary depending on .the issues - for example, geologic hazards most likely will not change quickly, so goals to address these issues will remain current for longer periods of time. While a local jurisdiction may choose a time horizon that serves its particular needs, most cities develop general plans that look forward 15-20 years in order to plan for future needs. The exception to this rule -of -thumb relates to the housing element which, by state mandate, must be updated every five years to address a seven-year planning period. SSZ"2 General Plan Update Process Page 3 Regardless of the time horizon addressed in the City's General Plan, planning is a continuous process. The General Plan needs to be reviewed and revised regularly to keep it current when new information becomes available and to reflect changing community needs and values. The General Plan may be amended up to four times a year. If a council finds itself making frequent piecemeal amendments or if existing policies do not seem to provide guidance for projects under consideration, the jurisdiction should consider a plan update or major plan revision. A general plan that is based on outdated information or values will not provide adequate direction for day - to day decision -making.. Overall Status of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements While the Land.Use Element and Circulation Element have been amended many times since 1994 to incorporate minor adjustments, they have not had a recent, thorough review of how well they reflect the needs and priorities of the City's residents, businesses, and landowners. Significant amendments to the Land Use Element have been made in response to update of the Conservation and Open Space Element in April 2006 and when the Housing Element was adopted in 2004. Planning or development of the expansion areas identified in 1994 is nearing completion: the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (last of the expansion area plans) is currently in the public hearing approval process and the Margarita Area and Airport Area Specific Plans are complete. In addition, many of the programs identified in the Land Use and Circulation Elements are on -going or have been completed (The .Council Reading file contains the latest annual report on the General Plan). As can be expected, environmental, economic, and societal trends have likely changed since 1994. There may be new needs and priorities that create the need for new land use or circulation programs. Recent changes to state law to address global climate change are driving the need to ensure our land use policies support reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These circumstances warrant a comprehensive look at the Land Use Element and Circulation Element to chart a vision and plan for growth over the next 15-20 years. This process must be based on community participation and stakeholder 'buy -in". Since land uses and traffic and circulation decisions are interwoven, the Circulation Element and Land Use Element should be developed and considered concurrently. I. Land Use Element Situation In January 2006, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) adopted significant changes to the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), which identifies "... the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency or municipality." As a result, the SOL which is considered to be a 20 year planning tool, was expanded in eight areas to encompass an additional 3,328 acres around the City limits. The property owners of one of the larger areas added to the SOI, the area roughly bounded by Los Osos Valley Road, O'Connor Way,. Foothill Boulevard and the existing City limits, are expressing an interest . in annexation and development and will make a presentation to the Council the night this item is studied. The Land Use Element still shows these areas as greenbeltlopen space, suggesting a need for coordination and public review in the context of an overall planning strategy. SS Z' 3 General Plan Update Process Page 4 2. Circulation Element Situation The Circulation Element was developed in tandem with the Land Use Element and its policies and programs are based on the land uses identified in the Land Use Element. An update to the Land Use Element will necessitate a corresponding update to the City's Circulation Element to address associated street network and operational changes. In addition, the Circulation Element's policies and programs should be updated given on -going changes in land use, travel behavior, regional traffic patterns, environmental conditions, transportation technology, and opportunities in shifting modes of transit. One example of an improved technology` that will be available for the Circulation Element is a multi -modal or socio-economic transportation model. The current Circulation Element was based on information generated from a road -based traffic model. Given the desired (and increasingly necessary) shift away from single -occupant vehicle trips to bicycle and mass transit options, a different model may be needed to evaluate transportation deficiencies, future needs, land use impacts, and potential improvements. The focus of the last Circulation Element was on moving cars. Best practices now focus on moving people. 3. Other General Plan Amendments Anticipated The evaluation and revision of these two mandatory elements may prompt the need to revise other elements of the general plan to ensure consistency between. all City goals, policies and programs. Amendments to the Noise Element and Safety Element would fall into this category. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Element and the Water and Wastewater Element have been evaluated by staff recently for more comprehensive updates. The Parks and Recreation Element was updated in April 2001 and was scheduled to be updated again in 2006. Due to other priorities, this scheduled update did not occur. The Parks and Recreation Department.staff has requested that the update process for the Land Use and Circulation Elements include an update of the Parks and Recreation Element. This will involve the evaluation of parks facilities and programs in addition to looking at demographic trends in order to develop revised policies and programs to better serve the community. Since much of the background work will be done with the proposed update process, staff supports adding this element to the workscope. The Utilities Department is currently developing a project plan and the public outreach component for an update to the Water and Wastewater Element. The last revision to this element was completed before many of the major water supply projects were initiated. The policies and programs within this element relate to securing on -going water sources to accommodate the growth envisioned with General Plan "build out" Now that the Nacimiento Water Project is under construction, operational and service issues need to be re-evaluated to confirm existing policies and make modifications where appropriate. These operational and service issues are not dependent on the information that will be discussed during the update of the other elements and hence this Element will.be updated independently. Basic policies, such as creating and maintaining a water supply for the buildout of the General Plan are not expected to change. However, if there is a change in the General Plan buildout, this would General Plan Update Process Page 5 affect the acre feet of water needed, and would be addressed as a subsequent amendment to the Water and Wastewater Element at the time the Land Use Element is updated and adopted. Work Underway to Begin Update Because of the time that has passed since the last comprehensive General Plan update andthe previous Council direction, several activities are already underway. As previously noted, the City is in the process of updating its Traffic Model. The Council also authorized the creation of a Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory to determine a baseline carbon footprint of the community which will be used to compare land use and circulation alternatives for future development. Finally, staff has prepared a work program for Council to consider for the process of updating the General Plan. The contract to update the base -year traffic model was awarded to, LSA Associates in February 2008. The initial stage will update the base -year traffic model to a multi -modal based model analyzing new trend information and city/county demographics for trip types. Vehicle, bicycle and transit surveys will be conducted to update the model to reflect current conditions. The model being developed will provide a solid baseline assessment from which to develop the forecast model. Forecasting will be important in order to evaluate different land use and development scenarios proposed as part of the Land. Use Element and Circulation Element update. Development of the forecast model will require additional consultant assistance and this cost and associated work is reflected in the project plan. In April, 2008, Council authorized Community Development staff to pursue membership in ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability, to give the City access to tools for conducting a greenhouse gas emissions inventory, including modeling software. Staff has been working with a graduate student from Cal Poly who is collecting the necessary data and.. performing the data entry into the modeling software. We expect to have preliminary results to share by the end of August. This information will be used when evaluating land use and circulation alternatives in the General Plan update process. The Proposed Project Plan for Completing the Update As mentioned earlier, the Community Development Department staff has been working to develop a .project plan for the proposed update with input from.other departments and other jurisdictions. Staff also consulted with municipal consultants, the state, county, and other cities in California to understand timing and cost impacts associated with the proposed general plan updates. The attached project description and timeline (the Project Plan) reflect this evaluation and the graphic below summarizes the key components of the process, including: community participation, environmental review, and the expected products from each phase. SS 2 -57 General Plan Update Process Page 6 1. Planning Tasks: The key components of the planning process include data gathering (Background Report), visioning, alternatives analysis, preparing a draft plan,, preparing a draft Environmental Irbpact Report (EIR), review by advisory bodies, and Council adoption of the Plan and certification of ss2-U General Plan Update Process Page 7 the EIR. The public review process and the environmental review process (called CEQA — California Environmental Quality Act) will happen concurrently within these components of the planning process. 2. CEQA: The Background Report (listed as a product of Phases 1& 2 in the chart above) is also used to document the current status of the City for purposes of environmental review. As impact and mitigation information is developed, the goals and policies of the plan may be modified. Mitigation measures may become development policies and implementation programs. 3. Community Participation: Community participation will be a significant component of every phase of the General Plan update. Various forms of communication are planned to be used throughout the update. Staff recommends forming a Citizens' Advisory Committee with a variety of members representing diverse community and stakeholder interest groups, advisory body members, neighborhood groups, and Council appointments. The selected General Plan update consultant will be required to assist with developing a public participation plan to include speakers' bureaus, the citizens' advisory committee, newsletters, surveys, workshops, interviews, and media outreach. Update Timeframe It is important that the City set realistic timeframes for completion of the various stages of work that will go into the General Plan update. The time allocated to each task must allow for a meaningful consideration of the issues and priorities as .well as public review and participation. It must also take into account the fiscal constraints facing the City and the cost of the update in terns of staff time and consultant fees. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research notes that most jurisdictions need approximately two years to complete a new general plan. Depending on the complexity of issues and the amount of public debate, some general plans may take longer to prepare or update. The proposed project plan reflects about a three and one half year process. Aside from the initial four to six months for preparing background data and reports, this time will be spent providing information to the public through various types of media and creating forums for input and discussion leading to the Council's adoption of the update. This project plan is being provided to Council as a "road map for the General Plan update process. The plan lays out the tasks and the framework within which issues will be evaluated. No action is anticipated by Council at this time, but any direction to staff will be incorporated into the plan. FISCAL IMPACT The following is an estimate of costs associated with the update .of the Circulation, Land Use, and Parks and Recreation Elements over an almost four year period. The salaries of regular staff working on the project are not included as part of this chart. Staff from all departments will be General Plan Update Process Page S involved in the update process. In reviewing the experience of other communities, the typical commitment is an average of two full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions for an update process in addition to the consultant and temporary help assistance. The update.process will have varying time commitments during the life of the update, but on average, the City can expect to dedicate two existing FTEs to this effort. City staff involved to the greatest extent will be Community Development and Public Works .staff, but staff from Parks and Recreation, Utilities, Fire, Police, Finance and Administration will also be involved in this process. Staff/administrative costs Temp help/intern salaries $ 50,000 Consultant fees Background & issues, fiscal & GP reports $ 550,000 Consultant fees Environmental Review $ 400,000 Public outreach Survey, charrettes, outreach, public meetin s $ 100,000 Consultant fees Traffic model enhancement $ 200.000 Printing &. mailinia Draft and final documents $ 40,000 LContingency Estimated at 5% $ 67,000 TOTAL $1,407,000 Funding the Update: Key 2009-11 Goal -Setting Issue Community Development staff surveyed other jurisdictions to understand how each paid for their general plan updates. The following summarizes this information: 1. Pay for updates with the General Fund. A vision for the community benefits the entire community and, as such, should be paid for by General Fund monies. 2. Collect a General Plan Implementation Fee with permits or entitlements (in order to issue building permits or entitlements, a city must have a valid and up-to-date General Plan with which the entitlement or permit conforms). Mitigation Fee Act - jurisdiction can impose fee if decision to use the service is voluntary and the fee is reasonably related to the cost to provide the service. a. Cost of General Plan Update is estimated to occur every 10 years. This cost is divided by 10 to capture a yearly fee. The yearly cost is divided by the annual construction valuation to obtain a % of project construction value amount that is assigned to building permits for new buildings (i.e. Belmont). b. Cost of General Plan Update is estimated to occur every 10 years. Half of cost is included in fee structure and half comes from the General Fund. 50% of all building .permit fees are attributed to General Plan maintenance (i.e. County of San Luis Obispo). c. 15% surcharge .on all planning and building permit fees for General Plan maintenance (i.e. San Rafael) d. General Plan implementation fee (.001) is charged against the assessed value of every building permit. (Le, Stockton) SS2- b' General Plan Update Process Page 9 e. Land to be annexed pays a fee based on its proportional share of growth (by acre) anticipated to happen over the following 20 years multiplied by the cost of the General Plan update. Even with the financing strategies listed above, cost recovery occurs over a long period of time. While the Council may direct staff to research and adopt a fee for future applications, the cost for updating the General Plan in the near future will need to be paid for out of General Fund monies and approximately $1.4 million will need to be budgeted when the project is launched For this reason, the commitment to move forward on a comprehensive update to the City's Land Use, Circulation, and Parks and Recreation Elements Update will be a major resource allocation decision for the Council as it considers major City goals as of the 2009-11 Financial Plan process. And even with Measure Y funds, funding initiatives like this will be difficult given the fiscal challenges facing us from possible State budget takeaways, uncertain performance of key revenues like sales and property taxes and the recent results of the binding arbitration decision. ALTERNATIVES 1. No Additional Direction. The Council may choose not to provide direction to staff on changes to the project plan if the document is satisfactory as written. 2. Continue Discussion, The Council may choose to continue discussion if more information is needed on any particular component of the project plan. 3. Defer Comprehensive Update. Proceed with a more issue specific update, with issues to be identified at a subsequent Council meeting. ATTACHMENT Project plan for Land Use Element , Circulation Element, and Parks and Recreation Element update COUNCIL READING FILE 2007 Annual Report of the General Plan T:\LUE UpdateTroject Plan(CAR).DOC SS2-9 General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Update Project Plan The discussion below provides an overview of the general phases of the process. The narrative summary is followed by a more detailed task list. The project will begin with a request for general fund monies as part of the 2009-11 Financial Plan process. Consultant services will be secured through a request for proposal (RFP) process (most likely separate consultants for the overall project and the EIR). The consultants, with staff direction and participation, will develop the following: Early Policy Guidance and Scoping A public participation plan will be developed with the consultant and an evaluation of existing General Plan policies and goals will be conducted. A working group of City staff will form. Collection of data begins. 5 Background RgporUData Collection A Background Report will be developed. This report provides, information on a wide' range. of ` topics including economics (jobs, shopping, and employers), public safety, (fire, medical Iand police services), a housing inventory, parks and open space inventory, environmental resource;' inventory, land use inventory (including properties inclfided within the City's Sphere' of Influence), public services, and safety/hazard issues. The Draft Background report is an objective, policy neutral documentation of existing conditions and the regulatory'framework. The report serves as the description for the settings portion of the Environmental Document for the subsequent update to the General Plan. e The data required for development and validation of the traffic model includes details of land uses by square foot and use types by parcel. Parcel -level data .will be verified using the City's existing geographic information system, (GIS) and permit tracking information, as well as traffic counts, field verification, pre -tracking system permit information and address file information. Council will help appoint representatives to a citizens' task. force which will be comprised of stakeholder group representatives, advisory body members, and volunteers. A survey instrument will be designed and distributed as guided by the public participation plan developed early on in the update process. Traffic Model DeveloQment The City's existing traffic model has worked fairly'well in predicting vehicle traffic behavior and impacts for the last several years. The model is deficient in. that it does not take into account multi -modal behavior and regional and local land use and transportation. As such, bicycle, mass transit and pedestrian trips have never been evaluated as part of the circulation setting for the City. Public Works Department staff are currently working with LSA Associates to update the base -year traffic model. The model will need to be updated to provide forecasting and alternatives analysis. This may involve data collection :including: Origin -Destination Trip Collection, trip logs, frequency and travel time data collection;. , SS2-1D General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 — Project Plan Issues and Opportunity Report To understand the extent of review and update required for the Land Use Element. and Circulation Element, it is necessary to understand how well the existing policies and programs are serving the community. The Issues and Opportunities report will focus the community's attention on key issues, changes and opportunities that have major policy implications as the City of San Luis Obispo considers how to guide development over the next 20 years. The report uses information contained in the draft. Background Report along with survey responses, workshop input, City Staff observations and outreach efforts to summarize the issues identified. The report will discuss existing Land Use and Circulation Elements policies and implementing programs to determine where changes may be appropriate (i.e. completed programs most likely do not need to be re-evaluated). These goals, policies and programs will provide the core of topics for, public review. The report will not reach conclusions or suggest the manner in which the City should proceed in the development of the General Plan, but.it will identify issues of critical importance. Questions for the community include: Is the vision of how the community wants to grow still fairly accurate or have changes occurred calling for a new or revised vision? Are there different ways to achieve that vision that weren't available or utilized 15 years ago? Knowing what the community vision is and how it may have changed will guide the scoping for the update process. Alternatives Evaluations & Selection Staff and the consultant will work with the community, the advisory bodies, and City Council to develop, evaluate, and select land use and policy alternatives for evaluation. There will be traffic, fiscal; environmental, and community vision trade-offs associated with each alternative. Once a preferred alternative is selected, the land use plan can be drafted and a project description defined for environmental review. General Plan Preparation & Environmental Review Policies and programs are developed at this stage to respond to the land use plan. Where land use changes are identified that may have associated impacts (i.e. noise, air quality, traffic, etc.) policy additions or changes to other elements may be identified as part of the environmental review process. A draft EIR is then prepared based on the project description and a selected range of alternatives. Fiscal analysis of the General Plan is included at this stage. Public Hearings and AdUtion The draft general plan update and environmental document are evaluated through the public hearing process. A final EIR and General Plan documents and adopting resolutions and ordinances are prepared. The chart on the next page shows how the community participation general plan update and environmental review interact throughout the process. SS2 -11 General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 — Project Plan TASK DEFINITION Staff from all departments will be involved in the update process. In reviewing the experience of other communities, the typical commitment is an average of two full-time equivalent (FTE) staff positions for an update process in addition to the consultant and temporary help assistance. The update process will have varying time commitments during the life of the update, but on average, the City can expect to dedicate two existing FTEs to this effort. City staff involved to the greatest extent will be Community Development and Public. Works staff, but staff from Parks and Recreation, Utilities, Fire, Police, Finance and Administration will also be involved in this process. GENERAL PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS PHASES COMMUNITY PLANNING TASKS CEQA PRODUCTS PARTICIPATION Ton. to cetmg;Surveys, Identh`yingthelssues 1 & 2 Background Creation orCommuniry. - Advi '.Committee - Colkpdng and Analyzing tnfarmad" itvrrenmenta ng - KPT FsisdnoCanditiana Toll ' Meetings, surveys, Developing a Vision - and Inte"ime i Townhall Meeliitgs aitd Workshopsr—� Reviewing Altemativcs Altemativex:Evaluatian Initial DraftCommittee WorkvhoPn Prep9ring diePlan Prejspt Hespriptitm Preparing the BlR _ lmPpta$nelYats .DEB 7&S I Reviewing the Plan and EIft I EIR and Adopting the Pubtic Hearings -PClCHC/CC/ Othm Phase 1— Program Initiation: 4 months Mav — August 2009 During this phase, following consultant selection, the General Plan Team will establish the foundation for the General Plan Update, including tools to be used during the update, meeting with the Planning Commission and Council and initiating the public outreach program. Task 1.1 Initiate Program Authorization from Council Consult Office of Planning and Research website Distribute RFP Evaluate RFP responses and select consultant team Identify internal project team — together with consultant this becomes the "General Plan Team" Task 1.2 Scoping Develop a detailed work schedule w/consultant including schedules for community outreach and participation. SS2-IZ General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 — Project Plan Review and discuss overall format and organization of the GP Determine planning area boundary Review GIS and other data sources Task 1.3 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session: Project Initiation and General Plan overview. Appoint the General Plan Working Group. Task 1.4 Land Use Database — define and format GIS land use database for use in the General Plan update. This provides basis for development estimates. Task 1.5 Base Maps — define and format base maps for use in the General Plan update. Base maps are used for display presentation and throughout process. Uniform legends and title blocks are developed. Task 1.6 Project Website — initiate project website. This will provide current information throughout the process for status, download documents and presentations and provide a forum for public comment submittal to the City. Task 1,7 Newsletter —The General Plan Update Process —create and distribute (possibly via utility billing) Task 1.8 Community Workshops —General Plan update process Provide community and citizen groups an overview of what the General Plan does and how the process will progress over the next two -three years. Phase Products: • Detailed Project Schedule • Staff Reports • Project Base Maps • Land Use Database • Newsletter • Website • Community Workshop Summary rune L — Daunglouuu 1leuVCt: V 111unula ^UXU•L 4 7- ru"A uaa! �VA/ During this phase, the General Plan Team will update information on existing conditions and trends and identify the regulatory framework affecting the issues to be addressed in General Plan Policy. Preparation of the background' report includes review of documents such as the existing General Plan elements, Specific Plans, SOI report, Airport Land Use Plan, EIRs, Chamber of Commerce Strategic Plan, needs assessments, etc. Interviews and outreach to Cal Poly, Cuesta, advisory bodies, interest groups, and other agencies and organizations occurs at this time. The Citizens' Advisory Committee is formed. The objective is to develop and document a comprehensive picture of the existing conditions found in the City. Task 2.1 Hire interns/outreach to faculty and students to assist with validation of parcel data for traffic model. SS2-t3 General Plan Update Process I Attachment t - Project Plan Task 2.2 Administrative Draft Background Report -data collection to address topics: Introduction Regional Setting Planning Area Boundary Organization and Purpose of the Background Report Land Use City Limits and Planning Area Land Use Planning in San Luis Obispo General Plan Summary Zoning Summary Existing Land Use Sphere of Influence (SOI) Annexation Other Plans (i.e. Cal Poly Master Plan, County SLO plan) and Land Use Regulations Affecting San Luis Obispo Agencies Concerned with Land Use Planning in San Luis Obispo (i.e. Airport Land Use Commission) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Results Housing Housing Unit/Land Capacity Inventory Progress Report on Housing Element Update Demographics and Economic Conditions Historic Population Growth Population Characteristics Population Projections Employment Projections Economic Conditions in San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Economic Strategy Report Fiscal Considerations Revenue Sources/Available Capital Improvement Plan funding mechanisms Expenditures Transportation and Circulation. Street and Road System Parking Bus Service Rail Service Air Transportation Taxi Service Ride Sharing Pedestrian Network Bikeways SS 2-iq General Plan Update Process Attachment t — Project Plan Public Facilities and Services General Government Water Service Sewage Collection and Treatment Storm Drainage and Flood Protection Schools Fire Protection Law Enforcement Communications Solid Waste Disposal Emergency and Medical Services Recreational Resources Parks and Recreation Facilities Recreational Programs — Public and Commercial Natural Resources Open Space & Viewshed Water Resources — Supply & Quality Air Resources Historic and Cultural Resources Energy Resources Native Minerals Resources Riparian and Wetland Resources Wildlife and Habitat Resource§ &Corridors Agricultural Resources Health and Safety Seismic and Geologic. Hazards Flood Hazards Fire Hazards Noise (Traffic, Railroad, Airport, Commercial Activity — Noise Contours) Air Quality (Stationary Sources, Sensitive Receptors) Emergency Response Airport Hazards Hazardous Materials/Waste (Summary of Major Producers/Users) Urban Form and Design Major Physical Elements Community Form and Character Commercial Areas Industrial Areas Neighborhood Areas Streets and Highways Principal Landmarks/Historic Resources Major Developments in the Planning Stages SS2� ►S General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 — Project Plan Task 2.3 Develop Survey/Outreach Questions Task 2.4 Interview and Outreach to Interest Groups Task 2.5 Appoint Citizen's Advisory Committee and hold meetings Task 2.6 Transportation Forecast Model Development Finalize Transportation Data collection Origin -Destination Trip Collection Trip Logs, Frequency and Travel Time Data Collection Transportation Model Review and Determination Collect County & Other Jurisdiction Land -Use and Traffic Forecasting Data Prepare deficiency reports and future needs assessments Task 2.7 Public Review Draft Background Report Task 2.8 Community Workshop —Background Report —Discussion of Issues Task 2.9 Newsletter —Background Report Overview Phase Products: • Administrative Draft Background Report • Survey Instrument • Interview Responses • Public Review Draft Background Report • Newsletter Website Update • Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summary • Community Workshop Summary , During this phase, the General Plan Team will summarize key issues and opportunities based on Draft Background Report Findings, input from the community through workshops and stakeholder interviews, City staff and consultant observations, and feedback from the Joint Study Sessions. Following community workshops, the General Plan Team will develop an overall Land Use and Circulation vision for the future of San Luis Obispo based on community input. Task, 3.1 Issues and Opportunities Summary Task 3.2 Newsletter- Overview of Issues and Opportunities Task 3.3 Community Workshops: Issues and Opportunities Address General and Specific Areas: Dalidio, SOI areas, Special Design Areas charrettes (Foothill, Madonna, Grand, Monterey, Sunset Drive-in) Task 3.4 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session General Plan Update Process Attachment t — Project Plan Phase Products: • Summary of Key Issues and Opportunities • Draft Vision Statement Staff Reports • Newsletter • Citizen's Advisory Committee Meetings Summary • Community Workshop Summary • Website Update Phase 4 - Alternatives Report — 6-7 months May — November 2010 During this phase, the General Plan Team will work with the community, Advisory Bodies, Planning Commission and the Council to develop, evaluate, and select land use and circulation policy alternatives to create a framework for the new General Plan. Task 4.1 Develop Policy and Land Use and Circulation Alternatives - The Team will develop three alternative growth scenarios for land use needs for the community based on data research and analysis, the public input process and population projections for the area. Supporting maps, graphics, and narrative suitable for public review to illustrate the range of alternativeswill be developed. The Team will develop policy alternatives to address the key issues and opportunities identified in Phase 3. Task 4.2 Evaluate Growth Alternatives — The Team will evaluate the three selected alternatives to understand impacts to existing/programmed public facilities, impacts to the environment, and fiscal implications. Population projections based on land use build - out will be developed. Task 4.3 Administrative Draft Issues and Alternatives Report — from Tasks 2 and 3 Task 4.4 Public Draft Issues and Alternatives Report — After hrterrial Review/Comment Task 4.5 Newsletter — Alternatives Task 4.6 Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings - Alternatives Task 4.7 Community Workshops — Alternatives Task 4.8 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Phase Products: • Administrative Draft Issues and Alternatives Report • Public Review Draft Issues and Alternatives Report • Staff Reports • Newsletter • Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summary • Workshop Summary • Website Update SS2-P General Plan Update Process Attachment t — Project Plan During this phase, the General Plan Team will draft a set of goals, policies, and implementation measures for the Land Use and Circulation Elements in addition to changes that are needed to other elements to ensure consistency. Task 5.1 Administrative Draft Goals and Policy Report to include vision statements and goals, policies and implementation measures Land Use Element including economic development policies. Appropriateness of current land use designations .& policies for meeting residential, commercial and industrial needs of community, Land use guidance needed to. achieve urban form desired. Economic balance: Identifying new SOI boundary. • Circulation Element — establish. baseline of circulation improvements needed to support projected growth within City at acceptable service levels. Identify scope and timing of improvements. • Global climate change policy identification • Housing Element updates resulting from other changes • Noise Element updates resulting from other changes • Safety Element updates resulting from other changes • WaterfWastewater'Element updates resulting from other changes • Conservation and Open Space Element updates resulting from changes • Parks and Recreation Element updates resulting from other changes • Setting information from Background Report will be bound separately to be shared by General Plan and EIR Task 5.2 Land Use Diagram — draft diagram that shows preferred alternative. Identify land use designations, population density and building intensity. Task 5.3 Circulation Diagram - show preferred alternative. Task 5.4 Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Task 5.5 Community Workshops Task 5.6 Public Review Draft Policy Document Task 5.7 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Session Phase Products: • Administrative Draft Policy Document • Public Review Draft Policy Document • Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summary • Community Workshop Summary • Staff Reports • Website Update SS2 -19 General Plan Update Process Attachment t — Project Plan - 1-n mnncnc Jannnr - During this phase, the consultant with input from staff, will prepare a Draft EIR analyzing the potential impacts of the Draft General Plan (project description). The EIR will be designed to meet the requirements of CEQA and to streamline future City consideration of development and public•works projects consistent with the General Plan. Task 6.1, Notice of Preparation Distribution Task 6.2 Planning Commission Scoping Meeting Task 6.3 Administrative Draft EIR Executive Summary- setting, impacts, mitigations, & alternatives Introduction Impacts and Mitigation Measures Land Use Circulation Sustainability and Global Climate Change Other Elements as impacted by proposed changes Alternatives Analysis Cumulative Impacts Other Regional CEQA Issues Fiscal Analysis Task 6.4 Internal staff review of Administrative Draft EIR Task 6.5 Public Draft EIR — 45 .day public review Task 6.6 Citizens' Advisory Committee meetings Phase Products: • Staff reports • Administrative Draft EIR • Public Review Draft Elk • Citizens' Advisory Committee Meetings Summary • Website Update rnaso / - runic tcevrew — o months August 2011— March 2012 During this phase, the General .Plan Team will assist the community, advisory bodies, Planning Commission and City Council in the review of the Draft General Plan and Draft MR, culminating in Council direction for changes to the Draft General Plan. The Citizens' Advisory Committee members will be encouraged to attend and participate during the public hearings. Task 7.1 Newsletter —draft General Plan and draft EIR Task 7.2 Advisory Body Hearings Task 7.3 Planning Commission hearings S32 -17 General Plan Update Process Attachment t — Project Plan Task 7.4 City Council Hearings Phase Products: • Newsletter • Staff reports • Website update a ,.an o - r-a• Uocamenrs ana aaoprron — z-o montns Alarctr ZU1Z Aaeust 2012 During this phase, the General Plan Team will prepare the final versions of the General Plan Goals and Policies Report and the EIR for final review and adoption. by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Citizens' Advisory Committee members will be encouraged to attend and participate during the public hearings. Task 8.1 Respond to Public Comments on Draft EIR (DEIR) Comments received during public review of the DE1R are responded to by Consultant. Task 8.2 Prepare Final EIR (F'EIR) Overriding considerations (if needed) developed for certification. Task 8.3 Final General Plan Documents — corrections/updates Task 8.4 Adoption Hearings Phase Products: • Camera -Ready General Plan and EIR documents, CDs, and PDFs or HTML for web Public Outreach Proeram Public outreach is a key part of the update program and the Public Participation Plan will be developed with the consultant's assistance. The outreach needs to be initiated early to make the community aware of opportunities to establish an accurate understanding of the process. Timing of the outreach is listed within the phases and is summarized below. Project Website: Interactive website containing current information on status of the project, downloadable documents and presentations, and a way to send information and input to appropriate staff. Establish a General Plan update (moderated) blog. Monitor the site to ensure responses are appropriate for publishing. Online survey E-Updates: Develop an email contact list and send regular updates to maintain interest and generate participation. Work with Chamber of Commerce a -blast to get information out to business community. SS2-2j General Plan Update Process Attachment t — Project Plan Newsletter: Produce graphic -rich newsletter that provide information about process at key points. These can be developed as PDFs to email to list above. Distribute flyers through the schools. Media Outreach - Meet with The Tribune, New Times, and SLO Journal staff at beginning of process to develop contact and conduit for information exchange. Contact radio stations for Public Service Announcements. Prepare news releases on the process and key elements of the update. Keep an on -going update on Channel 20. Surveys: Prepare a survey instrument and distribute to the community. Citizens' Advisory Committee: Citizens' Advisory Committees have been used to gather on -going input from community groups. The role of the group needs to be clearly defined and establishing membership of the group participants can present challenges as there are a multitude of stakeholder groups and limited membership available. Size of the group is critical — too small is not representative, however more than about 15 becomes unwieldy. The Consultant will assist with defining effective methods for community outreach and participation. The Council will be asked during the data collection phase to appoint Citizens' Advisory Committee members who will participate throughout the process. Presentations to Community interest groups (Speakers Bureau): Offer to speak before community and stakeholder groups. These groups include Kiwanis, Rotary, Board of Realtors, Home Builders Association, American Institute of Architects, schools, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association, City residents —both current and future, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, Downtown Association, the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County, Sierra Club, County of San Luis Obispo, band Conservancy, Cal Poly/Cuesta, Elementary, Junior High and High . Schools, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, Caltrans, All City Departments, Air Pollution Control District, PGE, Gas Company, Phone company, cable and other utility providers, Regional Transit Authority, Amtrak,. Union Pacific Railroad, Transportation providers (both medical and school), Airport operations, County Visually impaired committee, CalFire, Local Tribal Contacts, Advisory Groups, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Media, Office of Emergency Services, Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Service, youth sports groups, seniors, housing providers, non -profits, interested people on EIR distribution list, and more. Stakeholder interviews: Interview key community leaders, Council members, Advisory body members, etc. Community Workshops: Hold workshops at key points in the process to inform/educate and solicit feedback. Use breakout sessions, graphics, walking tours, interactive sessions to get input. Charrettes may be used for key design areas. SS2-2 General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 — Project Plan Farmers' Market Set up an information booth at Thursday and Saturday, Farmers' Market. and distribute newsletters, answer questions, get people involved. Public Hearings & Study Sessions Advisory bodies and Council. Other considerations: Are translation services during meetings and outreach in other language(s) for written materials needed? If so, which languages? Spanish would be most likely need-, City Hall/919 Palm Open House Displays: Have updates and on -going display area for "P1anSLO" process in City Hall and 919 Palm S3 2 - 22 General Plan Update Process Attachment 1 — Project Plan ©■■■M■M■■ I[�■■■■■■i■■! j 0■■■■■■m■■ ��■■■■■■�■■ ©0■■M■M■■-1-00■■■■i■■i�4 ©■■■=■E'-iti lMM■■■■■■M■■!1 Li o■■■■�■r ■ia��■■■■■■�■■r 0■■■m■■ mi",1mm■■■■■■m■■W _o ©■■■=n■' ONOM■■■■■■S■■M 0■■■�f' list■��■■■■■■�■■�i i3 ii3mol 0■■■mi;i0■mm■■■■■■m■■ri 0■■■S'i1Gl�■��■■■■■■�■■Fl 0 0 0■■■■, i Gi o■■■■!Ej , 0■■1,;1i■�■��■■■■■■�■■iirs_0 It 0 ©■iil<1�■�■��■■■■■■!■■i1 =0■! 0■i-1■�■�■ice■■■■■■�■■ic, 111�■�■ice■■■■■■�■■Fa i3 0 0■1-1■�■tt■��■■■■■■m■■i=1 0 0■Ii■�■�■��■■■■■■�■■Fj 0 331111 111 i - r li n SSZ-2� AitAGffIKEW 2 Residents for Quality-Nel P.O. Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, DATE: August 18, 2008 TO: San Luis Obispo City Council VIA: Hand Delivery MEETING DATE: 8-19-08, ITEM # SS-2 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED 2009-11 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, The issue before you is a request to approve "the fundamentals" of a proposed process to update the City's Land Use, Circulation, and Park and Recreation Elements. The primary purpose of the general plan update process and the resulting general plan should be to get input from and represent the wishes of the of San Luis Obispo city residents. This most critical "fundamental" is neither stated nor implemented in the proposed plan before you. In this plan, the terms "residents", "citizens""stakeholders", "community" and "public" are used interchangeably when, in fad, they a,re not the same. Citizens are, by definition, residents. Stakeholders may not be City residents, but, they have a large presence in the planning process, often representing development or business interests. "Input" and "buy in" from non-resident stakeholders is highly desirable, however, it is not the primary purpose of either the general plan process or the general plan. The proposed plan [Agenda Report, p.SS2- 31 states that the general plan process for charting a vision and plan for growth "must be based on community participation and stakeholder 'buy -in'." What about resident buy in? A "resident -based process" begins with an early survey of residents to Identify issues and create a "baseline" of their desires and wishes for the community. All council and mayoral candidates supported this approach for the current update at RQN's last City Council candidates forum. This approach is not clearly incorporated in the plan. An early survey of residents_ was the critical component in the City's last Land Use Element update. It is attached for your convenience. Auciust18 Zoos RQN - Study Session Re: General Plan Update Page 2 We strongly support re -using the same survey with perhaps a few additional questions added to cover new issues. Comparing resident responses.to the same questions regarding issues such as growth, traffic, air quality etc. is also the only accurate way to answer staffs question of whether the community's values have changed. "Knowing what the community vision is and how it may have changed will guide the scoping of the update process," [Agenda Report, p. SS2-11]. Paying a consultant to write a new survey will not answer that question and is certainly not economical. Taking town hall meetings into the neighborhoods is also good public policy. This was also done in the City's last Land Use Element update and should be done in this update process. In a "resident based process" the clear majority of "Citizens Advisory Committee" members must represent city residents. Task forces in which the majority of members represent non- resident "stakeholders" are by definition not "resident -based". In discussing the "Citizens advisory committee membership' the plan before you refers to the challenge of choosing among the "multitude of stakeholder groups ". [Agenda Report, p. SS2-211. There was no public participation in the preparation of this proposal [last. paragraph, p. SS2-51. It is clear to us that this proposed plan is not resident -based. We, therefore, respectfully request that you continue the discussion and give direction to staff that the primary purpose of the general plan update process and the resulting general plan shall be to get input from and represent the wishes of the people who live in this City. The update process plan must be rewritten to reflect this. This is the only way that the general plan will reflect the desires and wishes of the residents who will live with the resulting growth, air quality, traffic and other impacts. Respectfully submitted, A,� A"N Brett Cross Chairperson, RQN Attachment "A" Opinion Survey Summary CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 OPINION, SURVEY RESULTS As part of the general plan update, the city conducted a survey of residents' opinions on broad development issues, The survey was mailed on May 16,.1988, to 2,096 of the city's roughly 17,000 residential addresses. One week later, reminder postcards were mailed. Each residential address. in the city had an. equal .chance, of receiving,a survey .form.. By the May 3! deadline„ 585 (28 percent) of the'mail-back survey forms had been returned. Statisticians consider this number of responses adequate fora valid sample. Questions and responses are summarized below,:.The numbers in brackets at the. end of each Question or subsection show the percentages. of returned survey forms with some response. (To encourage respondentsto make choices,: the "no opinion" option was not included on the survey form, though it was included In the tabulations.) This report does not include analysis'or comments oa the results, City.staff.will : prepare a separate analysis and commentary, probably in combination with. results from Other methods to obtain citizen opinions —the neighborhood workshops and committee meetings. I. "How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Luis Obispo?" [97.6%] High - 77% Medium - 22% Low - 1%. ( r• ) a do ou see as San Luis Obisno's reatest problem This was an open-ended question. Staff categorized the write-in responses. Some . People indicated more than one item...All named items were included in the tabulation. s •v....E mo rre uen mentioned item was excessive growth, (247 responses), olIowed. by traffic and road conditions 9 , ousing . or a r tty and condition (45). water availability (46), job opportunities and wages (38), availability of Parking (29), and homeless isues (27). About 40 other items were mentioned' --including Diablo Canyon and other public safety issues-- with each 'having fewer than 18 responses. (/ 3• "What do you sec as San Luis Obispo Is greatest strength?' This also was an open-ended question. The most freguen natural. 'r and o .ea space; (199 r geographic location/climate (15&), the sense of eom099 i presence of colleges (24), and downtown (18). tponses), followed by and cooperation (108), 4. This gaestioD listed 13 aspects of quality of life and asked whether each was "very," "somewhats" or "not" important. The categories with a majority responding "very. Lim portant" (and the percentage responses) were Natural environment 119 rime Ievels (80%) Property maiatenaacc a11j fitter controi (72%) Paee of life (61%) Educational opportunities (61%) Doanttowa. character. a€ud activities'(Sc%) Conveniaaee in gc4ting arova (SI%) The th4s40,3 pects`witW.tiM higb*M percGntage,respanding -some hat important" were: Recreation/eatertainment OPPortUn ties (54%) Shopping opportunities (50%) 00pef€umdo6 t6 participate in government decisions (48°k) The three fatGgOr1ES rCCeiving the highest' percentage; ft)r'not impOrtanY wC:C Cultural diversity (26%) Jit6'e3 [percentages responding for each aspect ranged from 9&5% to 95%) 5. This question asked people `how'satisfEied they were with each of the aspects of quality of life listed in question number 4. Possible options included "vcry satistfteV. "neutral," and "very, dissatisfied." Wre than one-half the respondents were v with these aspects: Natural environment (71%) Pace of life (65%) Educational opport�t (� DowntOwa character aal activities {60%) Aspects with more than one-half "neutraP responses were: Cultural diversity (6d96), Opportunities toparticipate ih government decisions'(63%) . Job opportuaities'(60%) Recreation of entgrtainment opportunities (51%) The three aspects with the highest percentages of every dissatisfied" responses were. Housing opportunities (31%) Convenience in. getting around'.(25%) Job opportunities (25%) (The houstawI And Jobs aspects`also received the lowest percentages of *very satisfied' responses: IlWand 15%; respectively.) (Percentages responding for each aspect ranged from 97.1% to 95.2%1 ^6 f 6.This gtrenfoh asked- people to' name one area oi.( the-jity, they particularly: enjoyed The three most frequently aimed places, with the corresponding percent of responses, were: Downtown (33%) Mission plan (24%) Greek areas (15%) Other places named were Laguna Lake Pari4.other parks{ -peaks and.. hillsides; and the Old Town area, each with less than i%' ' 5onie people named more than one place; all were tabulated (This question was answered by 86.2%.] 7. This question asked people to name one area of the city they did. not enjoy. The three most frequently named places, with the were corresponding percent of responses, Lowe: liignerafSonW Street..acea (23%) . . atfali �_; FPg i9hiiteis (l3%) Dowif t9%). Other places named were hitcfiel Pal La una' g. with less than M Some people named more than on and ai all we r were -tabulated. Street, each Question was answered by 64.Ml p all were tabulated [This 1 e• )Which of the fotlowisi support?" app9 roaches.to ,determining allowable growth in:the: city da:you s [99.1%] Respondents could indicate support for one or more of the following approaches. The percent of survey forms with a favorable response to each approach are listed below. Beep growth this availi6le resources (such as .water suppacs):•85% Avoid harm to the nsittiral environment (such as air quality}: 79% Set a total population number which would notbe exceeded: 26% Set a boundary which the city would not grow beyond: 30% Set a maximum growth rate:.46%. Let the overall growth of the communityl,"ow.from specific goals (for example, more manufacturing jobs, or preserving certain open space areasr 33% Ten percent -indicated "Do not set growth limits" D "If the city as to seta maximum population size or a boundary to outward growth, which =0wthe iolb6WiW*OUld'you prefer?" (97.4] The possible choices and percent indicating support for each were: A reduction in city size or population 5% No or very little increase in city size or population: 35% A -modest increase in city size or population: 39% A substantial increase in city size or population: A I do not favor such limits: 17% . (Does not total to' 100%' duc to rounding:) D "If the city was to set a maximum city growth rate; which once of the following would you prefer?' [97.3%] The possible choices and percent indicating support for each were: / No -growth: IS% Some increase, but much slower than the state or the county as a whole: 51% Growing no =fasterthaII Sau Luis Obispo County as a whole: 19% 1 do not favor such a limit 15% 11. reserving the natural qualities of an area can require limits qn development and tconomic growth. What limits are you willing to set for the following types of development. in order to help maintain qualities such as open space and relatively clean air and uncrowded parks and roads" The percentages of respondents indicatin each choice are shown below. Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding. [Percentages responding to each item ranged from 97.1 to 94.] Extent of D veloemenr No A little Mnch No Tyne ofdevelopment' More ' More More Limit a. Housing 21 60 12 6 b. Tourist/visitor serving 32 43 13 12 C. Manufacturing 33 49 13 5 d. Shopping/stores 35 46 14 6 e. Cultural/entertainment 13 47 26 13 f. Medical, legal, financial services 46 37 8 8 g. Government agencies/ -� institutions 55 ? -36 4 5 12. Accomm9dating development and economic growth can lead to reduced. quality in other T of --Tr— WFuEN—ara ou wslltag to at t e ;oo owing unn as table factors increase, to accommodate additional' development ana economic growl The percentages of respondents indicating each choice are shown below.. `Totals may not equal' 10tNfts due to rounding. [Percentages responding to each item ranged from 97.9 to 94.5.1 Extent of increase None A Little Substantial a... Air pollution 83 15 2 b: Car'rtruck—�fic noise My 30 3 a Aircraft noise' 54 40 6 Crowding/delay: d. On streets &' roads 60 36 4 a At parking act es — 52 r 42 6 f. At parks or recreation facilities 38 52 10 Development on: S. Peaks, hillsides 66 26 8 h. Farmland, ranchland 51 41 9 i Creeks marshes 67 27 6 $ Ovbtalt'intensity of'developmetit " 46 50 5 k. Overall; pace of life 51 43 6 13. "San Luis Obispo and the surrounding area includb'about one-half of the jobs in the whole county, and about. on"aarter of the houses and apartments. The imbalance between jobs aad hbwsiag results iiCconimating ''How much effort do you think should go into each of the following approaches to deal with this situation?" The percentages of respondents indicating each. choice are shown below. Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding. [Percentages responding to each item ranged from 97.1 to 94.4.1 No Some Much Effort Effort Effort a. Expand roads and parking facilities. 17 56 27 b. Discourage commuting by individual drivers and encourage use of busses, 9 34 57 van pools, and carpools. c: Discourage additional jobs and college enrollment in San Luis Obispo. 51 31 18 d. Encourage housing development in San Luis Obispo. 45 37 17 This question also included a fill-in space for other methods to deal with commuting pressures: -Vary few respondents indicated other methods, and some filled in things they wanted or did not want which were not related to commuting. S 14. This question asked people to indicate which of the following forms of development they supported t4 accomtgodate whatever: new. housing would be allowed in 'the city. Respondents could indicate support for any of the following approaches, The possible approaches aid the percent of survey forms with a favorable response to each approach are listed below. ' [95.2%1 Using vacant lots in existing neighborhoods for buildings like those which have been built in the neighborhood: 81% In existing neighborhoods, using vacant lots for larger or more closely spaced buildings than have been built there: 14% In existing neighborhoods, replacing small buildings with larger ones: 13% At the city's edges, having: small or widely spaced buildings: 41% At the city's edges, having large or closely spaced buildings: 13% Replacing commercial buildings with housing: 13% 15. This question asked people to indicate which of the following formsofdevelopment they supported to accommodate whatever new stores, banks, and offices would be allowed in the city. Respondents could indicate support for any of the following approaches. The possible approaches and the percent of survey forms with a favorable response to each approach are listed below. 193.V61 In existing commercial areas, using vacant lots for new buildings generally like smaller ones which have been built there: 65% In existing commercial areas, replacing small buildings with larger ones: 37% At the city's edges, having small buildings: 28%. At the city's edges, having. largebuild ngk 21% Replacing housing with commercial buildings: 3% i 16. This question asked people to indicate whether they wanted less,:the.same, or more.:of the following types of land uses it certain areas, compared with 'cuirentconditions. The percent indicating each choice is listed.. Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding. (Percentages responding to each item ranged from 97.1 to•94.9.). Less Same More a. Srdilr Second dwellb.2& ("granny units") in areas that are mostly individual houses. 28 44 27 b. Specialty stores (such as books or clothing) . in small neighborhood shopping centers. 20 54 25' C. Offices (doctors, lawyers) in small neighborhood shopping centers. 26 55 18 d. Nursing homes;. churches. or schools ; ,, 27 57 15 in areas flint are mostly individual houses. C. Bars and nightclab's downtown. 42 49 9 f. Restaurants and movie theaters downtown 14 69 17 g. In residential areas, home businesses with no employees, other than residents of the, house or utnvolvtng.sm-apartmentb-scale. product assembly or customer visits 26 53 21 h. Convenience stores. in residential`are" 28', 57. t5 i. A-uto repair'ddwiitown or in shopping centers 29 63 8 ).. Small city parks in residential areas 3 31 65 This question also included a fill-in space€or other items. Very few respondents indicated other items. Responses were not tabulated. 7. Vhis question asked wheiher the city should. orovide less., about the same. or These categories and the cotresponding percentage responses, Flood prevention/control (73%) Sidewalk improvements (71%) Bus service/shelters; Recreation programs; Sewage system. (each 67%y Emergency services/disaster response; Law enforcement for traffic safety; Public art (each 6.4%) Law i torcEment f`or -nuisances/zoning; Street maintenance (each 61%) Street trees & street landscaping (60%) Parking downtown (58%) Parks & playfields (56%) Preserving historic buildings, Law enforcement for violence/thefts; Street widening/signals (each 55%) Performing arts (5146) m lot Tesooailents favored, Keeping pealed and; hillsteles open (56%) Additional wrater'souroes (5M Keeping creeks and marshes open (51%) In four categories, a majority did not want the same level of service, but there was no majority favoring either more or less service: Category Less Same More Bicycle paths 10 43 46 Keeping farm/ranch land open 11 42 46 Housing for low income 23 40 36 Shelter for homeless 24 37 39 For no category did majority ofrespondents favor a lower level of service. However, the three categories receiving the greatest"percentage favoring a lower level of service, and the corresponding percentage responses, were: Shelter for homeless (24%) Housing for low-income (23%) Public art (14%) This question also asked :1L more of a aettain type of service was favored, should it be funded by paying more in taxes or fees; or -by diverting, money.from other services? For the three categories with a ma'ori favorin more serv:Lcl the distribution of un - e erence responses arc indicated below: Th4sb numbers are the percentages of those favoring more service for each category who prefer the indicated funding method Category Pay More `Divert Money Both Keeping peaks land hillsides open 52 42 2 Additional water sources 63 34 2 t/ Keeping creeks and marshes open 57 40 3 Disregarding preferences on levels: of service, the three categories with the highest percentage support for paying'more is taxes or fees, are indicated below. These numbers ate the' percentages -of those favoring more service for each category who prefer the indicated funding method. Performing arts (70%) Law enforcement concerning violence/thefts (64%) Additional water sources-(63%) Again disregarding preferences on levels of service, the four categories with the highest perccntage support for diverting money from other categories were: Preserving historic buildings (53%) Housing for low income f52%) Law enforcement c6aeesnin8'nul§ances/zoning (52%) Flood prevention/control (50%) [Percentages responding to each category ranged from 91.1 t9 96.9.1 f 18. This'open-ended question asked people to name the facility os service not avatIabio ._ in San Lois Obispe=WBielY thy- woi-U& l0ce to havb.` Very few respondents �dicattd something. -#r fa*--mea'dtoaed'th ags`wFffcit ale af#egdy sysilibie to some'extent (tout] county'but-conaftdo � bAplacemeat'service art.mit*hm). R'espoases wer�`aat tabulated Questions asad>; Q Reaaneyrt and" empl8ymcnE status; were to check whether survey respoadeatt: atera=sme ar to=the .popnlati'on as a whtrte About 35% of'respon Buts were renters, while the latest (1980) census figures indicated 53% of'ihe city i' households rented A comparison of employment status shows that retired people were somewhat over -represented, while students were under -represented 45% : 33% 46% 31`% 23% Responses of the various subgroups were compared with those from the whole sample to see if the different participation mtwhy,`the "subgroups substantially 'affectedthe- esaits summarized above. Thr•mayor conclusions are noted b'ehm. tudents The number of students responding (66) was probably not sufficient for a valid opinion sample for all questions. Students' agreed that the natural environment was very important as an.aspect of Reality of life. Howevgr.=.in comparison with, the whole Ipotsulidea.-Audents'st* tduca( anal opportunities and hotwingroomostuaider as more important;' and property "Uteaantc and pace of rife -as ;eft important, levels of satisfaction' with tree lrarnous aspeofs were" very similar to the whole sample. Concerning growth approaches, students strongly supported avoiding harm to the natural environment (91%), while their preferences for city size and growth rate were very similar to the whole sample. Students' willingness to accept limits on various types of development or reductions in quality -of -life features also was similar to the whole sample. Concerning ways to deal with jobs -housing imbalance, students would give a little more emphasis to roads and parking facilities and less effort to discouraging jobs and college enrollment. Regarding types of land uses, students generally agreed with the whole sample, but were more tolerant of downtown bars and nightclubs and home businesses.' Retired people saw property maintenance as a little more important and downtown character and activities as less important than the whole sample. They were "slightly less satisfied with the natural environment. sampl^.They arM Sit 1' anise wt{tuiJ(s tnd entertainmesi faei ffies, while their will suality-of-life features was about the same. to accept n avalabiet :� .. the .whole %%units on cultural Ins in UsliheStttd t9rretirod:peopt4.toadeddAa; avo ;£�vxer.bars:,aad:n #►te}nbsdowatown and.-. they weral .tupporuvq of hoata bustaesses lnterestingiy,,they werc also slightly less supportive of tgxamy units,". Renters [testers s�so{e,;sc kai less sup ott ye of growthksmiss based as city size or growth race, as t7ia� �veie a liffie "firs vc'Aiing to accept limited housing development. (However, a Substantial majority --64%— favored growing much slower than the county;ar the state, if at alL). They would be 4ghtly more accepting -of increases,in intensity of development, but matched the whole sample in opposition to more air pollution and traffic noisy:' Phi survey ioa�usled with atx'opei MAat;estwP I7 €¢.cotr}ment oil the survey, the psbjects it covered, or any other items of .Js+�-iaterom :Sc�errai le. wrote. comteeats ;overing a wide range of subjects and points of view. City staff has not yet tried to tabulate or summarize these comments, but appreciates the thoughts. people shared. Some quota from the comments may be included in the commentary. rabuiations [his summary ei i susveg results as aiteadal tis reAart basic findings is Qn easily inderstood fors4 6' Mi plet4 VuISWY mbnlatsoas are evaiiablo for: refire e:at. the :ommunity Devekapmellt t 3it,GEy-Hall. 990 Balm Stteet:(P,0:13ox 8100), San Luis )bispo, California, 934634100; phone g05-549-7160. ml/results 2 cx . nc8 Mims a� r T , August 19, 2W8 r d ios► C0ungl provided tt1B d di ec rt Ufa � a# r 5 (, �:� ' �:ad �_� allow lac_ �tii+�r cFirr�ni .. y o me co�snnur>;hr �Y lid w- `owid Mtwo z o • l } •'i'i: � • '. • •. , �... •. ��'� " c w:= I. • �'. -',: air r i+ �1 t AT'r&CRM.EPlT 3 Council Minutes Following discussion, Council provided the • Council Members and staff agreed that na6ahborhand hacorl but still allnw fnr c Tuesday, August 19, 2008 comments and direction to staff. I • Staff will be sensitive to the cost concern ind will look at options for phasing and alternative funding methods. However, General Plan updates are ultimately expensive and Council will need to weigh he priority of a Land Use Element update within context of all other possible prioritie 5 competing for resources as part of the 2009-11 Financial Plan. • If the update is established as a Major will look at ways to accelerate some of to start in May 2009. Goal by Council in January 2009, staff steps that were targeted in the draft plan • Staff should use legislative drafts as a tool to make it clear to citizens what is being changed when amending plans. Staff will JO so to the maximum extent feasible and practical during the update. • The proposed sequence of steps outlined in the plan seems generally agreeable, with the understanding that the staff will review the draft to potential) make it clearer that the process, and each major step, will start wtt ❑marily resident involvern . • The Parks and Recreation Element shall n t be tied to the Land Use Element update and instead will proceed on its own track. • The survey used in 1988 should be used as a point of departure in developing a new survey, but staff should also_ be open to ne Nand more relevant questions and methodologies for assuring a representativ a, scientific sampling of community sentiment and vision. 3. DEVELOPMFNT CnnieFDT of A\I rn n\U+DC^A T.w L.. 11......,... introduced this item. Carol Florence, representing Congregation Be h David, John and Susan Madonna, Rowly and Cathy Twissleman, and Tim and KE ren Twisse►man, reviewed the area for which the owners would like to be allowed to p ocess an annexation, General Plan amendment, and development request in advance of the more comprehensive Land Use and Circulation Element update process. In response to CAO Hampian, Ms. Florence cc property owned by Clint and Connie Pierce or Public Comments d that she is not representing the Madonna. 1 10 Ai iA4:2-N MEN i 4 �Iillllllll��������l I�IIIIIII�I council memoizanbum DATE: December 9, 2011 TO: City Council r VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DAT7 �4 / ITEM #B__ FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Department Director Prepared by: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development Department SUBJECT: Item Bl : Major City Goal —Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update The purpose of this memo is to provide the Council with an update on the LUCE Request for Proposal process and describe the proposed structure and process for forming a Community General Plan Task Force (GPTF). Six firms submitted competitive proposals for the LUCE update. Four of those teams were interviewed and thoroughly vetted by a local team of City staff, a SLOCOG staff member and an advisory body member. All of the submitted proposals were within the approved budget and consistent with the advertised scope of work. Staff is now completing reference checks for the top consultant team. As a consent item for January 3, staff will prepare an agenda report providing Council and the public with an overview of the selection process. On January 170', staff will bring forward a recommendation for how to structure the Community General Plan Task Force (GPTF). The following is a description of the proposed structure and process that will be followed to form the GPTF. What is a GPTF? In addition to the extensive public outreach component associated with the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements, it is typical to have a General Plan Task Force (GPTF) comprised of residents and stakeholder group representatives. The ag function of the GPTF is to inform the process at key points, provide feedback and recommendations, and disseminate information to respective stakeholders and related interest People groups. Staff is recommending the use of the "triple bottom line" concept — People, Prosperity, and Planet — to identify organizations within constituencies that could represent the community on the GPTF. While participants may have a primary focus that represents one component, the expectation is that members will have overlapping interests that intersect and create a balanced and representative community vision for the future of San Luis Obispo. The goal of a GPTF is to bring the varied visions of community members to bear on the discussions central Land Use and Circulation Elements Update to the LUCE update and to identify where intersections of thought and points of agreement are found. Previous direction from Council and good planning principles confirm that City residents are critically important to the General Plan update process. In addition to resident participation on the GPTF, stakeholder groups have been identified as important to the process. The GPTF meetings will be open to the public and members of the public will have an opportunity to address the GPTF. The task force will not become a standing advisory body, but would be ad - hoc committee subject to the Brown Act and will have a sunset date corresponding to the completion of the General Plan update process. GPTF Composition The composition of the GPTF should be representative of broad community interests. To that end, staff has identified various groups with respect to their interest areas that will have a particular interest in the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements. There are likely other groups that will be engaged in the update process, and this list serves as a starting point for discussion and focused public outreach. People Prosperity Planet Residents Save Our Downtown Siena Club Residents for Quality Neighborhoods Downtown Association SLO GreenBuild Students Chamber of Commerce ECOSLO Cal Poly Administration Home Builders Association Bicycle Coalition San Luis Coastal School District Financial community CCCMB CAPSLO Hospitals RideShare Housing Authority Arts Community Transitions -Mental Health Caltrans Community Foundation SLO Property Owners' Association Parent-Teacher Association TBID Youth Sports Association EVC Non-profit groups SLOCOG Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission Count — Health and Plannin Area Agency on Aging The General Plan update will include robust public involvement and interaction, and staff and the consultant team will fully engage all representative groups. The consultant team the City is currently negotiating with has a dynamic and very engaging public outreach component that will provide multiple opportunities and methods for public input. The GPTF should be comprised of community volunteers who can represent the perspectives and interests of their constituencies. Land Use and Circulation Elements Update The participants should also view potential conflicts as problems to be solved on behalf of the community rather than battles to be won. At the January 17 meeting, it will be recommended that Council select the make-up of stakeholders to comprise the GPTF, with the actual members being determined by the Council through a subsequent nomination/application process. The number of members should be a workable size (7-13 members) in order to be responsive and effective in completing the update within the grant timeframe of 2 1/s years. Once Council identifies the stakeholder groups to be included in the GPTF, those groups will be asked to nominate a member who can commit to fully participate in the process. For resident at - large representation, staff recommends advertising for volunteers and for Council to form a subcommittee to interview and nominate participants to the GPTF. Both stakeholder group nominations and Council selection sub -committee nominations would be subject to Council confirmation. More details of the process along with associated GPTF ground rules and appointment procedures will be provided at the January 17, 2012 meeting. Staff has not done outreach to any organizations. Staff felt it was imperative to check with the Council before staff began any stakeholder outreach. Based on preliminary internal discussions, best practices and past participation, the GPTF could be comprised of the following organizations and residents: Number GroMR in alphabetical order) Category 1 Cal Poly People I Chamber of Commerce Prosperity 1 Downtown Association Prosperity 1 Home Builders Association Prosperity 1 Planning Commission All 2 Residents at large People 1 RQN People 1 Save Our Downtown People I Sierra Club Planet 1 SLO GreenBuild Planet 1 SLO Property Owners' Association Prosperity 1 Student People 13 TOTAL The preceding list is preliminary, and the Council will have an opportunity to formally determine the make-up of the GPTF on January 17. In addition to the GPTF, the LUCE update effort will include a robust public engagement process with many opportunities for residents and other community members to participate and help shape the vision. Workshops, newsletters, public service announcements, social media, and other tools will be used to help inform and engage the community. Advisory Body input will be garnered for each body's particular area of expertise. In addition, stakeholder interviews are Land Use and Circulation Elements Update 4 proposed to capture the ideas of various groups that have a more focused mission or charge. The GPTF is expected to be an important additional method, and noticed venue, to capture community input as part of the process. Alternatives The approach described above has been used successfully in many other jurisdictions. There are other models for gamering this type of input and two are listed below: The previous General Plan Update process took over seven years to complete and had several task forces that participated in sequential order. While the Council could opt to identify several single focus task force groups, this option is not recommended. The grant time -frame makes it imperative that timely discussions and recommendations be developed or the City risks losing the $880,000 grant for non-performance. In addition, single focus task forces do not reap the benefit of the integrated plan that can result from dialogue between interest groups. The community vision will be stronger if divergent ideas can be explored and common ground found by members expressing points -of -view and discussing them with each other. 2. The Council could hold open nominations and select participants. This option is not recommended because the goal of the GPTF is to represent the community and a selection not based on interest areas may not be representative enough to develop a balanced plan. In addition, some community members with strong views may feel their voices were not heard leading to difficulty in agreeing to a shared vision, which is the goal of the process. Next Steps Staff will return on January P with more details on the consultant team selection process. On January 17th, the Council will be asked to adopt a resolution establishing the General Plan Task Force. The resolution will include a request for listed stakeholder groups to nominate a volunteer to serve on the task force, as well as a call for applications for resident -at -large volunteers. The resolution will also include proposed ground rules, and will outline the term and role of the General Plan Task Force. a CDDDM ��M a C[fyMDR ANICK a plpBCftN a ATrORrltn OppAM&UC n 6 aARYS4RECD4 aaRD� a NMTDM a 91ACfl'4NBa8 aQrIMOR_— a CLM A _TACH M E IJ 1' S it SGC Sustainable Communities PlaA6* Grants Approved December 3, 2010 City of Calimesa — City of Caifinesa Sustainability Planning Targeted General Plan Update Request to fund a targeted sustainabitity update to existing Land -use, Circulation, and Safety General Plan Elements and to create a Sustainability Element for the City's General Plan. Contact: Gus Rorm Community Development Director (909) 795-9801 aromoCa citvofcatimesanet City of San Diego — Southeastern San Diego Plan Update $110001000 Conduct a community plan update and a comprehensive planning and zoning update to support compact transit oriented development around existing transit corridors. Contact: Brian Schoenfisch, Senior Planner (619) 533-6457 bschoenflschasand-Wo.aov City of Caiipstria — City of Callpatria Zoning Ordinance & General Plan Update $175,000 A Comprehensive Element Update and Zoning Ordinance will enable the City of Callpatria to capitalize on these external developments opportunities (emerging solar and geothermal industries) in a sustainable manner. New policy development in support of energy efficiency, water conservation and waste reduction will further be addressed under a revamped General Plan with special emphasis on revised Circulation, Land Use, and Conservation and Open Space Elements, and implementation through an updates Zoning Ordinance. ContactJustine G. Arne, Contracted City Planner (760) 337-3883 IarysCalbeho/taroun.net City of Capitols — Targeted General Plan Update $100,000 This grant will fund the process of targeting the General Plan Update to integrate and focus the update on sustainability, support of the AB 32 GHQ emission reduction targets and implementation of SB 375 and SB 97. Contact: David Foster, Housing and Redevelopment Manager (831)475-7300 dfoster0d. caoitola ca us City of San Luis Obispo — Land Use and Circulation Elernetts Update $800,000 The targeted update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan is intended topromote infill development to use existing infrastructure to maximize efficlenvy. Contact 10m Murry, Deputy Director Long Range Planning (805) 781-7274 kmum0slocity oro AnA,(2-R M c-�►.i i 5 a 1. Planning Grant Application Form Applicant: Proposed Completion Date: 10-31-2013 City of San Luis Obispo Amount Requested: Community Development 919 Palm Street $ 880,000 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Lead Applicant's Name: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, Long Range Planning Division. Title of Proposal: General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements Update Applicant/Representative Contact authorized Person with Day to Day Responsibility for by Resolution Plan Katie Lichtig Kim Murry City Manager Deputy Director, Long Range Planning (805)781-7114 (805)781-7274 klichtig@slocity.org kmurrya-slocitv.org Check all of the following that are applicable to the proposal: Focus Area Program Objectives X Focus Area # 1 j Applying for 20% EDC set aside Focus Area # 2 X Improve air and water quality - -..- — - - Focus Area # 3 X - - - � Promote Public Health ---------- Eligibility Requirements X Promote Equity X Consistent with State Planning Priorities X�Increase affordable housing X Reduces GHG emissions on a permanent X Increase infill and compact development basis X Collaboration Requirement --- ------ X Revitalize urban and community centers - - - -- -- Priority Considerations X- 1 Protrotee ------- Protect natural resources and- ag lands— ------ X Demonstrates collaboration and community X Reduce auto usage and fuel consumption involvement X Addresses Climate Change impacts — — ----- — X Improve infrastructure systems X Serves as best practices - --- X ------ -- — Promote Water Conserv-ation X Leverages additional resources X Promote energy efficiency and -- ----- - ----- X --- -- ---- - - - Serves as an economically disadvantaged - X _conservation T Strengthen the economy community I Serves as a severely economically disadvantaged community I certify that the information contained in this application, including required attachments, is complete and accurate. Signature Date: Printed Name and Title: Katie Lichtig, Cily Manager, City of San Luis Obispo -3- 2. Proposal Summary Statement Project Need: Comprehensive updates to the San Luis Obispo City Land Use (LUE) and Circulation Elements were last completed in 1994. More recent updates to the Conservation and Open Space Element and Housing Element have introduced a series of concepts that need to be reflected in Land Use and Circulation policies. The City has been participating with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments to help develop a "pre" Sustainable Communities Strategy and is in the process of developing a Climate Action Plan, both of which will likely call for changes in the way land use and circulation infrastructure decisions are made. Two significant components of climate change legislation, AB 32 and SB 375, combined with new studies linking land use and health, further the need to update City LUE and Circulation policies. Key health indicators have been found to have links to land use and the physical form of a community. The City's planning and land use decisions affect access to walking and biking trails, open space for recreation, healthy food choices, employment, affordable housing, transit and services. The land use and circulation elements need to be updated to incorporate these newer concepts and requirements. How the Project achieves Local Sustainable Planning (Focus Area #1): The 1994 General Plan includes policies that support efficient land use, decreased energy use, alternative transportation, neighborhood wellness, and a healthy city form. The intent of the update process is to respond explicitly to these goals, by finding ways to increase infill and by evaluating land use needs on a neighborhood basis. A greater focus on greenhouse gas emissions reductions, sustainability and community wellness will become the foundation for the update process. As the basis for this process, the City intends to develop a comprehensive outreach effort with a community task force as a key component. Part of the outreach will include a web -interactive neighborhood mapping program. On a neighborhood level, the City can identify physical design issues to resolve constraints and reveal opportunities. The final product will develop policy recommendations that are based on improving neighborhood quality, safety, access to services and pedestrian/bicycle linkages as well as identifying appropriate areas for infill and densification. The preliminary program will include the following: • Community input regarding the physical, social, economic, cultural and environmental character of the City in order to develop a vision of San Luis Obispo through 2030. • A comprehensive guide for decision -making based on land use, design, access, sustainability and the preservation of the quality of life in the community. • Policies that balance development and conservation to preserve the City's natural beauty, unique character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities, a vibrant economy and addressing disadvantaged communities. • Consistency with the Regional Blueprint and policies that guide development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy in collaboration with SLOCOG. • Opportunities to create complete neighborhoods and develop programs to achieve them. • Identify areas appropriate for residential infill and densification. • Identify ways to achieve more affordable housing. • Promote energy efficiency & conservation & incorporate Climate Action Plan strategies. • Identify transit opportunities that may be enhanced to accommodate TOD. • Identify ways to encourage transportation modes other than the single occupant vehicle. • Identify healthy food locations and opportunities for pedestrian and bike access. 4— 3. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION a. Threshold Requirements 1. Describe how the Proposal is consistent with the State's Planning Priorities, Section 65041.1 of the Government Code. a. Promote infill development and invest in existing communities The targeted date to the Land Use and Circulation Elements is intended to promote in aevelopment to I1RP. P.YIStlnn Infractn ,H,,ro to mw mwn efFnien�.. TAIM as 1 a i Circulation Elements were adopted in 1994, the City identified major expansion areas and required specific plans to be adopted for those areas. These elements identified an objective of placing more emphasis on alternative travel modes other than single occupant vehicle trips and creating a balance between transportation choices and land use. Many of the policies, programs, and projects identified in the 1994 elements have been implemented. In 2006, a Sphere of Influence Study was conducted by LAFCO which identified potential development areas outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line. Many of these areas are sensitive for a variety of reasons including steeper topography, agricultural uses and visual aesthetics. Infill development appears to be a more appropriate approach given the sphere areas' respective sensitivities and more recent legislation and planning practice. b. Protect, preserve and enhance environmental and agricultural lands, and natural and recreational resources In 2006, the City adopted a Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) that consolidates and emphasizes key policies supporting smart growth principles of compact urban form; securing a greenbelt around the City; promoting energy conservation; supporting agricultural operations and open space resources; and protecting the area's natural resources. In addition, a Bicycle Master Plan was developed to lay out the bicycle infrastructure needed to connect various points of the community through trails, bikeways and bicycle boulevards in addition to including bike lanes on existing and proposed roads. The City's' Short Range Transit Plan integrates the local City -run fixed route transit system with objectives of providing transit within the'% mile point of all residents. The existing policies in the COSE are still valid and reflect the community's values. The update process will build on these values by focusing the update on infill. Encourage location and resource- efficient development The General Plan policies and programs are implemented through development (setbacks from sensitive resources, avoidance of hillside development, affordable housing requirements, parks dedication requirements, etc.) and as part of the two-year budgeting process which allocates funds to open space acquisition, infrastructure improvements and other community needs. The General Plan implementation has resulted in planning and financing to support a vibrant community. The existing General Plan laid the framework that will now be used for a targeted update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements in order to take the next step towards sustainability and fully incorporating recent legislation requirements and objectives to respond to regional issues. 2. Describe how the Proposal will reduce, on as permanent a basis that is feasible, greenhouse gas emissions consistent with: a. California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 The City has taken a leadership role in greenhouse gas emission reductions. In 2009, the City conducted a baseline emissions inventory (using 2005 as a base year) in anticipation of developing a Climate Action Plan. In 2010, the City collaborated with California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), to develop a draft Climate Action plan to develop strategies to meet a 15% reduction in emissions by 2020 in compliance with AB 32. The City anticipates that the draft plan will begin the public hearing process by the end of 2010 and that key land use and circulation strategies will be incorporated into the targeted General Plan -6— update. The Draft Climate Action Plan (DCAP) contains many strategies, however several approaches relate directly to an update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements. These strategies will result in permanent reductions in regional greenhouse emissions by implementing more efficient land use patterns (i.e. mixed -use development); by maintaining a mix of transit, bike and pedestrian access choices; by increasing residential densities in appropdate aEaas of the City and by looking at ways to achieve key services within '/z mile of neighborhoods. The City of San Luis Obispo has developed as a regional employment center for San Luis Obispo County. Providing more housing opportunities in the City, particularly through infill can reduce emissions associated with commuter traffic•. . While indicators may include things such as the number of houses built; linear feet of bike trails created; and zoning/density increases, an updated emissions inventory in future years will provide the ultimate method of documenting the combined impact of the strategies adopted. b. Any Applicable Regional Plan The City's General Plan is consistent with the smart planning principles embodied in the regional blueprint - Community 2050 - adopted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). In advance of adopted State Air Board emissions reductions standards, SLOCOG has been collaborating with the incorporated cities and the County to develop a precursor to the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) required by SB 375. The targeted update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements proposes to incorporate strategies listed in both the blueprint and the pre-SCS to address the connection between land use and transportation in compliance with SB 375. This effort will be a principle example of local planning incorporating State, regional and local objectives into documents that can be used as examples for other communities. Some of these strategies may include establishing minimum residential densities; encouraging TODs; working with employers to provide TDM programs; reducing the reliance on parking space areas by unbundling parking for some residential developments; promoting higher density development in close proximity to transit corridors; promoting pedestrian scale communities; and providing a wide range of housing types and sizes to name a few (see Pages 37-44 for a list of strategies being recommended through the pre-SCS). 3. Meet the Collaboration Requirements of the focus area applicable to the Proposal SLOCOG has provided a letter indicating that the proposed project (targeted update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements) is consistent with the region's plans (see page 33). Step 3b: Program Objectives Improve Air and Water Quality The City's Conservation and Open Space Element has strong policies to support healthy air and water quality. Program 2.3.3 indicates that the City should implement public transit and bicycle and pedestrian oriented land use and design strategies in n,M development as well as striving to reduce the number of single -occupant vehicle trips in fossil -fueled vehicles. A targeted update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements will develop projects & programs to further implement these strategies. The City has implemented best practices for water quality including a wastewater treatment facility that creates recycled water able to be used to irrigate public parks and landscaping for larger commercial developments. In addition, the recycled water created in excess of the demand is discharged back to the creek thereby recreating stream conditions that have supported a resurgence of the native steelhead trout population. The City co-sponsors a yearly -6— creek clean-up day where hundreds of volunteers remove debris and trash from creeks in the area prior to the rainy season. While overall water quality in native streams is relatively high there are discrete areas where pigeon droppings and homeless encampments have degraded quality. The City is working with state and local agencies to address both issues. An indicator of increased water quality can be found in the annual water reports. The City has also just completed its first year with an approved Stormwater Management plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The plan implements a wide variety of water quality strategies (i.e. pre- and post -construction activities, homeowner activities, restaurant and business operations, etc.) as well as provides an extensive outreach component to educate City residents and developers understand how even small actions impact water quality. While the targeted general plan update will include and support improved air and water quality efforts, this grant application is not targeting these strategies as focused indicators of success. Promote Public Health Recent information is increasingly linking key health indicators such as obesity to land use and the physical form of a community. The City's planning and land use decisions can affect access to everyday physical activities such as walking and biking, availability of open space for recreation and close proximity of healthy food choices and other services to residential areas. Many of the same factors that lead to increased health of younger community citizens also support successful aging in place. The General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo contains policies and programs throughout that support strategies to meet the basic needs of all residents; to maintain the City's unique sense of place; to foster sustainable development; to respect and protect the area's natural environment; to create a complete community that takes into account environmental, social and economic factors when making important decisions. The proposed project to update the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan will build on these goals to more explicitly address public health issues. Many of the indicators of a healthy community are included and addressed in other sections of objectives (i.e. environmental considerations or affordable housing). Specifically for this objective, an especially important indicator for public health is early childhood obesity since this is a strong predictor of adulthood obesity. The San Luis Obispo County Mental Health Department: Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Division conducted studies in 2006 and 2009 of pre- school age children. Almost 29% of children measured in 2006 were overweight or obese. This number increased to just over 37% of children in 2009. In addition, of the adults with diabetes in San Luis Obispo County, nearly half are overweight putting the County 57'h out of 59 counties for the percent of overweight diabetic adults. While the policies and programs in the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements may not be the key determinants of obesity in either children or adults, these programs can have an impact. Access to transit or encouraging healthy food choices within walking distance of neighborhoods can influence travel mode choice. If walking or biking is chosen over a car trip, health benefits will result. Access to bus service also can have a beneficial effect because riders will walk to their bus stop and resulting destination. The goal of the targeted general plan update is to find ways to encourage and support these behaviors through land use and circulation programs. Traffic safety is also directly related to overall public health. The City currently implements an annual traffic safety program which identifies and prioritizes high collision locations for safety measures. In 2009 the City was honored with the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Public -7— Agency Achievement Award for this program, one of the highest international awards an agency can receive for its Transportation practices. One of the goals of the targeted general plan update is to expand upon and integrate these practices into land use and circulation policies and programs. Promote Equity Land Use and Circulation Element policies that accommodate all sectors of the community are likely to promote equity. The Land Use Element update will strive to promote equity through citizen collaboration in the formation of policies that provide access promote housing, transit and services for all sectors of the community. As already addressed in the to housing, y's Housing Element update, LUE policies will need to support affordable, high quality, socially integrated and location -efficient housing that is designed for a variety of users. A working group of community members will be developed as well as an internal staff team with a focus on including all sectors of the community, especially disadvantaged areas of the City. General and targeted public outreach (newsletters, media articles, web site, workshops, coffe talks, flyers, social media and surveys), meetings and hearings will be conducted to ensure community input is reflected in the Proposal. The process will take advantage of innovative technologies to the greatest extent financially feasible. The wide variety of options for participation will be designed to include the disadvantaged. A public participation plan will be developed utilizing the following: • An interactive website containing current information on status of the project, downloadable documents and presentations, and a way to send information and input to appropriate staff. Site will include a moderated blog and options for an online survey, • E-Updates: Develop an email list. Send regular updates to maintain interest and generate participation. • Newsletter: Produce graphic -rich newsletter to provide information at key points. • Media Outreach: Meet with media (newspaper) staff at beginning of process to develop contact and conduit for information exchange. Contact radio stations and prepare news releases on the process and key elements of the update. • Stakeholder interviews • Surveys: Prepare a survey instrument and distribute to the community. • Community Workshops: Hold workshops at key points in the process to inform/educate and solicit feedback. Use breakout sessions, graphics, interactive sessions to get input. • Presentations to Community interest groups: Schedule speaking engagements before community groups — Kiwanis, Rotary, Board of Realtors, Home Builders Assoc., AIA, schools, etc. • Farmers' Market: Set up an information booth at Farmers' Markets and distribute newsletters, answer questions, get people involved. • Bi-lingual outreach — Community Action Partnership, Housing Authority, schools and other sources for distribution. Increase Housino Affordability The City recently received certification from the Department of Housing and Community Development for its updated Housing Element (HE) in June 2010. As part of the HE update, the City demonstrated its ability to accommodate its Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) of 1,589 dwellings by December 2014; developed programs to facilitate provision and financing of -8— affordable housing; and adopted policies and programs consistent with State housing objectives and legislation. The HE update includes numerous programs and tools for implementation. While the current sites capacity evaluation proves the City can meet its RHNA over the next five years, the City is looking beyond this cycle to the future and foresees that subsequent RHNA assignments may require zoning changes to comply with minimum density requirements associated with site capacity evaluation. The Proposal involves a pro -active approach in this effort to evaluate where areas of higher density, infill or mixed use housing may be appropriate. Consequently, updates to the LUE will not only implement the current adopted policies but will go beyond to anticipate where future needs may be accommodated to increase the amount of affordable housing in the City. SB 375 mandates coordination of the RHNA process with the regional transportation planning --� process. Specific affordable housing strategies of the Pre-SCS that would be implemented with the LUE update include: 1) Promote the rezoning of existing urban areas where resources and services are available to accommodate rest entia densities at least 15 units per acre or more to provide for low- and very -low income housing; and 2) Promote the development of new multi -family projects that include Transportation Demand Management measures, such as reduced parking for affordable, workforce, or senior housing projects. The LUE update will also assist with implementation of AS 32 and the City's Draft Climate Action Plan (DCAP). Specific strategies of the DCAP that promote affordable housing include: 1) Reduce impact fees for secondary dwelling units and 2) Require projects that receive affordable housing funds from the City's in -lieu program to exceed current Title 24 energy efficiency standards. The City has a Housing Programs Manager responsible for expanding affordable housing opportunities, implementing housing element policies and programs, and reporting to Council and the State on progress of achieving objectives. The Housing Programs Manager will be actively involved in the update process to ensure affordable housing goals are being addressed. Revitalize Urban and Community Centers The City of San Luis Obispo takes pride in its downtown planning area and has adopted goals, policies and programs that have helped to focus revitalization in this area. As noted in the LUE "Downtown is the cultural, social and political center of the City for its residents, as well as a home for those who live in its historic neighborhoods." Because the City wants its commercial core to continue to be healthy, the LUE and Circulation Element updates will build on this already vibrant component of the community. A focus on the appropriate mixture of housing, retail uses, restaurants and entertainment combined with access to transit and pedestrian linkages will be a key component of new policies that will be designed to guide the future of the downtown. The framework for these policies will focus on the following: • Incentives that will continue to facilitate downtown housing • Policies that incentivize adaptive re -use of historic buildings • Flexible parking standards • Options for providing higher residential densities • Sustainable, accessible and affordable transportation options • Circulation improvements that cater to pedestrian and bicycle access S Outside of the downtown planning area, the City has other areas ripe for urban revitalization. including the Broad Street Corridor and other outlying urban areas. Plans for these areas are already under way and new LUE and Circulation Element policies will be designed to respect the need for public improvements, land use strategies and a contemporary balance of housing and commercial uses that reduce vehicle miles traveled while attracting viable commercial land uses. Promote Infill and Compact Development A primary focus of the targeted General Plan update will be to develop strategies to promote VVV infill and compact development. This effort will identify areas where there is a potential for increased development —as well as address the walkability of neighborhoods and access to healthy foods, recreation, employment, services and transportation. The targeted update will develop a land use scenario that is consistent with the regional blueprint an re as well as deeve of p a circulation infrastructure plan to support it. The City is preparing for the targeted update by developing an interactive neighborhood Mapping project to identify neighborhood boundaries and proximity to usine s a serve residents' daily needs. The City's GIS staff will create a base map with physical features and barriers (natural and man-made). The staff will then create a web application to capture residents' input regarding the boundaries of their respective neighborhoods and perceived needs. Staff will then overlay these neighborhood boundaries with information regarding demographics and housing information from census data. GIS staff will add other layers such as locations of markets, healthcare providers, schools, transit routes and bus stops, and '/4 and '/ mile buffers will be delineated. This effort will identify whether neighborhoods are well -served or whether there appears to be a lac of specific servicesthe arm The update will build on this information by reviewing the housing sites inventory from the Certified Housing Element to determine where residential development capacity currently exists. In addition, constraints information (such as natural features to be protected or noise impacts to be avoided) will be updated and mapped to identify areas where densification and infill is appropriate and where existing conditions may constrain those opportunities. The City has also prepared for this targeted update by upgrading its traffic modeling capabilities. A recent upgrade to the City's traffic modeling program was conducted and paid for by City funds to better perform multi -modal modeling as well as provide more accurate modeling capabilities. The traffic model will be used to evaluate land use scenarios and alternatives as well as to identify where circulation improvements and programs will be needed. The Circulation element will need to identify multi -modal goals so that traffic funds are prioritized to achieve greater percentages of bike, pedestrian, and transit trips. This grant proposes to have City staff assist with traffic modeling done by consultant services to take advantage of the already developed model and to reduce project costs. A key piece of the targeted update process will be the involvement of a community task force team that will provide input. Task force team members will include stakeholders such as representatives from SLOCOG, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, Cal Poly, Housing providers, Sierra Club, Air Pollution Control District, Land Conservancy, Rideshare organizations, Native Americans, County Planning, Chamber of Commerce, Caltrans, San Luis Coastal Unified Schools, County Health, appropriate City staff (i.e. the Natural Resources Manager, Housing Programs Manager, Fire Marshall, Utilities Managers, etc.), City Advisory Bodies and the San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition. 10— Protect Natural Resources and Agricultural Lands San Luis Obispo's desirability as a place to live, visit and do business is closely tied to its scenic character, environmental quality and surrounding open space and agricultural lands. It is traversed by hillsides and creeks and surrounded by mountains, farmlands and oak woodlands. The City's greenbelt and easement -secured open space are tools for preserving habitat, protecting air and water quality, protecting view sheds and defining its urbanized boundaries. The targeted update will directly assist natural resources and agricultural land protection goals implemented through SB 375 and the SLOCOG PSCS by advancing the following strategies: 1) Promote the direction of most new residential development away from rural areas and concentrate it in higher density residential locations; 2) Support the location of new mixed use projects, community and neighborhood commercial centers near major activity nodes and transportation corridors; 3) Encourage new office development and concentration of residential uses near major transportation facilities and corridors; and 4) Support new development in the mixed -use and medium- and high -density land use categories located within '/-mile of a transit node, existing bus route, or park and ride facility with regularly scheduled, daily service at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The LUE update will also address these goals through implementation of strategies included in the City's Draft Climate Action Plan (DCAP). The LUE update will be consistent with the California Wildlife Action Plan because existing policies in the LUE and COSE protect natural communities and biological resources consistent with the requirements for listed species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, California Native Plan Society and species of local concern. The City does not have an established Natural Community Conservatio Plan for its area, however exis ng genera pan po ides an programs identify naD[IaIS of concern an e` d n o avoidance of these habitats through development conditions of approval (i.e. through creek setbacks or preservation of other habitats). Mineral extraction within City limits is strictly prohibited, and therefore, is consistent with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The City has a Natural Resources Manager who is responsible for the protection of open space and agricultural lands in and around the City. He has been successful in securing through dedication, easement or gift approximately 5,500 acres of land in the City's greenbelt since the last LUE/Circulation Element update. The City has contributed approximately $4.16 million in funding toward the acquisitions, along with approximately $8.51 million received from outside agencies, $1.7 million in donations, and $1.2 million in easements from other sources. This position is tasked with implementing Conservation and Open Space policies and programs that encourage natural resource and agricultural land protection. The Natural Resources Manager will be actively involved in the targeted General Plan update process to ensure conservation and open space policies and programs are effectively implemented to achieve desired results. Reduce Automobile Usage and Fuel Consumption Inherent in the targeted update of the General Plan focus on infill and densification is the desired outcome for reduction in automobile usage and fuel consumption. While the current General Plan contains policies and programs related to reduction in energy use and a greater focus on travel modes other than single occupant vehicles, the focus of this targeted update will be on the type of development patterns that result in those outcomes. The goal is to identify awaas appropriate for greater housing density in closer proximity to employment and services as well as eva uate connective ea ices and employment./Included in the update will be programs for complete streets, separate bike and pedestrian -11— linkages, complete nei hborhoods, user-friendly transit, and a focus on health -related benefits. This effort will be consistent with existing local, regional and statewide policies. The idea of complete neighborhoods also strives to address the California Transportation Plan observation that the number of non -work trips now exceeds the number of home -to -work trips. Much of this is attributable to the physical layout of many cities that require one to drive everywhere; not just to work, but also for services, school, groceries, etc. The effort's consistency with the regional blueprint is also consistent with the state-wide efforts to integrate regional blueprint planning with Caltrans goals for a multi -modal transportation system that is efficient and effective. The City too wants to address the community's future mobility needs in a fully integrated, balanced system that is safe and sustainable for all travel modes. Developing a land use scenario that promotes infill and the circulation system to support it will be the key to a successful targeted update. Improve Infrastructure Systems The proposed update will evaluate the status of local infrastructure systems needed to support the City's future circulation needs as well as implementation of the Climate Action Plan, and an updated Land Use Element. Any improvements identified will be intended to improve access, connectivity, and services with an emphasis on reducing vehicle miles traveled and Irking People to services. Implementation of a complete transit, pedestrian and bike system that is essential to neighborhood connectivity and to the reduction of GHG emissions is a component of the proposed update and will further the efforts already underway as a component of the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan. The City is working with the County and regional agencies in developing class 1 and 2 bike paths from the City to Cal Poly University and from the City to Avila Beach and to many points in between. These key components of infrastructure w -15656iTITLeWential to incorporate into the General Plan update in order to continue implementing this important community goal. Promote Water Conservation The City is the sole water purveyor within the city limits. This allows the City to maintain uniformity of water service and distribution standards, and to be consistent in developing and implementing water policy. The City recently completed a comprehensive update to its Water and Wastewater Element (WWE) in July of 2010. The updated WWE addresses the provision of water and wastewater services to support the LUE's development capacity The purpose for the WWE update was to reflect current water supply conditions, ipcor.,��A A, reflect the community's reduced per -capita usage (a reflection of on -going conservation programs), and revise policies to strengthen reliable water service to the community. The targeted General Plan update will build on existing programs to assist water conservation goals and to include appropriate strategies identified in the draft CAP. Strategies under consideration include expanding the recycled water program; creating incentives to replace lawns with water efficient landscaping; encouraging development of graywater systems for houses as well as promoting rainwater harvesting and other water -saving strategies. The targeted General Plan update will be consistent with the San Luis Region Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) because General Plan goals and policies promote IRWMP goals and objectives of water quality and supply, ecosystem preservation and restoration, groundwater monitoring and management and flood control. In addition, consideration of all statewide priorities, including water consumption reduction of 20 percent by 2020, was integral to -12- the development of the IRWMP's mission, goals, objectives, and project strategies. The targeted update will directly assist the State achieve its water conservation goals because the WWE requires implementation of water -efficient programs that comply with State -mandated water use reductions and the updated Land Use and Circulation Elements will be consistent with these programs. Promote Energy Efficiency and Conservation The Conservation and Open Space Element was adopted in April of 2006. This update significantly expanded energy efficiency and conservation efforts by adding new programs to enhance conservation of energy and materials as well as promote green/sustainable building technology. The LUE and Circulation elements update will build on this foundation. The LUE and Circulation element update will directly assist implementation of SB 375 and the SLOCOG PSCS by advancing the following energy efficiency and conservation strategies: 1) Reduce travel times and trips by encouraging local jurisdictions to provide a wider of housing. es an sizes; 2) Supporta incorporation of design ea ures rastructure in new projects that enable access by transit, bicycling, and walking; and 3) Support the implementation of programs and projects that enhance multimodal transportation choices, limit automobile -oriented development and promote pedestrian scale communities. The LUE update will also assist with implementation of AB 32 through the City's Draft CAP which contains specific strategies to address energy efficiency and conservation. Strengthen the Economy The City's 2009-2011 Financial Plan identifies economic development as a major City goal. The objective of this goal is to develop strategies to increase economic development including emphasis on head -of -household jobs and environmentally sustainable businesses. The targeted General Plan update will further this major City goal by addressing components of the action plan, such as: 1) Business retention and expansion, including workforce availability and quality, regulatory constraints, access to capital, and environmental sustainability; and 2) Collaborative economic development efforts on environmental issues, including promoting environmentally sustainable jobs and identifying ways to make it easier for residents and businesses to adopt sustainable practices. The targeted update will directly assist economic development goals implemented through SB 375 —'� and the SLOCOG PSCS by advancing the following strategies: 1) Support the establishment of minimum residential densities on aonrnoriate sites in urban areas where rpsnureps nrp avarra w ;e) z:ieeK change in the tlSCal relationship and tax distribution mechanisms between the State an local agencies to provide adequate funding that will support good land use and development practices; and 3) Work with local jurisdictions and Caltrans to implement a Scenic Byway and Scenic Highway designation for state routes where applicable. The City has an Economic Development Manager tasked with implementing economic development policies and programs that improve the economic strength of the City through business development, retention and expansion, job creation and the promotion of tourism. The Economic Development Manager will be actively involved in the targeted General Plan update process to ensure economic development policies and programs are effectively implemented. 13— 3c. Priority Considerations - 1. Proposal demonstrates ongoing collaboration with state regional and local stakeholders and community: a. The attached work plan (Item #4a and b) and Budget indicates tasks and responsibilities. b. The targeted update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements will involve the community, region and state in the process. In addition to a task force comprised of community members and local stakeholders (i.e. Chamber of Commerce, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods) regional and state representatives (i.e. SLOCOG, APCD and Caltrans), environmental groups (ECOSLO and Sierra Club), health agencies (County Public Health Department, School District), and low income households (i.e. Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo, Community Action Partnership) an extensive public outreach plan will be part of the update process. The grant funding of the update process will allow the City to engage a consultant team with special expertise in public involvement and outreach. c. In addition to the task force input, surveys, workshops, on-line resources, and possibly charrettes or visual preference surveys will be used to help the community and the stakeholder groups envision the future and the development scenarios that achieve the desired outcomes. 2. Proposal demonstrates strategies or outcomes that can serve as best practices for communities across the state. a. The targeted update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements will include tools and processes that will be available on a special site on the City's web that will be created for this project. The neighborhood mapping project will be available and detailed on the site as well as the draft Climate Action Plan and links to other resources such as the draft Preliminary Sustainable Communities Strategy, the re i mall blueprint and other regional and state resources. b. Regular up a es will be posted and emailed to interested parties. Social media may be used to engage various segments of the population. Staff will explore use of a community "web -ex" to engage the community in real time. Staff will collaborate with the local newspaper to do a topical series on progress of the update process at key points. The City will collaborate with SLOCOG to allow use of the City's traffic model where needed. Any other tools that may be available and described by the consultant will be used and shared. 3. Proposal is leveraged with additional resources in -kind or funds See budget for details a. Preparations for the targeted update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements have already begun and various steps completed. Earlier in 2010 the City completed an update to its travel demand model which now includes multimodal forecasting capabilities such as the ability to model the City's transit system. In addition, the City completed a Major Investment Study for the Highway 1 Corridor which includes City wide forecasts for varintic reaionat arowth scenarios identified by the Council of Governments. The cost for both these projects totaled $570,000, $250,000 of which was funded from City General Funds and $320,000 of which was funded State Highway Account (SHA) funds. A draft plan for a ke infill area is in process: The / Broad Street Corridor Plan received $110,000 in sae ommunity-based Transportation Grant funds as well as $42,000 in City General funds for traffic analysis and staff in -kind services. -14- b. The City GIS staff has also begun work on the interactive neighborhood identitication r�oJect. Community Development and GIS staff will complete the bulk of that prole in advance of the r an i wi serve as part of the background data to inform the process. In addition, $30,000 in ARRA Stimulus grant funds and approximately 8 months of staff time have been devoted to development of a draft Climate Action Plan. The DCAP has developed strategies that will inform the Land Use and Circulation Elements update process. c. Future contributions by the City will involve staff time to provide the environmental review and guide the update process; volunteer and paid intern hours to verify land use data where required; in-house assistance for travel demand modeling of various land use assumptions, and some City funding for legal notices and filing fees. The source of City -funded activities will be from the General Fund. 4. Proposal Addresses Climate Change Impacts a. The City's draft Climate Action Plan identifies ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with AB 32. The City was also fortunate to participate in a Local Government Commission effort (funded through the Kresge Foundation) to develop climate adaptation information and strategies specific to San Luis Obispo County. The LGC is in the process of finalizing their report, and strategies that were developed through stakeholder and topic expert input and the public process will be available for inclusion as part of the targeted update. Examples of county -specific information include details of sea level rise; vegetation changes that may occur given climate change; identifying populations sensitive to extreme weather conditions or j populations with limited ability to respond to climate -related emergencies (i.e. floods or I wildfires); and relating the uncertainty of experiences of flood and wildfire events. b. The targeted update will look at areas that are suitable for infill and increased densi . climate changes result in more extreme weather -related events. Circulation element policies and programs will have to include strategies for mobility in the event of extreme events for existing and proposed modalities. 5. Economically disadvantaged community Information from the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) indicates the median household income for the City of San Luis Obispo is $40,579. The median household income for the state of California is listed at $61,154. Therefore at 66% of the state's median household income, the City of San Luis Obispo qualifies as a disadvantaged community. The ACS does not evaluate income levels at the block level, however information in the 2000 Census show areas of the City where households with less than 80% and 60% of the median household income are located (See page ). The City will address this community through the Proposal by: a. The targeted update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements will provide opportunities for the community to envision the future of the City's form and function. With the expressed goal to increase affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to services and regional employment, the targeted update to the General Plan will provide housing for local workers which will benefit the community. b. The City will request that the public outreach component of the process include techniques to reach the more economically disadvantaged members of the community. This may include targeted outreach in Spanish. Outreach will include efforts to get input 15— from lower wage employees such as college students, hotel workers, restaurant workers, retail clerks and other service sector employees. Since transportation and housing costs can be a large component of a household budget, improvements that increase affordability and connectivity between jobs and housing will benefit the City's disadvantaged communities. 3d. Organizational Capacity 1. What is your organization's experience in completing this type of Proposal or similar Proposals? Is the expertise needed for the successful development of the Proposal available within the organization? If not, how do you plan to acquire it? The City of San Luis Obispo has received grants in the past and is well-equipped to administer grant funds (CDBG; Workforce Housing Grant; Safe Routes to School; Caltrans Planning Grant) as well as manage consultants. In addition, City staff has experience in leading planning efforts such as specific plan creation (Orcutt Area Specific Plan; Margarita Area Specific Plan; Airport Area Specific Plan) General Plan Element adoption and updates; Environmental Review; and Traffic analysis and reporting. 2. Do you have active partners that will help develop the Proposal? How? In addition to a collaborative effort by staff from various City Departments, the City has several partners that will help develop the Proposal. The City participates in a quarterly collaboration of the County and all of the incorporated cities lead by the Air Pollution Control District in an effort to address regional air quality and climate change issues. In addition, the City of San Luis Obispo has been actively participating in SLOCOG's efforts to develop the Pre-SCS and will continue to engage in that effort. SLOCOG is very interested in helping the City coordinate its efforts with SLOCOG's efforts. 3. How will the Proposal be kept on schedule and within budget? The City staff is practiced in working with consultants and with internal project plans to develop and monitor milestones and deliverables. The contract with the successful consultant will indicate that failure to meet project schedules could result in financial penalties. All City staff involved in the Proposal will help finalize the project schedule and it will be reflected in their objectives for the upcoming years. 4. If the Proposal goes over budget, explain your contingency plan to cover the cost. Every effort will be made to ensure that costs are kept within budgeted amounts. If for some unforeseen reason, the Proposal goes over budget, staff will consider options for in -kind performance of some tasks; will work with the Strategic Growth Council to amend the Proposal scope; or will look to augment with City General Funds, if available. 5. Identify in the work plan how the proposal will be implemented including zoning updates if applicable. The work plan is attached and includes as an end product, an updated Draft General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements. Zoning updates may follow (depending on outcome of the General Plan updates) and programs will be developed to implement updated policies of the General Plan. ATii AC�-1 M FE-0 i CL Ancouncit aagenaa uepont CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Kim Murry, Community Development Deputy Director SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTANT ASSISTANCE FOR THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE PROCESS INCLUDING FISCAL ANALYSIS AND E14VMONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) — SPECIFICATION 91138. RECOMMENDATION: A. Approve the work scope for the General Plan update process including the fiscal analysis and EIR consultant services in connection with the Land Use and Circulation Elements update project and authorize staff to proceed with sending out Request for Proposal (RFP) documents to qualified consulting firms. B. Authorize the City Manager to award the contract to a qualified consulting firm for consultant services provided proposal is within budgeted amount. DISCUSSION: Background In August 2008, Council received a presentation of a proposed work plan for a comprehensive update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements in preparation for the 2009-2011 Financial Plan process. Ultimately, Council prioritized $250,000 in funding to upgrade the City's traffic model to enable multi -modal forecasting of circulation impacts in anticipation of developing new land use concepts as part of a more comprehensive update at a future date. Council also provided policy direction for the update process, namely that residents and neighborhoods would play a critical role and that the survey conducted in 1988 should be a point of departure for an updated survey. In August of 2010, staff submitted an application for a grant from the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to fund the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements. The SGC notified the City of the grant award in December of 2010 and the Council identified update of the General Plan as an "Other Important Objective" as part of the 2011-2013 Financial Plan. General funds in the amount of $367,500 for 2011-2012 and $67,500 for 2012-2013 were identified to leverage the $880,000 in grant monies. Situation The RFP attached to the staff report reflects the grant -required work program. The preliminary program will include the following: • Community input regarding the physical, social, economic, cultural and environmental character of the City in order to develop a vision of San Luis Obispo through 2030. B2-1 Council Agenda Report — Land Use and Circulation Element update RFP Page 2 • A comprehensive guide for decision -making based on land use, design, circulation and access, sustainability and the preservation of the quality of life in the community. • Policies that balance development and conservation to preserve the City's natural beauty, unique character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities, a vibrant economy and addressing disadvantaged communities. • Consistency with the Regional Blueprint and policies that guide development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy in collaboration with SLOCOG. • Opportunities to create Complete Streets/neighborhoods and develop programs to achieve them. • Identify areas appropriate for residential infill and densification. • Identify the circulation system that is needed to appropriately balance the community's values and the need for growth • Identify ways to achieve more affordable housing. • Promote energy efficiency & conservation and incorporate Climate Action Plan strategies. • Identify transit opportunities that may be enhanced to accommodate Transit Oriented Developments (TOD). • Identify programs to help migrate to transportation modes other than the single occupant vehicle. • Identify healthy food locations and opportunities for pedestrian and bike access. The RFP also highlights issues that need to be addressed through the update process, such as: • Grant priorities • Neighborhood wellness goal • Neighborhood mapping effort • South Broad Street Corridor Plan • Healthy Cities initiatives • Pedestrian circulation plan • Consistency with SLOCOG's Regional Blueprint Community 2050 Comprehensive Planning Effort • Nightlife Public Safety Assessment • Airport compatibility issues • Congestion relief • Multi -modal service standards • Evaluation of Sphere of Influence areas • Avila Ranch development concept Staff developed a work scope for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update effort, which is part of the RFP attached to this report (Attachment 1). The work scope was developed from the grant application and outlines the tasks that need to be performed to fully engage the public, to evaluate land use and circulation issues, to develop a preferred plan alternative, to conduct the environmental and fiscal evaluation associated with that alternative, and to bring the update through the process. Staff anticipates that no one consulting firm will have all of the expertise required to accomplish these tasks and that a consultant team will need to be assembled. The B2-2 Council Agenda Report — Land Use and Circulation Element update RFP Page 3 contract that is awarded will be to the lead consultant firm (likely a firm with land use expertise) and that firm will be responsible for sub -consultants to assist with the other aspects of the update process such as environmental review and fiscal analysis. Previous Council direction regarding the importance of engaging residents and neighborhood representatives in the update process and of the 1988 survey "starting point" has been included in the RFP. One issue that may be new to Council is the Avila Ranch development concept. This 140-acre site currently designated Business Park is located on Buckley Road and is one of the areas designated in the Housing Element as a property to explore for residential or mixed use development potential. An applicant has expressed interest in pursuing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to accommodate a mix of dwellings, business park, neighborhood -servicing commercial space and parks, open space and community gardens. Due to timing of the update process, evaluation of this development concept should occur as part of the Land Use and Circulation Elements update so that overall development capacity and demand can be assessed. Consultant Selection Timeline The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: 1. Issue RFP 9/21/11 2. Conduct pre -proposal conference 10/5/11 3. Receive proposals 10/28/11 4. Complete proposal evaluation 11/10/11 5. Conduct finalist interviews 11/17/11 6. Finalize staff recommendation 11/22/11 7. Award contract 12/5/11 8. Execute contract 12/12/11 9. Start work 12/16/11 While the work will begin before the end of the year, the community engagement process and the important work program elements will be undertaken after the first of the year. CONCURRENCES Other City Departmentsi including Finance & I.T., City Attorney's Office, Public Works and Administration were actively involved and consulted in the preparation of the project's work program and RFP. Staff provided a presentation of the grant objectives to the Planning Commission in January 2011. Though no actions were taken at that time, the Planning Commission voiced strong support for the grant and work scope. FISCAL IMPACT General funds in the amount of $367,500 for 2011-2012 were identified to leverage the $880,000 in grant monies. An additional $67,500 was appointed for FY 2012-2013 for costs associated with the traffic analysis. The contract for the grant performance requires that 15% of the payment be withheld until the grant is closed out. This provision has been included in the RFP contract information. B2-3 Council Agenda Report — Land Use and Circulation Element update RFP Page 4 ALTERNATIVES Provide specific direction to staff to eliminate elements of the work scope that are not required as part of the grant in order to minimize cost. This alternative is not recommended because each supplemental element in the scope of work plays an important role in planning for the city's future. COUNCIL READING FILE SLOCOG's Regional Blueprint Community 2050 Comprehensive Planning Effort ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft RFP including the Scope of Work 2. Proposers List 3. Letter regarding Avila Ranch proposal T:\Grant Management\SGC Grant\RFP\RFP-CC Report.docx Speci>t�ent t fication No. 91138 . City of san tuts owspo 990 Palm Street ■ San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Notice Requesting Proposals for GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS UPDATE FISCAL ANALYSIS AND EIR The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for consultant assistance to conduct a General Plan update process pursuant to Specification No. 91138. All proposals must be received by the Finance Division by 1:00 p.m. on October 28, 2011 when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Finance Division in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package. A pre -proposal conference will be held Ludwick Community Center 864 Santa Rosa, San Luis Obispo October 5, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. to answer any questions that the prospective proposers may have regarding the City's request for proposals. Specification packages and additional information may be obtained by contacting Kim Murry at (805) 781-7274 or via email at kmuny@slocity.org. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to Including disabled persons In all of our serAces, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. B2-5 A, tent 1 colon o. 8 A. Introduction General Plan Background I 1 Strategic Growth Council Grant 2 Scope of Work 4 Community Participation 7 B. General Terms and.Conditions Proposal Requirements 12 12 Contract Award and Execution 13 Contract Performance 13 C. Special Terms and Conditions Contract Term 1 Estimated Quantities Proposal Content Proposal Evaluation and Selection Proposal Review and Award Schedule Unrestrictive Brand Names Start and Completion of work Accuracy of Specifications D. Agreement 21 E. Insurance Requirements 23 F. Proposal Submittal Forms Proposal Submittal Summary 25 25 Description of Grant -Approved Work Program 26 References 35 Statement of Past Contract Disqualification 36 went 1 Specification No. Section A The City of San Luis Obispo is seeking proposals from qualified consulting firms to prepare an update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan and prepare the associated Environmental Impact Report (EM). The City is seeking a multi -disciplinary project tears of qualified firms and individuals (Consultant Team). Because numerous disciplines are required to undertake this project, the City anticipates that the Consultant Team will be composed of a Prime Consultant and one or more sub -consultants. The City will not accept a proposal as responsive if it covers only a portion of the Scope of Work requested. The following products will be required: General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (including a Pedestrian Circulation Plan) Environmental Impact Report, background studies and all documents necessary for EIR certification • Infrastructure Feasibility and Finance Plan and Nexus Study GENERAL PLAN BACKGROUND San Luis Obispo is situated in the Central Coast Region of California, midway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The City is nestled among the hills and lined with creeks and offers a mild climate. California Polytechnic State University is located just on the north end of town and the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is located to the south of the city. San Luis Obispo was recognized as one of the top 12 Distinctive Destination Cities in the U.S. by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and recently received State recognition for its "Creek Day" clean-up program. The City received recognition as one of the "happiest" towns in Dan Buettner's book Thrive and is recognized as a Bicycle Friendly Community (silver award) by the League of American Bicyclists The City traces its roots back to the Native American cultures and subsequent colonization period associated with establishment of the Mission by Fr. Serra in 1772. It has grown into a 12.8 square mile charter city of approximately 44,948 people. San Luis Obispo has a special feeling due to its historic downtown and surrounding morros that define the vistas from many places in the City. It serves as the regional center for many government services as well as cultural, business and recreational opportunities. It is known as a well -managed city that values quality services and infrastructure. San Luis Obispo residents also value the environment and open space areas. The City has a strong open space and natural resources program that works to obtain easements and dedications within the greenbelt surrounding the city. Residents are active and regularly use the many bike paths and parks within and outside the city. The City is fortunate to have several historic neighborhoods, walkable streets, and an engaged community. The City's first General Plan was adopted in 1961. The Land Use and Circulation Elements saw major revisions in 1972, 1977 and 1994 — the last time these two elements were comprehensively considered. While older, the General Plan continues to be a relevant document that is reflective of many community values. It is used consistently by the City's staff, advisory bodies and Council to guide decisions regarding development and capital expenditures. The 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements are structured with a discussion of values and goals followed by principles and implementation programs. A program -level EIR was prepared and certified for the two elements. The General Plan also contains elements addressing Housing (certified in July B2-7 Attachment 1 SpecifrcaWn No. 91138 2010), Noise (1996), Safety (2000), Conservation and Open Space (2006), Parks and Recreation (2001), and Water/Wastewater (2010). To view the General Plan, please see the city website for more information: www.slocitv.ore. Development Pattern The General Plan reflects the desire for a compact urban form with a surrounding greenbelt area. The City has had a growth management policy of one percent per year (excluding affordable housing) in order to provide for the gradual assimilation of new residents and the City's ability to provide resources and services. Over the last ten years, the number of housing units (both affordable and unrestricted) in the.. City has increased by a total of seven percent while household population has grown a total of 3.8 percent - well below the allowed one percent annual rate. There are two Specific Plan areas that contain remaining growth capacity for the City: the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) and the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (GASP): Both plan areas contain significant open space and park features. The MASP accommodates up to 868' residential units in addition to 69 acres of business park and three acres of neighborhood commercial uses. The MASP area has been annexed to the City and also contains three approved subdivisions for a total of 300 dwelling units. The GASP is planned for up to 979 residential units and 15,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial use. The City -sponsored annexation of the OASP was approved by LAFCO but is in the process of an election following a protest vote by the registered voters in the area. Additionally, the Airport Area Specific Plan allows for the development of up to 1073 acres with a mixture of services, manufacturing, business park, and airport related facilities. UPDATE ISSUES Policy issues that will directly impact the update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements include: Strategic Growth Council Grant Priorities. The City was successful in obtaining a sustainable communities gram through the Strategic Growth Council (SGC). Several objectives were identified by the grant and the final product is anticipated to contain policy recommendations that are based on improving neighborhood quality, safety, traffic congestion relief, access to services and pedestrian/bicycle linkages as well as identifying appropriate areas for infill and densification and ways to address the Sphere of Influence areas. The preliminary program will include the following: • Community input regarding the physical, social, economic, cultural and environmental character of the City in order to develop a vision of San Luis Obispo through 2030. • A comprehensive guide for decision -making based on land use, design, circulation and access, sustainability and the preservation of the quality of life in the community. • Policies that balance development and conservation to preserve the City's natural beauty, unique character and heritage while supporting housing opportunities, a vibrant economy and addressing disadvantaged communities. • Consistency with the Regional Blueprint and policies that guide development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy in collaboration with SLOCOG. • Opportunities to create Complete Streets/neighborhoods and develop programs to achieve them. • Identify areas appropriate for residential infill and densification. -2- B2-8 • Identify the circulation system that is needed to appropriately balance the community's values and the need for growth • Identify ways to achieve more affordable housing. • Promote energy efficiency & conservation and incorporate Climate Action Plan strategies. • Identify transit opportunities that may be enhanced to accommodate Transit Oriented Developments (TOD). • Identify programs to help migrate to transportation modes other than the single occupant vehicle. • Identify healthy food locations and opportunities for pedestrian and bike access. Neighborhood Wellness, The City Council adopted a Major City Goal as part of the 2011-2013 Financial Plan to address neighborhood concerns related to property maintenance, parking, neighborhood traffic management, noise, and other nuisances. Additional staffing was authorized to provide increased monitoring and enforcement as well as more public outreach and participation. Neighborhood Mapping. City staff is currently designing a community engagement tool that will enable community members to identify their neighborhood boundaries, assets, and needs. This interactive tool should be available at the start of the General Plan update effort and input received from this effort will inform the update process. Ideally, a by-product outcome of the General Plan update process is definitions of neighborhood boundaries. South Broad Street Corridor Plan. The City has been developing a plan to accommodate residential infill and enhancement of a 132 acre area of the City currently zoned for commercial service uses. The plan is 90 percent complete and the General Plan update effort will need to address the environmental impacts associated with the proposal. Adoption of the General Plan update should be accompanied by the adoption of the South Broad Street Corridor Plan. Healthy Cities Initiatives. The Council has expressed interest in healthy cities. initiatives and the link between -health and land use planning. Pedestrian Circulation Plan. The Council has identified the goal of developing a Pedestrian Circulation Plan for the Downtown as part of the Circulation Element update. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). Consistency with the Regional Blueprint and policies that guide development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy in collaboration with SLOCOG will be an important part of the update process. Nightlife Public Safety Assessment. Type, density, and capacity of various types of alcohol and late - night entertainment establishments that are desirable and policies for how to address. Airport Issues. The SLO County Regional Airport is located south of the City's boundary. The associated safety zones impact the City's ability to achieve infill in some areas and new land use concepts will need to be reviewed with the County Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan as well as propose changes where appropriate. Traffic Congestion Relief. Traffic Congestion Relief has been a major City goal since 2005. The current two year financial plan calls for staff to continue efforts on projects and programs which relieve traffic congestion (like street modifications, intersection improvements, pedestrian improvements, bicycle facilities, sidewalks, trip reduction programs, traffic signal operations, Los Osos Valley Road interchange, Prado Road construction, and public transit). -3- B2-9 A a�,on dent 1 Other Transportation Issues. The 1994 Circulation Element is outdated. The update shall incorporate level of service standards for all modes of transportation including pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. The update shall comply with current regulations such as the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 incorporating pedestrian, bicycle, and transit level of service standards in addition to Complete Streets policies. By updating the Land Use and Circulation Elements as a single project, the update can prioritize community goals for both land use and circulation and evaluate viable options for their implementation. As an . example, the South Broad Street Corridor Plan envisions an intensification of land uses. An analysis of the projected traffic forecasts unacceptable levels of service on Broad Street. The update process shall seek solutions to these issues. Avila Ranch. An area identified in the Housing Element as having potential for residential development has an applicant interested in developing a Specific Plan for the area that would accommodate approximately 600 homes, 15 acres of business park and 15,000 square feet of neighborhood -commercial space, and 30 acres of parks and open space. There is an opportunity to coordinate as part of the update process to enable the visioning and needs assessment to inform the Specific Plan development. LAFCO Sphere of Influence Areas. LAFCO has identified sphere of influence areas for the City of San Luis Obispo. These areas need to be reviewed for their development potential. SCOPE OF WORK Scope of the Update The update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan shall include the products described in the Work Plan and Schedule of Deliverables associated with the SGC Grant (Attached). The document shall include a minimum amount of explanatory text. The policy structure for each element shall be simple — Goal, Policies, Programs. While the document must be supported by technical data, it is expected to be user-friendly, concise and written in a manner easily understood by the public. There shall be an emphasis on providing information visually through the use of photographs, tables, matrices, drawings and maps. The elements shall be updated consistent with current statutory requirements and include the geographic area of the City in addition to the Sphere of Influence areas. Changes to other elements as needed for consistency shall be included. Scone of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) It will be the consultant's responsibility to prepare a comprehensive program -level EIR which will encompass the geographic area to include the current City limits and Sphere of Influence areas. The assessment required for this document must be conducted as an integral part of the overall General Plan Update process. Timing for the preparation of the General Plan and EIR must be overlapping so that the preparation of both documents will be parallel and iterative and the information collection and analysis can be used for both documents. A preliminary constraints analysis for both land use and circulation will be required to identify environmental issues early in the process. Development of mitigation measures shall be an iterative process concurrent with the development of the General Plan such that the mitigation measures can be converted to General Plan goals, policies and implementation strategies where appropriate to allow the General Plan to be self -mitigating to the extent possible. The EIR will be comprehensive with respect to analyzing the environmental effects of both the General Plan goals, policies and programs contained in the text as well as the land use and circulation maps. a- B2-10 ent 1 The consultant shall demonstrate to the City that they possess expertise in CEQA and also that they have a working knowledge of planning and transportation regulations and the application of the planning process at the local level. The EIR shall also include a thorough analysis of the regulatory environment, including identification of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Codes, wherein existing regulations mitigate impacts. The consultant shall be responsible for identifying issues or gaps in the entitlement process that may pose difficulties for enactment of future development of the City and shall propose strategies for resolution of identified issues. The EIR shall be written to allow the City to easily implement the General Plan and streamline project -level CEQA reviews that are consistent with the General Plan. Prior to commencement of the preparation of the EK the consultant shall prepare land use and circulation forecasts for both housing and employment through the planning horizon of 2030. The analysis shall identify historic and existing housing and employment trends. The forecast shall clearly disclose the assumptions and methodology used to arrive at the conclusions and shall be coordinated with the City, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), Department of Finance (DOF), and California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo. The work of the consultant shall include, but not be limited to, conducting the necessary research from other related projects, preparation of any required technical reports/stadies, required public notification, consultation, review and hearings; and analysis and preparation of the NOP — Initial Study, ADEIR (3 reviews), DEIR, AFEIR, and FEIR (2 reviews). City will do all noticing and distribution of documents. In regard to scoping sessions the consultant shall meet individually with or solicit comments by mail from representatives of all responsible, affected and trustee agencies to identify the range of issues, actions, alternatives, potential and significant environmental effects, and potential mitigation measures. The consultant should allow for attendance of an adequate number of meetings with staff, and up to ten potential public meetings/hearings (one. scoping meeting, three Planning Commission meetings/hearings, three City Council meetings/hearings, General Plan Advisory Committee meetings), for a total of 22 meetings. Additional meetings will be reimbursed on a time and materials basis. The EIR must also provide discussion and analysis for all other issues identified in the Initial Study, as well as those developed through scopinj sessions and the public notification process resulting from development of the General Plan and EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the EIR shall address cumulative and growth -inducing impacts that shall be included in distinct sections of the document. Based on Section 15126(e)(1) et seq., an appropriate number of project alternatives, in addition to the no -project alternative, must be discussed. The alternatives shall be focused on reduction of identified significant impacts while still meeting the identified goals of the General Plan It is anticipated that the General Plan update process will aid in the identification of alternatives. The City is also seeking an innovative approach in creating a document and maps that are to be used in the environmental review process for proposed projects. This includes the creation of an electronic version EIR that has a search feature and GIS constraint maps. A mitigation monitoring and reporting plan shall be prepared pursuant to CEQA requirements. This plan shall be incorporated by reference and shall be a separate bound document. At a minimum, the plan must describe each mitigation measure, party responsible for implementation, party responsible for monitoring, anticipated capital costs, time frames for implementation, and must provide a section for confirmation of implementation. Scope of the Infrastructure/Finance Plan -5- B2-11 Capital improvements and public investment needed to carry out the General Plan, and alternatives must be identified. This is envisioned to take the form of a public facilities plan and related financing plan, including an Administrative Draft copy, Draft copy, and Final copy. This study shall particularly focus on infill areas and new growth areas. This should include a fiscal impact analysis pertaining to the cost of providing public infrastructure, services and facilities outlined in the land use plan, circulation element, and a capital facilities plan as to what type of public infrastructure and facilities will be required and when. Public service needs also need to be evaluated. Feasible measures needed to mitigate any adverse impacts must be analyzed. A revised development impact fee schedule (including traffic impact fees) will be included with adoption of the General Plan and will be based on the Fiscal Analysis/Financing Plan. The following more specific tasks have been determined: • An evaluation of the preferred land use and circulation scenario to determine its balance and ability to accommodate the growth envisioned in all segments of land uses for the anticipated life of the plan • An enumeration and description of the public infrastructure, facilities and public services needed for Plan implementation, including the need for any improvements or upgrading/widening to increase capacity • The level, range, and cost of the infrastructure, facilities and services • An indication of when the infrastructure, facilities and services can feasibly be extended to new growth areas, including phasing where appropriate • A plan for financing the infrastructure, public facilities and services, including maintenance costs • Whether there would be an adverse financial impact on the provision of infrastructure, public facilities or public services or whether a relatively low revenue base in relationship to the cost of affected infrastructure, public facilities and public services would be created (cost/revenue analysis). Constant dollar valuations should be used e An analysis of other Citywide and regional economic issues related to implementation of the plan • How existing legislation related to tax increases may hamper funding of required new facilities The Fiscal Analysis/Financing Plan shall include an analysis of alternatives in terms of a description of current and ultimate infrastructure, facility and service needs for each alternative and relevant mitigation measures. Analysis of alternatives is also required for a description and analysis of capital projects necessary to serve each alternative, existing and surplus capacity, necessary improvements and the cost of such improvements. Infrastructure costs for expanded growth areas versus infill development must be analyzed. Qtional Task: Update the Nexus Study/Development Imnact Fee Report The City is also seeking a scope of work to update impact fees. The Nexus Study should be coordinated and consistent with the Infrastructure Finance Plan and the Land Use and Circulation Elements assumptions and conclusions for the General Plan EIR. The desired format would be easily updated in the future by City staff. The study should base the formulas on a calculation that will facilitate fees being assessed appropriate to the level of development (Equivalent Dwelling Unit or EDU for example). The Study shall be conducted in compliance with the California State Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600), Government Code Sections 66000 et. Seq. -6- B2-I2 t,, COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION San Luis Obispo has very informed and engaged residents and other community stakeholders. As such, the public participation aspect of this process is especially critical. The City is seeking an innovative community participation process that is inclusive and validating for the participants. The process will likely include a General Plan Task Force (community residents and stakeholders) and a Staff Steering Committee, public outreach workshops/meetings, visioning exercises and collaboration with a variety of stakeholders. The City encourages the consultant to provide suggestions for additional outreach opportunities. (Please note that these meetings are distinct from the required meetings for the EIR.) City staff will be responsible for meeting coordination, set-up, and noticing. At a minimum, the following outreach tools should be included: • Newsletters - The consultant should provide a proposal for the preparation of community outreach newsletters, assuming eight mailings, timed to coincide with milestone events. • PowerPoint Presentation - The consultant should also provide a proposal for the preparation of a dynamic PowerPoint presentation available to both the consultants and, City staff throughout the General Plan Update process. Narrated versions shall be prepared to enable posting on the public channel. • Website - The consultant shall develop and maintain an interactive website containing current information on the status of the project, downloadable documents and presentations and a way to submit information and input to appropriate staff. Site should include a moderated blog and options for an on-line survey. • E-updates — The consultant shall develop and maintain an email list to send regular updates and links to maintain interest and generate participation. • Media Outreach — Meet with media staff at beginning of process to develop contact and conduit for information exchange. Contact radio stations and prepare news releases on the process and key elements of the update. • Bi-lingual outreach — Community Action Partnership, Housing Authority , schools and other sources for distribution. • Farmers' Markets — set up an information booth at Farmers' Markets and distribute newsletters, answer questions, etc. • Stakeholder interviews • Survey — Prepare a survey instrument and distribute to the community. Previous survey conducted in 1988 should be used as a point of departure but new and more relevant questions and methodologies for assuring a representative scientific sampling of community sentiment and vision should be included. • Community workshops — hold workshops at key points in the process to inform/educate and solicit feedback. Use breakout sessions, graphics, interactive sessions to obtain input. STRATEGIC GROWTH COUNCIL GRANT The City of San Luis Obispo was awarded a Strategic Growth Council (SGC) grant in the amount of $880,000 to update its Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. Since the grant may not be used to cover the associated EIR but may be used for some of the studies needed to develop the land use and circulation concepts, the City Council added additional General Funds to the grant in order to complete the EIR along with the General Plan update. However, the successful proposal will need to indicate how studies and costs will be separated and tracked for purposes of grant management. City staff will be responsible for grant reporting and monitoring but will need to collaborate with the consultant -7- B2-13 team to ensure that appropriate documentation and billing procedures are in place to comply with the grant provisions. AVAILABLE RESOURCES uwuuacuu 11wiuuc: Document Location General Plan of San Luis Obispo City bU://www slocity orgteommunitydevelopment/Long%2/ 0Rangelgeneralplanasp (Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Safety, Water and Wastewater, Conservation and Open Space, Housing, and Parks and Recreation Elements Margarita Area Specific Plan hgP://www.slocitY-ore%ommunitydevelopment/domdoad/masp(prinftpdf Airport Area Specific Plan httn://www.slocity org communitydevelopn=t/download/aasp-web pdf Orcutt Area Specific Plan btto://www.slocity.org/commumtvdevelopmenUOASP/Orcutt%20Area%20Specifi c%20Plan%20(AuQust%202010).ndf Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan httn://www.slocity org/commum develonmendodownload/Mid HieueraPlan pdf Railroad District Plan bgp://www.slocitv.orpJcommunitvdevelopmenUdownload/raildistrictplan pdf Downtown Concept Plan htto://www.slocity.or communitydevelonment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/JDav id/Downtown%20Concept0/`20MaQudf South Broad Street TBD Corridor DRAFT Plan Climate Action TBD DRAFT plan Stormwater httv:dmmm�slocity.org/publipworks/stormwater/lintro.ogffMOURCE LEBRARY Management Plan 2006 LAFCO Sphere of Influence bft://www.slogity.ore%ommunitydevelopment/docsanclforms/New OI MSR.ndf Folder/SLO S Study Bicycle Transportation Plan httt)://www.slocitv.ore/nublicworks/documents/bikeplan/ lan051507 �df 1994 Land Use and EIR: Circulation EIR and I h ://www.sloci .or communi develo Mggttdownload/unifiLd enerai lan/l5- -8- B2-14 Atfachment 1 Specification No. 91138 Technical Appendices 94%20do _.cs 18.ndf Supplemental lnfo:hltn://www.slocity org/communitydeveloommtmownloadhmifiedggneralplan/ 15-94%20supplemgnt%20%20docs pdf Appendices: http://www.slocity.ore/commut itydevelopment ddownload/unifiedg nncralplan/15 4%20vilYo202%20appMdjcpL.Ldf Zoning Regulations htti3://www.slociW.orWcommunitydevelopment/downlo ning!/a?0Code0/o2020 10-Complete%20Document odf Subdivision Regulations http://www.slocity ore/communitydevelooment/download/i fiedgeneralnlan/JDav td/subdivisionreg_-august07 pdf Community Design Guidelines http•//www slocitv.org/communitvdevelgpment/download/CommmLty%2ODesign %20Guidehnes/Co* m—unity%20DesiQn%20Guidelines%20(4 18 11)_pdf City of San Luis Obispo Municipal code httn•//www codepublishing com/ca/sanluisobisp_o/ Land Use Element Map http://www.slocity ore/communitydevelonment/Long%20RangelLandUseElement Man20100903.ndf Noise Guidebook http•//www.slocity ore/commumtddevelopmenttdownfoad/Noise°/20 'deboQL df Other City Resources Traffic Model GIS Resources Boundaries Airport Safety Zones Annexations Block Numbers City limit Commercial Fire Zone Downtown Planning Area Fire response Flood zones General plan land use General Plan Special Design Areas S2 Greenbelt Historic Districts Historic Resources Mission Sidewalk Style Open space Open space easements Parking Districts Parks Pavement Management PAZ Zones -Diablio Planning Area Sales tax areas School Districts Specific plan areas Urban reserve line USGS quads Utility fee areas Waste Collection Days Water Pressure Zones Watersheds Zoning Built Features Address labels Address points Airport runways Block Number Labels Bridges Cal Poly bldg. labels CalTrans Hwy Points City Art Creek Walkway Electric meters Fire Stations Handicap ramps Hwy 101 Center Lines Hwy 101 Pave Out Indoor Meeting Facilities Laguna Lake Roads Mines Mission Bells Powerlines Public Toilets Railroad row Railroad Tracks Railroad Underpasses Recreation fields Sidewalk centerline Special Setbacks Streets Traffic signals Aitaehent 1 Specicatlon No. 91138 -10- B2-16 Trail points Trails Unreinforced masonary bldgs Natural Features Contours -2 meter Creek Buffers Creeks Heritage trees Impervious Areas Laguna Lake Rare Endangered Species Vegetation Parcels City Facilities City owned properties Easements Government Owned Properties Hospitals Parcels School parcels Tracts Vicinity Parcels Barclay Transportation Bicycle Transportation Existing Bicycle Transportation Proposed Bike Racks Bus Routes Bus Routes Stops Sub -areas Meter Zones Transport Hubs Truck Routes Ai daiment 1 Specification No. 91138 -11- 52-17 3 ATT:F CAC IMF-M'r 7 A-10 Tb=day, MWst & 1982 Opinion State housing rule correctly •rejected . SnetbnesYon have to standyota when Brother ata,+a t..�«t :�� a�--g E Obispo CitYCotmd! did iastate edictth&ihe --s.a...,u�.oayyt�'IISp1TggJTlly199'I. Here is state government onthe brink of a financial meltdown, here is San We Obispo with tenib(yaht gM real estate market and here IS awhole nation in a serious economic decline and we are being told that this citgmnat build huadleds afnewhomes ayear. . Where to ppuutt thenewhouses, whereto get the waterand who will buythem? "There yourproblem,n the state Department Of ly�g00�B�d Community Development is effectivestate cities and ccounties ineli withstate govemmeat role p ymdes keeping agree, communities cannot be allowed to operate as mavericks. They . need to be controlled, ' ' But sometimes the the ith 9 are so unrealistic, so out of synch wand a community's character that they must bechaso ng� destroy No doubt, state housing personnel are hyingto figure out how they can bear down on the city and make it follow the policies that they have tried to impose. But 1,000 newhouses ayear? Can't be done. Won't be done. And shouldn't have to be , done. ' One way or the other, the:state should change the rules. Council was right on the money in rdusfng to CO iV wi n n ucra iC air fhnt .n took e - no ---- A-? ok a pp course in ad initw*h Its i ne �° a �B4 new om�year. The Telegram Tribune 10. Building 1,486,now homes for the next 3112 years. 9. Exceeding the previous record for homes. built in a year by 665. 8. Building 23 times more homes than were built last year (64). , 7. A 29 percent increase in population; 6. A 40 percent ucrease in school enrollment. 5. A 28 percent increase in the city's current housing stock.. 4. The $13 million expansion of the waste water treatment plant would be instanty obsolete; it can only accommodate about 1,250 new homes. 3. Building a desalting plant - probably at-a.cost-of well over $20-million The only additional water supply the city can count on by 1997 Is the Salinas Dam expansion, which can at most support another 3,700 homes. 2. Annexing the Margaata, Oalldio; Irish. Hills, Orcutt,.Broad Street -Edna -Islay west.and-Stoneridge- expansion, areas - and then coming up with annexations to bulld�snother2,000 homes. - And the No1 thing meeting the state's housing quotas would mean to the city, acconli .g to a wildly understated staff report: 1. "A major departure from citizen_ preferences on community growth." • Ken McCall